Posts

Government treating Australians like mushrooms

I talked to Mike Ryan from Asia Pacific Today about the fact that Australians are being treated like mushrooms when it comes to COVID-19.

/by

COVID: What happened to our country

I dare to ask questions. I have a duty as an elected representative to share the facts. I have a duty to the people of Australia to promote debate and understanding for informed debate.

What we are seeing in these COVID times is the squashing of debate. I call on you to decide for yourself. What happened to basic freedoms? What happened to Australia? Are you willing to help us bring back Australia?

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I ask: what’s happening to our country? On COVID, due to the overseas deaths early last year, I was cooperative and supportive from the start. On 23 March 2020 and 8 April 2020, on single-day sittings in this Senate, we gave the government a blank cheque. But I added, on behalf of constituents, that we would hold the government accountable and we expected data and a plan. I mentioned the most successful nation was successful without crippling its economy because it did not cripple its economy. I mentioned ivermectin. Yet we never heard back—no data and no plan. Like people across Australia, I now have important questions.

People are feeling scared. Some are terrified, lost, hopeless, daunted and confused. People are feeling unsafe because of the vaccine side effects. People are feeling insecure because crucial, universal human needs are not being met—needs like security, health, reassurance, trust, confidence, support, leadership, honesty, competence, care, freedom, ease, calm and direction.

Where’s the plan for managing the virus and our economy? There’s clearly inconsistent behaviour across our states, and the national government has revealed no plan. Queensland, Victoria and WA have deepened fear and insecurity to win elections and to control people. Governments have abandoned the people and removed accountability. I asked the Chief Medical Officer, the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the head of the federal health department to confirm my list of strategies that should be part of a plan for managing the virus. Isolation is one. Testing, tracing and quarantining is another. Then there’s restrictions, cures and prophylactics, vaccines, personal behaviour, and health and fitness. That’s seven I’ve raised with them. They’ve agreed with all seven. But we only see three in use, and then only partially, with crude and limited impact on the virus and a huge economic and social cost.

In response to my question in Senate estimates in March, I received data on the severity and transmissibility of this virus. The mortality is known by the health authorities to be low to severe. In fact, Senator Rex Patrick didn’t even know he had the virus. Others with co-morbidity, though, can die. Just like with the flu, there’s a huge range of symptoms. So why do the Chief Medical Officer and the health department not publicly separate out each of the group’s mortality rates? Is it because people need to be kept in fear?

Now our taxes are being given to big pharma for unproven and risky vaccines. Let’s consider some of those risks and facts. There have been deaths from the vaccine. Thousands of people overseas have died from it. There have been a wide variety of side effects from the vaccine, such as blood clots. The health minister, Mr Hunt, had cellulitis, reportedly a known vaccine side effect, and was hospitalised. The Chief Medical Officer, the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the head of the federal health department refuse to declare the vaccine as 100 per cent safe.

So my first question is: how did the vaccines get provisional approval? They said there were no alternative vaccines available. But wait—once the first was approved provisionally, the others faced an approved alternative. So how did the others get provisional approval? The vaccines fail to prevent transmission of the virus. The vaccines fail to stop someone getting the virus and getting sick. Intergenerational effects are not known at all. The vaccine’s effect against mutations is still unknown. The dosage is unknown. Vaccine frequency, number and time between jabs are still all unknown. Are people going to be jabbed forever? The vaccine fails to remove restrictions on our lifestyle. The vaccine fails to open up international borders.

The vaccine makers all lack integrity. They have been fined billions of dollars—not hundreds of millions but billions of dollars—for misrepresenting their products. The health minister himself said, ‘The world is engaged in the largest clinical vaccination trial.’ I am not a lab rat. Australians should not be treated as lab rats. This is the first time in history that healthy people have been injected with something that could kill them—and yet, on ivermectin, this is the first time that sick people have been denied medicine that is safe and successful for COVID, as multiple overseas jurisdictions prove.

Let’s move on to ivermectin. I took it successfully in 2014 for something else. Some 3.7 billion doses have been given over six decades. It is prescribed for many ailments. There’s no risk. It’s safe. It’s cheap because it’s off patent. It’s affordable. It is being used successfully overseas to treat COVID en masse, regionally and nationally. There are 250 medical papers in support of ivermectin—proven successful with COVID. In times of emergency, when four vaccines are provisionally approved, and adults are vaccinated—and now kids, despite the early warnings, and now pregnant mothers, apparently—why isn’t a proven, safe and affordable treatment like ivermectin provisionally approved? If no-one has made application, why didn’t the government get off its hands and do it? The government has blood on its hands. My second question is: why have four unproven, untested and risky vaccines been given provisional approval, yet one known, safe treatment has not been given provisional approval, despite extensive medical papers and successful widespread use overseas? What happened to basic freedoms? What is happening to Australia?

I received a letter from the Therapeutic Goods Administration last week threatening me because I shared some facts publicly. I dared to ask questions. I have a duty as an elected representative to share the facts. The Therapeutic Goods Administration calls that ‘advertising’—in an effort, apparently, to control me. I have a duty to the people of Australia to promote debate and understanding for informed debate. Without that, there can be no informed consent, and, without informed consent, there can be no vaccination or treatment. People are free in our country to make what they want of the facts. The Therapeutic Goods Administration seems to think that discussing facts and data is advertising. Whose side is the TGA on—the people or Big Pharma? My third question is: what are the connections between Big Pharma, Monash University, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the Gates Foundation, Google and Facebook? Think about this. Google’s parent company is Alphabet. It owns YouTube, which took down one of my videos on the topic. Google owns 12 per cent of Vaccitech, which created the AstraZeneca vaccine. Aren’t these conflicts of interest? Another possible conflict of interest is surely Sequoia Capital, a venture fund known for making millions from early funding of Google, YouTube and Apple. Sequoia owns 10 per cent of Vaccitech. I have no financial or other ties with vaccine makers, ivermectin or drug companies. My interest is ensuring that we protect people’s health and safety—our nation’s health and safety. So what happened to basic freedoms? What is happening to our country?

Coercion seems widespread and primed for stronger, wider, more extensive coercion. Let’s have a look at some of the types of coercion: letters from so-called authorities intimidating people; threats to doctors; threats to employees of withholding employment or livelihood—a basic means of survival; media intimidation from the legacy media; journalists labelling and misrepresenting people. It’s no wonder that mainstream media is rapidly becoming the legacy media. There is also government funding of media companies on vaccine propaganda. But I do want to single out one journalist. Adam Creighton, in the Australian, has done a fabulous job of exposing and sharing the facts. We move on now to what the government is calling a ‘digital certificate’. Is that going to become a digital passport? Will there be the withdrawal of people’s basic access to amenities, transport, travel and jobs unless they get the jab? Will there be the withdrawal of livelihood—the ability to live? This is not a digital passport; it’s a digital prison. Social media threats: Facebook and YouTube take down posts and threaten shutdown. Always, beneath control, there is fear. So my fourth question is: of what are authorities afraid? Clearly, it’s not the virus, because they have no plan. They’re afraid of people, the truth and freedom. Freedom is so easily squashed. The key question is: why is there no government action to approve ivermectin? I call on the government not to wait for an application for approval and to get on with the job of inquiring about, and investigating, ivermectin and approving it. Australians, I call on you to decide for yourself. Compare ivermectin and the vaccine. Consider the actions of federal and state governments. What happened to basic freedoms? What happened to Australia? Are you willing to help us bring back Australia?

/46 Comments/by

Profiting CEOs should pay back JobSeeker

I spoke in support of a motion that big companies who had a profitable COVID year and paid millions in executive bonuses should be made to pay back JobKeeper. JobKeeper was meant for companies that were struggling to keep their doors open, not to pump up executive bonuses.

Transcript

One Nation supports this motion. Many broad-stroke policies were voted through in the early days of COVID due to the uncertainty at the time. And yet mistakes were made, and these must be admitted and addressed. In some cases, JobKeeper payments went to companies with no need for the money and who used the money for purposes having nothing to do with the intent of JobKeeper, which was to protect jobs and to help workers and families get through tough times. Mega car dealership, Eagers Automotive, claimed JobKeeper and then paid out dividends for almost the exact same amount—$67 million. Star Casino received $64 million and then gave CEO, Matt Bekier, an equity bonus of $800,000.

Without basic governance, greed has come out to play. Company executives purloining JobKeeper for their own financial benefit does not pass the pub test. It’s time this government stopped running the country for the benefit of its big-business mates and started caring about the people paying for all of this—Australian taxpayers, current and future.

/by

Vaccine Passports and Compensation

, ,

IF THERE’S ONE VIDEO YOU WATCH FROM SENATE ESTIMATES MAKE IT THIS ONE.

I questioned the Government about vaccines, the indemnities it has provided to vaccine manufacturers and whether the government actually has a plan to stop restrictive lockdowns. These are common sense questions about liability and informed consent, let’s see if the tech-censors agree.

Also see part 2 to these questions here: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/informed-consent-and-vaccine-passports-department-of-health-part-2/

Transcript

Thank you. Senator Roberts.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, Chair. And thank you for appearing today. Many Australians have heard that getting vaccinated does not stop us from getting COVID, and that if we do get it we could still infect other people. Is that true?

– Yes – I guess Dr. Kelly onto that.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. What is the risk of being infected by a vaccinated person with COVID compared to an unvaccinated person with COVID?

So, just repeat the question.

[Malcolm Roberts] What is the risk of being infected by a vaccinated person who has COVID compared with an unvaccinated person with COVID?

Well, it’s lower. I’m not sure I can give you an exact amount. I think Professor Murphy earlier talked about the issue and also Senator Colbeck, about the issue of transmission and how the vaccine affects that. We’re getting more information, and it seems like there is a definite influence on transmission, decreasing transmission somewhere between 30 and 60% less likely.

[Malcolm Roberts] Is that a mass figure or is that if you had COVID and you were vaccinated compared with if you had COVID and weren’t vaccinated, would I have the same risk or lesser risk?

You would have a much lower risk, but it’s not zero.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. What decrease in transmission of infection would stop restrictions such as lockdowns, masks, and social distancing?

So, that’s a matter that we’ve been charged by national cabinet way as in Australian Health Protection Principal Committee of which I chair, by the national cabinet to look at. And so, it’s a matter for the national cabinet. There will be, there’s a series of papers that we’re preparing exactly to answer those questions. Some have been produced already and presented and there’ll be more in the coming meetings.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. How many times and how often would each of us need to be injected for the vaccine to be effective and for each time, for how long does the effect last?

So, as I mentioned earlier in the hearing, very good protection from one dose of vaccine, either the AstraZeneca or Pfizer particularly in relation to severe infection, but also to symptomatic infection, and to a lesser extent asymptomatic infection. So, that’s a single dose. The second dose is important for both of those vaccines. And most of the vaccines that are currently being used around the world require two doses to give a longer effect and a more deep effect, if you like, in terms of protection. I think it’s very important that Australia knows that this is the start of our vaccine programme. It will almost certainly not be the end. There will be a need for boosters into the future particularly in relation to the variants of concern of which there are four now that have been designated by the World Health Organisation. And some of those we already know do affect the vaccine efficacy. So, it’s likely we will need to have boosters into the future. How long the two dose effect works is still, we don’t know. We know it’s at least six months because that’s the studies of, been looking at it for six months. It’s almost certainly longer than that for the original strain, but the variance of concern adds another complexity to it.

[Malcolm Roberts] Can you guarantee Australians that all the vaccines you have obtained are 100% safe?

I can’t say that they were 100% safe, Senator, no.

[Malcolm Roberts] I do appreciate your honesty. How many years will it be before we know the long-term and intergenerational effects of these vaccines that only have provisional approval?

I might ask my colleague from the TGA to come up to answer that one.

John Skerritt, Deputy Secretary, Health Products Regulation, also responsible for the TGA. So, TGA, unlike the U.S. and the UK, for example, did a provisional approval of a vaccines as opposed to an emergency use authorization. The reason why it is a provisional approval is because we don’t have, for example, as Professor Kelly has just said, information on the duration of protection from these vaccines. And we require that the companies to give us that sort of information in the coming years. I mean, no one has those answers now. There’s some encouraging results, but as Professor Kelly has said, it’s likely that further vaccinations will be required. As part of the approval of any medicine or vaccine, big companies together with us are involved in very extensive safety monitoring. And we publish the results of the safety monitoring of that vaccine every week including mild or 24 hour adverse events, right through to those that might be much more serious and require hospitalisation. And no medicine or vaccine is without adverse events, but on balance, the number of adverse events, especially serious adverse events for these vaccines are comparatively low. The overwhelming majority of people vaccinated from them at worst suffer the 24 or 48 hours sore arm or tiredness, fatigue, et cetera.

[Malcolm Roberts] So, thank you. It’s a very comprehensive response. So, to summarise, we don’t know yet, but you’re relying upon company, the vaccine makers, to feed you back information as time moves on.

No, information on safety comes from a wide range of sources. It comes from the states and territories. For GP vaccination agreements, the GPs make an undertaking to also report any adverse events. The companies are legally bound to report adverse events not only in Australia, but also globally. And of course we share, and in fact at nine, 10 o’clock tonight we’ll be having one of our regular fortnightly video conferences. We share information on adverse events with all the major regulators globally. So, and the final sources from a medical scientific literature. So, while the companies have this legal requirement to report, it’s only one of a number of inputs to understanding adverse events. And many of our adverse event reports come directly from doctors or even individuals. Any individual can report an adverse event directly to us.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, moving onto another topic away from vaccines for a minute, the vaccine only has provisional approval. Is it true that provisional approval is only possible where there are no approved pharmaceutical treatments available?

The provisional approval is possible where there is not a similar treatment available in that, for that group of patients. And so, if there’d been an approved vaccine, but say it had been on the market for several years, fully approved, then it wouldn’t have been possible to provisionally approve a vaccine, but at the time of the submissions of those vaccines, and indeed we have provisionally designated the Novavax vaccine as well and the Johnson & Johnson or Janssen vaccine, it is possible to provisionally designate and potentially provisionally approve those vaccines.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Ivermectin is an antiviral that’s been proven safe in 3.6 billion human doses over 60 years. It’s now demonstrating success in treating COVID internationally, including in certain Indian states that are performing far better than the other states without it. Last time you were here, sorry Dr. Murphy and, Professor Murphy and Professor Kelly, you acknowledged that cures and preventatives are a fundamental and complimentary part of a virus management strategy. What is your timeline for the assessment and use of Ivermectin in light of the emerging evidence and it’s historical setting.

Senator, we have not received a submission for Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID. I have had a number of people write to me and say, “Why haven’t you folks approved?” We can’t make a medicine submission to ourselves for regulatory approval. There’s no provision in law for us because it requires a legal sponsor. But we have said to people if you come with a dossier of information we will review it as a priority. Now, if you go to the broader community including the company that is the main originator company that is a sponsor of Ivermectin, they do not believe that the overwhelming balance of evidence actually supports that Ivermectin being effective in the prophylaxis or prevention or the treatment of COVID. However, our doctors and scientists would look at that evidence with open eyes. And so, it is open for any sponsor to put an application in for Ivermectin to the TGA for regulatory approval.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Moving back to the vaccine, the government has provided an indemnity to vaccine suppliers, as I understand it, and multinational pharmaceutical companies who have caused harm in the past. What is the nature of the indemnities that government has provided, and are they full indemnities?

Yeah, just give me a moment. Sorry, Senator, going to a wholly different part of my folder.

[Malcolm Roberts] You’ve got a lot on your plate.

So, just to go to your question, I understand it. You’re wanting to know exactly the nature of the indemnities provided, obviously–

[Malcolm Roberts] That the government has provided to the vaccine manufacturers and suppliers.

So, in the first instance to say that the actual detail of the indemnities is part of the Commercial in Confidence contracts, but I can provide you some information about the nature of what’s provided. So, we’ve agreed to certain indemnities with the COVID-19 vaccine suppliers. They’re contained in commercially confidential contracts. The indemnities are designed to operate if there are problems with the flow on from the vaccines themselves, as opposed to the manner of administration and so on, they don’t cover that. Details of the agreement are Commercial in Confidence, but nothing in any of the contractual agreements from individual companies would stop individuals from seeking to litigate should an individual seek to do so in the future.

[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry, could you repeat that again, please.

So, the actual detail of the indemnity, it relates to the nature of the vaccine itself as opposed to the manner of administration or any other issue to do with how it’s transported and so on. But it is absolutely the case that nothing in the indemnities prevents an individual from taking an action against the manufacturer or against anybody, if there’s an issue that arises from the impact of the vaccine. So, the summary of the arrangements are that they ensure that manufacturers have the significant indemnity in place to allow them to come into the marketplace and provide the protection, but they don’t prevent any action being taken by an individual who might be affected by a vaccine.

[Malcolm Roberts] So, what would they be? Why would they need an indemnity if they, they can still be sued? I don’t understand that. I’m not a lawyer, but.

I was once, but it’s a long time ago.

[Malcolm Roberts] You could say, I’m honest with you. Now, we’ve got lawyers as good friends. We’ve got good friends.

So, no one’s saying I’m . It’s to do with the relationship between the government and the company.

[Malcolm Roberts] What is the nature of that relationship?

Well, those are the things that are confidential in the contracts. You’d appreciate in order to get these vaccines into Australia so that we have access to them, there are strict requirements in the way the contracts are done with the companies and confidentiality. And the nature of the indemnities are part of that confidentiality.

[Malcolm Roberts] In the event of an injury or death from the vaccine, who pays compensation?

Not a question I can answer in the abstract. It would depend on the circumstances and so on and how the legal process would go on. As I say, the indemnities with manufacturers relate only to the flow on from the vaccine itself. So, in the event that negligence happens in any mechanism then it could be actionable against the person who had done the negligence, but there’s no simple answer to who pays compensation ’cause compensation would have to be found to be payable and attributable to someone and so on.

[Malcolm Roberts] So, it’d be pretty challenging, Ms. Edwards, for an individual to sue that they’ve just lost their spouse or their son or daughter, because, I’ll just go through some of the settlements in the past or some of the fines. Pfizer has paid the second largest pharmaceutical settlement in history, $2.3 billion in 2009, off-label promotion and kickbacks plus US$ 430 million in 2004 for off-label promotion. AstraZeneca has paid US$ 520 million in 2010 off-label promotion and kickbacks and US$ 355 million in 2003 for Medicare fraud. Johnson & Johnson has paid US$ 2.2 billion in 2013 for off label promotion and kickbacks plus millions in Australia last year for defective pelvic mesh implants. It’d be a pretty brave person that would hope to get anything out of this if they tried to sue any of these companies. These guys have a history of dodging.

Well, I’m not aware of any of the instances you’re referring to, but clearly there have been instances in which action has been taken against these companies.

[Malcolm Roberts] Are these companies appropriate to be entered into an agreement in this way? I mean, look at the history.

So, the Australian government and Australian consumers have the advantage of pharmaceutical products produced by companies such as these and many others. Obviously, enormously important to the health of Australians that they have access to medicines, including vaccines. We rely heavily on the scientific advice from the CMO, from the TGA and from experts as to what is the appropriate vaccine to be approved and used in the country. And those are the vaccines which we have purchased and are administering.

[Malcolm Roberts] I’m going–

[Member] Senator Roberts…

Senator, I think that perhaps I might throw this in In relation to this. The approvals for the vaccines have been based on a considerable amount of data. The approvals haven’t been provided lightly. And we have had the advantage of the visibility of the application of the vaccines in a number of other jurisdictions. It’s an important question that you ask, I think. And so, it’s not a company reputational issue, it’s actually the data that supports the application of the vaccines that is assessed by not only our regulatory authorities, but also the regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. And also the fact that, as has already been indicated, there is a lot of discussion between those authorities in relation to that data. So, it’s interrogated as a part of the approval process not only in this jurisdiction, but in others, and I might…

[Malcolm Roberts] I understand it’s, perhaps you could also include reference to this Doctors Skerritt that some of the overseas nations that are using these vaccines have suspended their use.

Well, there’s several questions. I’ll return to suspension of use although it’s been relatively limited in countries like Norway. But to talk about those fines for the companies, I should clarify that it’s a consequence of one of the things that personally I hope Australia never follows. And this is the U.S. widespread advertising directly to the public of prescription medicines. And it is legal and extremely commonplace. You only have to have the TV on for five minutes in your hotel room to see an advertisement for prescription medicine in the United states. And however, it is tempting for some of these companies. And they’ve been found with major fines from court cases when they push for sorts of conditions, what we call the indications for which a medicine is approved. So, a medicine may be approved for certain sorts of arthritis and their marketing people think it’s a great idea to talk about arthritis in general, and that’s where they get these multi hundred million dollar fines. So, if you go into those cases in the U.S. it’s not about them providing defective vaccines or cheating with their quality data or cheating with their clinical data. Almost all those cases come down to inappropriate promotion because of the, I guess the temptation the United States systems offers of allowing to advertise prescription medicines directly to the public. Now, thank God we don’t have that system in this country.

[Malcolm Roberts] That’s still a matter of ethics, though, isn’t it? That the companies are pushing that, it’s their marketing people they are employing.

It’s their marketing people, and of course, we could mention many well-known Australian corporations who have also had challenges with marketing, including of telecommunication services. Now, we also —

[Malcolm Roberts] But they also go to the essence of integrity of the company?

But in Australia, we do look closely at promotion, including to doctors. So, recently we fined a particular company over $300,000 for what we concluded was inappropriate promotion of opiates to doctors. This wasn’t of a general public, but it was still inappropriate in our view. So, we will take action if we believe promotion of a product is inappropriate. Now, talking about companies in countries that have suspended vaccines, there were a number of short term suspensions of vaccines. For example, when some deaths in aged care were reported very early in the new year, they were then lifted off after further investigation where it was found that sadly people die in aged care. And the death rates were not all that different from the expected death rates. There were then short term changes, suspensions in some countries after the initial clotting cases were found AstraZeneca. In most countries, although Norway, for example, was an exception, most countries have re-introduced those vaccines, but like Australia, many of them have age recommendations. And those ages vary between countries.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you.

Senator Roberts, you’ve just run out of time. So, if you’ve got one more question.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. After the TGA had already provisionally approved the AstraZeneca vaccine, Minister Hunt said of the vaccines quote – “The world is engaged in the largest clinical trial, the largest global vaccination trial ever”. Australians later died of blood clots due to the vaccine, a side effect that was not known prior to provisional approval. Why should Australians be the lab rats of a drug trial?

So, the word trial really, I mean, the treatment of COVID. And none of us has a crystal ball, where we’ll end up, whether it’s opening the borders or changes to the way we live our lives in a year or two is probably one of the biggest societal trials we’ve had since World War II. So, it’s true to say that because we don’t know whether vaccines are 100%, 90%, 80%, 70, 50, 60 in preventing transmission because we don’t know about the duration of protection, all those things. It is a trial in the sense that anything is new. So, that was a context. If you look at the wider context in which the Minister made those comments. Now, on the issue of benefit versus risk, every medicine or vaccine has significant risks. There’s been many dozen deaths due to Panadol in this country. And yet, if we didn’t have that drug for the relief of simple fever and so forth, there’d be a lot of people suffering. And so, every medicine has its benefits and its risks. Now, because the clotting thing is very rare, even though the trials were extremely large as trials go, 20, 30,000 people, and there’s been another 30,000 people on a follow-up trial of the AstraZeneca. Those numbers were still too low, but you would predict something would be seen 10 in a million times. And so, that’s why the clotting thing was not picked up.

[Malcolm Roberts] Isn’t there still something really big, outstanding though and that is that these are an RNA vaccine?

[Professor John] No, the AstraZeneca vaccine–

[Malcolm Roberts] Some of them, sorry, are RNA. How long before we know the intergenerational effects?

[Professor John] There’s no evidence at all from animal or human studies that the RNA vaccines, if you’re talking about them, incorporate into the genetic material of human beings. They wouldn’t have been approved for regulatory approval and that includes by much bigger regulators such as the FDA, if these bits of mRNA incorporated into the human genetic material. In fact, medicines that incorporate into human genetic material and are inherited are currently not permitted in most major countries, including Australia.

[Malcolm Roberts] So, what you’re saying is that it is okay to have a few deaths?

I’m saying that every medicine or vaccine is assessed both before it goes onto the market and once it’s on the market based on benefit and risk. And in Australia, we’ve had, sadly, one death. We’ve had a number of cases of this clotting syndrome, but the really encouraging thing is that many of our cases seem to be milder than in our countries. And that’s because of such widespread awareness. These cases are picked up early, they’re put in hospitals, even if it’s minor clotting, and the really good news is that, the overwhelming majority of those people were already out of hospital.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, Chair.

/5 Comments/by

Ivermectin – 2SM with Marcus Paul

I talked to Marcus Paul last week about our motion to keep our Judaeo-Christian values in our education system and questioned why ivermectin wasn’t available in Australia when it has been proven safe.

Transcript

[Marcus Paul] Tell me about this motion you put in front of me here. I give notice that on the next day of sitting, I nearly said another word then. I shall move that the Senate, what?

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, that the Senate actually makes sure that the national curriculum, includes Judeo-Christian heritage as the basis for our laws and customs.

[Marcus Paul] Right?

[Malcolm Roberts] We want that in the national curriculum, because in 2014, there was a review by two people called Donnelly and Wiltshire, into the national curriculum. And they recommended more emphasis, more emphasis on our Judeo-Christian heritage Because that’s the role it played in Western civilization and contributing to our society and making our laws and our culture. And lo and behold, when the 2020 national curriculum recommendations came out, they had a de-emphasis on our Judeo-Christian heritage and going over a bit more to the, what could you say, the flavours of the month? You know, the fads.

[Marcus Paul] Like?

[Malcolm Roberts] And so what we wanted the basics back.

[Marcus Paul] Hang on. Like?

[Malcolm Roberts] Well they want to emphasise that the First Nations people think that there was an invasion. They want to emphasise that there are other multicultural aspects of Australia. Now we’ve got no problems with that at all but we’ve got to make sure that the basis of our culture the basis of our laws, gets prominence and not, is not removed.

[Marcus Paul] Yeah, or we could just focus on teaching kids how to add up and to construct a sentence.

[Malcolm Roberts] Ah Marcus, that’d be wonderful.

[Marcus Paul] All right. The federal budget, you say that there’s been a lack of spending on visionary infrastructure to improve our productive capacity. We’ve continued to ignore the basics, energy and tax which are vital for manufacturing.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yes, that’s right. You know, we talked many times about tax and about energy costs. The energy costs are artificially high. We went from being the cheapest electricity in the world, Marcus, to being amongst the most expensive all because of artificial regulations that are not needed. We are exporting our coal to China where they sell electricity made from our coal at 8 cents a kilowatt hour. Our cost here, our price here is three times that all because of the rubbish regulations.

[Marcus Paul] Yeah.

[Malcolm Roberts] And so what we’re really doing is we’re exporting jobs to China because our manufacturers leave here and go to China or other places in Asia that use our coal and don’t have our stupid governance. So what we’ve got to do is get back to basics and stop all the subsidies destroying our electricity sector and also fix the tax system because, you know, we talked about that at length last week. So probably don’t need to go into that, but they’re the things that are really destroying our country. And instead of killing jobs, we need to create jobs and we need to build our productive capacity in terms of our infrastructure, things like dams in particular, power stations, so that we have cheap reliable water and cheap, reliable, stable power. They’re the basics for any society. And, you know, we’re letting the UN, Warragamba Dam wall. They wanted to raise that and they’re not allowed because of the UN’s world heritage agreement. Well, I didn’t elect the UN I want, I want to budget for us.

[Marcus Paul] Yeah. Very true. All right, mate, now there’s plenty in there for women’s services in relation to domestic violence, which all of us agree is worthwhile. You say, but nothing for men. What do you mean by that?

[Malcolm Roberts] Yes. And that’s a really good point that you raised Marcus. I know an outstanding group. That’s doing phenomenal work on a voluntary basis and they’re really supporting men and women. They’re not specifying only men, just men and women and also kids and families. Family law system is really crook and it’s devastating people’s lives. It’s the slaughter house of the nation. And what he’s finding is that he can get no support from the federal government in terms of providing counselling services that he is putting on voluntarily and getting volunteers to do. I mean, it’s an amazing network that he’s got. He’s just opened offices in Newcastle, Australian brotherhood of fathers. So, but the point is that we know domestic violence is perpetrated by men on women. We also know that domestic violence is perpetrated by women on men, but only one side of the story comes out. And only one side of the equation gets the funding. So men are vulnerable too, and they need to be protected and need to be funded.

[Marcus Paul] All right, there was plenty of money for mental health, the national disability insurance scheme, aged care. But the reality is, is that the money will never get spent. You say.

[Malcolm Roberts] Much of it won’t get spent Marcus, because we don’t have the professionals. I mean, I was at an aged care rally here, aged care health and safety, health services union on Monday. Sorry. Yeah. Monday morning.

[Marcus Paul] Yeah. Monday it was.

[Malcolm Roberts] Here in Canberra and I mean they’re wonderful people I know from my parents care is they’re wonderful people and they work very, very hard. They’re under extreme emotional stress but they can’t get enough because of the pay rates. But the other thing is they can’t get enough of the professionals and registered nurses and they can’t get enough of the psychologists in when it comes to the NDIS and other professionals. So we won’t be able to have the services anyway. We’ve got to focus on getting these areas fixed.

[Marcus Paul] Okay. Well, I mean, I don’t disagree at all. I mean, the whole thing in particular, in my opinion has been packaged to look pretty good. You know, it’s a, it’s a budget that’s full of plenty of promises, almost like a labor-esque budget if you like, but there’s apparently more money. And this is what, a point I wanted to come to. And this is where I think people like you and Pauline Hanson need to really hold these people accountable in parliament. Apparently there’s some sort of war chest. So there’s billions of dollars that’s been set aside for, you know, the election campaign not too far away. So in other words, they’ve held off on some things and rather than spend the money now or put it toward, you know, extra money toward mental health or extra money toward the aged care sector, et cetera people suggesting that they’ve kept it aside for, I dunno future pork barreling or promises ahead of the next federal election.

[Malcolm Roberts] That could be right. And you raise a fantastic point there because what’s happening is that with both the main old parties the tired old parties, they do exactly what you’re saying. And what voters don’t seem to realise is they’re having an auction with the voters money.

[Marcus Paul] There we go.

[Malcolm Roberts] And the voters are bidding those prices up. So we’re doing it to ourselves as voters but we need to hold these people accountable. And that’s what Pauline and I will be doing. She was, budget papers are very, very thick and detailed. So she was already discussing with me in the Senate in a quiet moment, some ridiculous expenditure. I can’t remember the exact one that, that she raised but it was just outlandish. So they’re the things that we will do in the coming weeks going through the details and exposing them. But you’re absolutely right. We’ve got to stop this budget that puts us on an annual cycle of making promises and stealing money from taxpayers to give to other tax payers.

[Marcus Paul] Some of it, to be honest is borrowed anyway but we’ll deal with that another time. We can’t travel overseas as we’ve learned probably until mid 22. The budget itself, many of the promises and many of the figures announced you know, predetermined on, you know the whole joint being vaccinated in time, et cetera. International students will be let back in in small phase programmes later this year. I mean, and I noticed yesterday in question time in the house of representatives, that we couldn’t get a straight answer from the prime minister. And even the health minister had to jump in and have his say. And he just muddied the waters further. Vaccines and whether or not our borders will be reopened is something that the government just can’t seem to answer at the moment.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yes. And that’s right. And there are too many uncertainties here and too many unknowns Marcus. First of all, the vaccine that the prime minister himself has come out and said it may not stop the spreading of the virus. What, well, hang on. It’s all based on that, and yet he’s admitting that it won’t necessarily stop the spread of the virus. The other thing Marcus, that people may not be aware of, is that there’s a drug called ivermectin. It’s been used for treating people in Africa all over the world. In fact, I’ll tell you someone else who’s been treated by it in a minute. This ivermectin is an antiviral and it’s been used for around six decades, 60 years ago.

[Marcus Paul] This was the stuff that Craig Kelly was spruiking. Yes?

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, he’s just picking it up from overseas. I mean, Craig’s doing a wonderful job that man I can tell right now, every interaction I’ve had with Craig, he’s solid on the data and he doesn’t open his mouth. But anyway, without the data, now, the thing is that ivermectin has been given in 3.7 billion doses to 3.7 billion people. It’s proven safe. It’s an antiviral.

[Marcus Paul] Why then, why then Malcolm is not on the list as a as a well I don’t know, as a as a vaccine for COVID-19. I’ve heard ivermectin, we’ve had we’ve heard all of the stories that was originally criticised as a bit of a conspiracy theory vaccine proposal. I respectfully understand that there are many scientists who agree that it could be used, but I just wonder, I mean we’ve just spent, what we’ve just bought another 25 million cases of a new vaccine, Moderna from the United States. If ivermectin was all it was cracked up to be, surely it would have already been authorised.

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, that’s the real point Marcus. That I was getting to. In many countries now ivermectin is legal and is being used and they’re desperate to get it into into place because it’s very safe. I went to India and developed a condition in India as a consultant over there in the mining industry in 2014. And I was given ivermectin by an Australian doctor here quite legally, I had no side effects. It was fantastic. So we know it’s proven around the world. There are more and more countries that are doing two things, bringing ivermectin in and more and more countries are now stopping the use of some of these vaccines for COVID vaccines because the blood clotting and other issues. So the reason I believe, well we’ve got to ask this question why aren’t we using ivermectin when it’s completely safe? It’s got no side effects. It’s killed no one. And, and it’s also being proven as effective with the virus. Why are we not using that when these unproven, untested vaccines or partially tested vaccines? And when we know so much, so little about them, why are we doing that? Is it because if there is a viable solution in ivermectin that the vaccine makers wouldn’t get their money?

[Marcus Paul] I dunno it could be you’re the Senator. And these are the questions that you will ask. I’m sure. Mate, I’ve got to go. I really appreciate it. Talk soon. There he is. Malcolm Roberts.

/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

Support for JobMaker scheme

On Tuesday we supported 2 of 11 amendments to the JobMaker scheme but on receiving new information on Wednesday afternoon we changed our position. We listen and when we get new data we have the courage and integrity to review our position.

There was concern that employers would put off older workers and only employ younger workers to receive the JobMaker scheme.We now know this is not the case. The legislation only offers JobMaker for businesses who increase their payroll & head count. Sacking an elderly employee & hiring an under 35 wouldn’t qualify for a subsidy.

The Treasurer advised Pauline that unemployment in people 35 years of age or younger is 10.4%. In people older than 35 is 4%.There is a crisis for those in our community under 35. A job can make all the difference. When Covid restrictions came in unemployment increased 100%. And unemployment among younger people increased 150%.

Transcript

Hi, we just had a bit of a kerfuffle in the Senate about the job makers scheme. It’s to subsidise hiring of two groups of people. Those from 16 to 29 years of age, and those from 30 to 35 years of age. Yesterday, I spoke strongly opposed to it. And we then supported two amendments, two of 11 amendments. We rejected nine of Labor greens amendments, rejected nine, we supported two.

One was on reporting and the other one was on duplication. Here’s some new data. And when we get new data, we look at it, because we use these things, this thing, and our heart, and we assess the data honestly, and we don’t care what people think just because we changed our mind. We have the courage and the integrity to change our mind.

So here’s some of the data we got from the treasurer through Pauline today, she went in to see the treasurer, and we were told that the unemployment rate for those under 35 years of age is 10.4%. The unemployment rate for those over 35 years of age is just 4%. So that means the young have been really hammered. We’ve got to get those people back to work.

Another set of figures, the increase in unemployment, across all of Australia, due to the COVID restrictions, was 100%. The increase in unemployment due to the COVID restrictions on people under 35 years of age was 150%. So it’s really savaged the young. And we have to help these people back to work. Now, the treasurer gave us this data, and as I said, that caused us to rethink.

He also reassured us about the two amendments that we had previously supported. One was about reporting, and he assured us that the ATO will do that. And we also were reassured that the data will be reported to the COVID inquiry, the COVID committee. The second amendment was about duplication. We’ve been reassured on that too. The treasurer gave us the facts.

We have the courage and the integrity to change our position. Sadly, the Labor party and the greens are pitting old versus young. We know that that’s crap. That’s complete rubbish, because Australians care. And Australians who see those figures will do exactly what we’ve done. They’ll try and help the young and everyone. We know that all Australians care and will want this fixed.

And this programme is necessary to get the young back to work quickly. There are other programmes for other groups, and they’re at work already and have been at work in some cases for months. So that’s why we changed our position, because we’re honest and straight. No deal done, simply facts. Labor and the greens can’t understand that, because everything they do has to be grubby.

/by

Where is your COVID19 plan Prime Minister?

Yesterday I spoke in the Senate about the lack of a plan to live with and master COVID19 rather than hiding behind advice from bureaucrats in the health departments. There is no guarantee when or if there will be a vaccine. Where is your plan Prime Minister?

Transcript

I know that there are many grieving families, fearful families and concerned families. I raised the fact that in my correspondence to both the prime minister and to the premier of Queensland.

I expressed concern over their use of insufficient and flawed modelling to lock us all away and cause untold damage to our economy, businesses and jobs. Their responses to my letters avoided addressing the real issues.

Yes. If the federal government and state governments had learned, as I suggested in March from nations like Taiwan and promptly adopted rigorous testing combined with strict isolation of their sick, aged and vulnerable then many Australians could have stayed at work with minimal economic disruption and better health.

The difference is that Taiwan had a plan and relied on solid data. And as a result, Taiwan had seven deaths in the time we’ve had 517. They have a similar population to ours in terms of total population. Yet they are under greater threat because of the highly densely populated country and they’re closer to China.

The honourable John Houston in the Sydney Morning Herald, recently referred to quote, “planning or the lack of it has been the great failure of the Morrison government. It has been building over years of neglect and poor policy, but now it has been laid bare by both COVID-19 and the Royal commission.”

Queensland’s own chief health officer, Dr. Jeanette young, has stated this past week that she is only looking at the health issues. Mr. Acting deputy president. And this is very concerning. Who is looking after the big picture for us all? What about mental health, economic health, jobs, families, businesses?

The Queensland Premier referred us to the website location of her data. We checked there’s no relevant data, weak premier, irresponsibly abdicating, again, hiding behind the chief health officer, abdicating her duties. The Morrison government and the Queensland government need to both step up and to demonstrate leadership and to tell the truth.

They need to show us the data and the plan across all aspects of managing our way out of this pandemic and the resulting recession, and in the process, ensuring security for all Australians.

/by

Australia must master COVID-19

State and federal politicians need an urgent plan for Australia to master COVID-19, rather than being held captive in fear of the next wave of infections.

Senator Roberts said, “The ad-hoc opening and closing of our economy and politicians praying for an elusive and unlikely vaccine needs to transition to a longer-term plan of how to master COVID-19.”

The rolling debate of suppression versus elimination strategies are short-term and unsustainable and we cannot continue as we are.  At current infection rates it could take until 2040 for Australia to achieve herd immunity.

Taiwan, with a population similar to Australia, has had just seven deaths despite great exposure to COVID-19, yet unlike Australia it did not destroy its economy.

“There is a deafening absence of political leadership that has the courage to look beyond the immediate waves of COVID-19 infections to the horizon of how to live with COVID-19 in our community,” stated Senator Roberts.

Queensland’s state 2019-2020 mid-year Fiscal and Economic Review, pre COVID-19, states “An increased capital program of $51.8 billion over the forward estimates, supporting 41,500 jobs in 2010-20”.

Part of Queensland’s Economy Recovery Strategy Stage 2 for COVID-19 also states “$51.8 billion state infrastructure program over the next four years to give the building and construction industry certainty and confidence.”

“This is duplicitous and untrustworthy leadership that pretends this is new money for recovery, when it is in fact an existing capital works program re-branded as a recovery capital works program.

Senator Roberts said, “Clearly the Queensland government’s exceedingly poor financial management has left Queensland on the back foot with no additional resources to bolster economic recovery.”

“With no vaccine in sight, no money in the bank and no confidence in the Premier’s leadership to look beyond the advice of the Chief Medical Officer, then Queenslanders need to get back to work.”

“The Premier needs an urgent plan, based on data, on how we master COVID-19 so we can return the economy and our community back to prosperity.”

/2 Comments/by

Trust in Politicians at rock bottom | BNAP Today

,

This week I appeared on BUSINESS NOW ASIA PACIFIC to discuss the different approaches to COVID19 and how Australia needs to change course.

Transcript

[Mike

Senator Malcolm Roberts from Pauline Hanson’s One nation believes the lockdown in Victoria will succeed. However testing needs to be quicker. He also believes that government needs to be more truthful. Now, Victoria has serious problems with infection control will a harder breakdown be effective if they don’t know the source of so many infections.

[Malcolm]

Well, I think there are two things I need to say in response to that Mike. And that is that first of all, this is a very difficult issue. We said that right from the start on the single day sittings on 23rd of March and eighth of April, when we said, there’s no manual for this, it’s entirely new.

We’ve gotta give the government lots of room. We voted in favour that we supported them on their packages and away we went, but we said, you’ve got to get the data. And you’ve got to look elsewhere and start to manage this in accordance with the best practise around the world.

So we might come back to that more later, but what we’ve learned is that quite often, the places where people have prolonged contact in close quarters is where the virus is transmission is highest and that’s the family unit and workplaces. So the family unit in Melbourne is older than in any other city.

And that’s significant because I also saw these figures on one of the radio stations. I heard the figures rather than one of the radio stations. The other thing about Melbourne is that it’s flat and people travel very easily and they travelled to watch football matches, sporting events, games, social venues, et cetera.

So I think that it is difficult. And number one priority is life, securing life, making sure people are healthy and secure and safe. And so a lockdown is essential because they’ve lost control of their borders. They’ve let it go and sorry, lost control of the virus within, in I think multi, foreign, where people are speaking foreign languages.

So they’ve lost control of that because people have not been able to understand the messages about the virus. So that’s where the outbreaks have been. And so I think the lockdown will be effective because it’ll stop families The extended family visits and it’ll stop work obviously.

And so I think the lock downs will be successful in Melbourne. The other thing is that they need to get testing done more quickly because some people are basically having a test and not getting the result back for about 10 days. Now they’re not gonna stay cooped up for 10 days if they don’t believe they’re sick.

And many of these cases that they’re asymptomatic. So I think that while it will work, the government has got to do its bit and getting testing to be more responsive and get results back in two or three days rather than 10. So yeah, there’s potential.

[Mike]

It’s interesting. In South Korea, the testing, from the testing to getting the results back now 12 hours and that’s what it should be when I was talking to professor Justin Fendos in South Korea last week, and he was saying that 12 hours and I mentioned that we have at times up to 10 days and I could hear his jaw hit the table. That’s just atrocious. What should the authorities be doing though?

[Malcolm]

Well, let’s come back to Taiwan if you don’t mind, because South Korea has done a marvellous job. They actually, do you mind if we talk about that?

[Mike]

Yeah, for sure.

[Malcolm]

Okay, South Korea has done a marvellous job. They actually let go let it go. And they had to recover. So given that, and by the way, I’ve watched your interview with professor Fendos. Fabulous interview, very well spoken man knows his facts. And he has been on the same track we’ve been from the right from the start on Monday, March 23rd and April the eighth, in the Senate single day hearings.

We also said, make sure that you get the data to the federal government when we gave them our support. And we said, make sure you looked at Taiwan and Southeast Asia. The Southeast Asian nations, Taiwan, especially South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, have done a marvellous job.

Singapore with the exception of Singapore, all the other three and Israel, which had also done a good job, Mike, they have eternal vigilance and they’re ready to do respond quickly to threats because they’re constantly under threat. So that is something we don’t have.

But the, in Taiwan, their population is about the same as Australia. They have 24 million we have 25. The population density in Taiwan is far, far higher than us because their 24 are crammed into a small Island. And they also had an earlier and stronger exchange with China because they’re Chinese themselves.

And so they had a lot more travelling between Taiwan and mainland China. And so they had a much greater problem. Now what the Taiwanese did, and we need to recognise that Australia has had 130 deaths and that’s good, but the Taiwanese have had seven, even despite they had an earlier virus, earlier contact with the virus, seven.

And the other significant point with the Taiwanese is that they didn’t lock down their economy. They actually kept their economy going and they gave responsibility to the people. Now, there are three things that they have done really well. First of all, their basic strategy was to isolate the sick and isolate the vulnerable.

That’s what real quarantine is. Quarantine is not isolating everyone into lockdown. Quarantine is isolating the sick and the vulnerable and separating them out. The second thing they did was that they implemented massive testing and they have a screening process for the testing. And I think South Korea is the same.

They test for high temperature knowing that that’s not always reliable, but they test for high temperature. If someone has a high temperature, then they go and get tested for COVID. And if they test negative, but they still have, for COVID, but still have a high temperature, then they’re allowed to go to work.

So they put responsibility on the workplaces, and what we’ve got in those countries is the responsibility on the individual citizens. And when you have that responsibility, there’s a far greater sense of accountability rather than when it’s imposed.

And the other thing that they’ve done, and I’ve only learned about this recently is they’ve got a much stricter tracing regime, but the tracing apparently doesn’t go right into people’s whereabouts it goes into their localities, and that helps the authorities then get one step in front.

So what I think the, what I think now with those lessons from Taiwan, and we encourage the government to look at Taiwan and South Korea. What I think that we should be doing now is we should be in Australia revising and reviewing our current work. How effective have we been? Where have we not been effective?

We need to recover and plan for recovery in two areas. First of all, to get our economy back to pre COVID, which is February, but then we need to aim far, far higher Mike, we need to get our economy back to, so to the point where we have our sovereignty, restored, our economic sovereignty and economic security and our independence.

We’ve been following this nonsense from the United nations now for almost 70 years. And it’s destroying our sovereignty and our economic independence. And so what the UN has been preaching and our governments have been preaching is interdependence, which means that we are dependent on other countries.

And so what we need to do is to get back at productive capacity, especially for manufacturing and agriculture. And then the third thing we need to do is to plan for future viruses, because this won’t be the last one. And so the biggest thing of all Mike, that we’ve learned is that the Taiwanese, the South Koreans, the Israelis, the Singaporeans, they trust their government.

They don’t give them carte blanche, but they do trust their government. And the government’s lead. In this country governments are too busy, fabricating policies and making and misrepresenting the circumstances.

We haven’t seen the truth on this from the prime minister. We haven’t seen the truth on this from Daniel Andrews, nor Annastacia Palaszczuk. We wrote to Annastacia Palaszczuk and said, “where’s your data. “We want to have a look at it.” She said, it’s in two locations, we went to both locations.

There’s no data. So Scott Morrison right up front. He was saying, six months hibernation, six months hibernation, six months hibernation. We knew there was no plan. And now we know there’s no data driving that plan. These governments are not trusted in this country on a range of issues, electricity, agriculture, stealing farmers property rights.

I mean, you could go on forever, selling ourselves out through international agreements, selling ourselves out the free trade agreements that are giving the other parties the power, we have got to establish trust in our government. And that can only become, can only come with reliance on data and reliance on telling the truth its time Australia got back to that.

[Mike]

Just wondering about the data to have the data we need all the input. We actually have that at our fingertips with credit cards and with Apple, for example, and the other Android devices. And we can, we can actually find out where people have been. The problem we have at the moment, according to professor Fendos, was that it’s reliant on us being honourable or telling the truth. So by having all that data available, it’s going to impact on inverted commas ‘civil liberties.’

[Malcolm]

Well, I get, I go back to my experience when I graduated from university with a mining engineering degree, I thought I’d better go out and start learning something that really mattered. So I worked as a miner for about three years, various mines around the country. And then I went overseas and worked in mines overseas.

So I’ve worked at the coalface and I developed a very healthy respect for miners for all people. And then when I became a mine manager, I would go underground a lot, not to do people’s work, but just to have, listen, and to look so that I can understand what they were going through and what their needs were.

And I can remember turning up at one mine brand new and the workforce detested the mine management because the mine management told lies and it took me a few months, but people started to trust me and that’s extremely important. And then what I was able to do was also to hand over responsibility and authority to the people doing the job.

I mean, not everything we can’t expect the miner to make every decision for the business, but their own jobs. And when people are given that responsibility and that authority they usually come good. And so what’s happening here is government tries to impose things in a crisis.

And we think we’re, a lot of Australians then distrust that, but in, Southeast Asia they’re already practising those things. And we’ve gotta give those governments credit because they’ve had SARS before. So we understand that that’s made it easier, but they’ve learned from that.

And they put it into practise and people are now trusting the government. So if the government tells the truth, if the government hands over responsibility to business owners, venue managers, then they’ll see the people respond because then people take accountability.

But when it’s shoved on them under threat and under control, it’s not taken that accountability is taken when there’s freedom for people to make decisions that autonomy is really important. And we’ve gotta keep giving trust back to people in this country and get the government the hell out of people’s lives.

[Mike]

What about state government? When we have this, where, we’re all Australians, but we have, the new country of Queensland, the new country of Victoria, the new country, new South Wales, South Australia, blah, blah, blah, blah. And each state has its own, not agenda, but it its own approach.

And maybe an agenda also it becomes a little bit political because where the Joan of arc of WA, with a Joan of arc of Victoria, Tasmania. So how do we get all the States working as one country instead of being a number of different countries within this terrible state of Australia?

[Malcolm]

Well, first of all, the thing that unites strategies is data. When everyone’s got the correct data, you’ll end up seeing strategies similar, but across every state, but they will be fine tuned for each state because Queensland is the only state in the country. Yes, that’s correct.

It’s the only state in the country where there are more people outside the capital city than inside the capital city, we’re more decentralised. We’re more spread up the coast with the sparse population inland. And so that’s different from Victoria. That’s different from Tassie.

That’s different from new South Wales and then Western Australia is different again. So I’m very much a believer in our constitution, federal constitution, which is based on competitive federalism, giving a huge amount of sovereignty to the independent States.

Only on national issues should we come together that’s defence, border security, foreign affairs, those kinds of things. And so I’m in favour of letting the state run, but the States themselves also need to get the data so that they can manage effectively. And they need to manage trust in a trustworthy way.

The fundamental thing that we did wrong in this country, I believe with COVID was that we looked automatically to Britain and to a man called Neil Ferguson. And that was a mistake. This Neil Ferguson has done I’ve forgotten the name of the school in medical school, medical college in Britain, but he’s in there and they’ve done a lot of modelling and his models have been proven to be completely wacky.

They have exaggerated the consequences of just about every virus they’ve cared to model every disease they’ve cared to model. Foot and mouth disease they cost the British government way back then when a billion was worth a billion, $10 billion, they cost the British farm economy. They have completely exaggerated.

They forecast millions of deaths, when out of the virus out of the disease in Britain when there were only 120 deaths. I mean, it’s completely ridiculous. We looked to them went straight to lockdown. We didn’t look to Asia. We should’ve looked at Taiwan as well as Britain and worked out where the reality is.

Donald Trump himself started calling out the British. And I don’t think he named Ferguson, but he that’s what he was implying. And we should be coming up with our own strategy, but looking at Taiwan, looking at everywhere in the world and then developing our own. So it’s up to the state governments.

I believe they should be independent. They should be working independently. That’s what gives us greater accountability. It worked up until about 1923, and then that’s been smashed and we’ve centralised more and more. So we need to get back to that competitive federalism, independent States working together. And when they’ve got data, they will have a solid plan. We’ve got to get back to truthful government that relies upon objective data.

[Mike]

Very interesting times we must continue more discussions. There’s so many questions or conversation pieces such as border control, the forthcoming Queensland elections in Australia, the economy and even football. So we can do that next time.

[Malcolm]

I look forward to it Mike. Happy to contact me anytime.

[Mike]

Senator Malcolm Roberts, thank you very much.

[Malcolm]

Thank you, Mike. All the best.

/by