One Nation supports the general principle that students should be able to finish their studies without breaking the bank. The real conversation needed though is the artificial monopoly the medical colleges hold over students in this country.
At a time when Australia is desperate for trained health professionals, medical colleges punitively restrict the amount of places available for students, denying Australians a proper supply and ensuring students have nowhere else to turn. A second look into this practice is needed.
While we’re at it, students that chose not to take the COVID injections need to be allowed to complete their studies or have their HECS debt refunded.
Transcript
One Nation supports the general principle that this MPI proposes, that students should not have to go broke to finish their studies. The medical colleges currently rely on huge numbers of students paying their own out-of-pocket costs and even making thousands of hours of unpaid placements in addition to their studies. The real conversation we need to have, though, is about the artificial monopoly the medical colleges hold over students in this country.
Australia is crying out for health professionals, and the fees to see them are too high for some people. While this is happening, the medical colleges putatively restrict the amount of places available to students, denying Australians a proper supply of trained professionals and ensuring students have nowhere else to turn. We need to have a second look at the medical colleges. And we need to have a look at the universities, who are punishing some people who have completed their academic studies and just need to do their practical courses. The universities are forcing them out because of mandates for COVID injections. That’s inhuman—three to four years work and a contract broken.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/DthftGT3j4M/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-09-06 14:47:312023-09-06 14:47:35What does Big Pharma Have to Gain?
During the May/June Senate Estimates hearings, I asked the Department of Health and Aged Care to clarify their role with the Department of Home Affairs in censoring social media posts.
Home Affairs had indicated that it relied upon the Department of Health to identify social media posts that ‘contravened Facebook/Meta’s guidelines’. This of course is just more dodging of responsibility as the agency trampling the fundamental rights of speech. Although it’s government doing the censoring, they give the social media corporations the button to push.
It turns out that when Home Affairs wanted to censor or provide information to social media platforms where posts breached the platform’s own guidelines during the COVID response, they relied upon the Department of Health to identify whether or not there was a breach. The Department of Health rarely identified posts and merely provided the information that the government decreed to be ‘correct’.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Yes. Professor Murphy, could you please clarify your department’s relationship with the Department of Home Affairs, because Home Affairs seem to think that they relied upon the Department of Health for identifying social media posts that contravened Meta’s guidelines.
Prof. Murphy: Ms Balmanno can go over that again.
Ms Balmanno: As evidence became available in terms of the nature of the virus and the nature of treatments, vaccines and all of those sorts of things and how it was being transmitted, obviously there was a growing evidence base there, and it was our job to collate that and to point to the source information, whether that be the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee, whether that be the World Health Organization or whatever it might be. We would collate that information for the Department of Home Affairs. That would be what they were able to the then assess posts against. But ultimately the assessment is against the social media platform’s own policies about what is appropriate and not appropriate to be put onto their platforms. They each have a published policy, so they would use our evidence base to inform that decision and assess against those policies. Where they felt there was a breach and a post or an account was putting forward information that was not consistent with those policies, they would refer that to the social media company to look at.
Senator Roberts: Let me clarify, then, to make sure I’ve got the understanding. Home Affairs wanted to censor or provide information to social media platforms where a post breached a social media platform’s own guidelines, and they relied upon you to identify whether there was a breach.
Ms Balmanno: We were part of informing that, in that—
Senator Roberts: Who else was part?
Ms Balmanno: My point is the elements that we were able to contribute to were whether if, for example, they were making a referral specifically because they thought the information was false and was disinformation being deliberately promulgated to cause harm, they would use the evidence sources that we had collated for them to make that assessment and say, ‘According to all of this published research or according to the views of the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee and the position in Australia, here is the evidence we are pointing to to suggest that this post is incorrect.’ So we would help provide that evidence. That was our role.
Senator Roberts: So you didn’t identify posts; you just provided evidence when Home Affairs asked for the evidence?
Mr Blackwood: Yes, we were proactive in providing it if there were something not covered—
Senator Roberts: So you sometimes did identify posts?
Ms Balmanno: We were proactive in providing evidence as new evidence came to light and adding to the evidence base. If there were an issue they come across that they thought was incorrect—for example, the idea that 5G was causing COVID was one of the early ones that we did a lot of referrals in relation to—and if we didn’t already have that in the evidence base, they would obviously check that with us in terms of an evidence assessment, and that would be added to it.
Senator Roberts: So it was a hybrid role, then. Sometimes you identifies posts—
Ms Balmanno: We very rarely identified posts.
Senator Roberts: But sometimes you did.
Ms Balmanno: We probably have a handful of examples where we identified posts, and I have agreed to take that on notice.
Ten medical professionals have had their registrations suspended by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) simply because they spoke out about the COVID injection risks — 4 doctors, 5 nurses and 1 pharmacist.
Even now, AHPRA officials remain in denial about the risks that these injections pose, despite the growing body of evidence that contradicts the marketing slogan of safe and effective.
Australians forced against their will into getting these shots to continue their job, education or see family and loved ones did not have the benefit of ‘honest advice’. Although they should have been able to freely discuss their needs, they were not given this opportunity because the statement AHPRA put out to clarify existing health advice and media coverage around it served to effectively muzzle healthcare providers through fear.
At no time did the agencies involved in providing public health advice reassure medical professionals or their patients that they still had the right to privacy and confidentiality. Patients receiving medical advice before undergoing treatment were entitled to be warned of risk.
Let’s not forget these injections were only provisionally approved due to the experimental nature of the mRNA and vector technology. If our best and brightest medical professionals are feeling silenced by government bodies that will punish any criticism of novel medicines, what have we become?
We now know the jab roll-out is a military/health response which is why it by-passed the usual safety protocols. These were products that were not ready to be injected into the arms of people and yet the only ones protected are the manufacturers.
It’s time for the Health Minister, AHPRA, TGA and ATAGI to loosen the stranglehold they have on our healthcare professionals and let them be free to do their jobs. Australians deserve nothing less.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Thank you for appearing today, Mr Fletcher. How many health practitioners has AHPRA suspended for being outspoken, contrary to the joint statement of 9 March 2021?
Mr Fletcher: In relation to concerns that we’ve received about any aspect of the conduct of a practitioner related to COVID-19, 31 registered health practitioners have been suspended since the commencement of the pandemic, and 10 of those suspensions were solely with reference to a breach or an alleged breach of the code of conduct related to the vaccination statement. Just to complete that: that’s four medical practitioners, five nurses and one pharmacist.
Senator Roberts: How many health practitioners have had their registration cancelled because of being outspoken contrary to the joint position statement of 9 March 2021?
Mr Fletcher: I might ask the general counsel, Dr Jamie Orchard, to join me, because, just to remind you, neither AHPRA nor the Medical Board nor any of the boards have the power to cancel the registration of a health practitioner. A suspension is an interim measure while we investigate the concerns.
Senator Roberts: Who has the power to cancel it?
Mr Fletcher: That’s done by the independent tribunal within each state and territory. If we have a concern that there is professional misconduct, which is the most serious finding we can make, we then have to refer that to the tribunal, and it’s only the tribunal who can make a decision about cancellation. We’ve got five tribunal outcomes to date, but I’ll just ask Dr Orchard to give you the details.
Dr Orchard: So far a number of matters have been referred to tribunal in respect of practitioners relating to COVID related issues. We have five decisions so far from the tribunals. We can’t go into the details of the other matters because they’re still pending before the tribunals. Those matters relate to one dentist whose registration was suspended and a registered nurse who was disqualified. There was another registered nurse who had been the subject of suspension from the board but was not suspended by the tribunal. There was an enrolled nurse whose registration was suspended for 11 months. There is one final matter, where the tribunal has found professional misconduct but hasn’t yet decided on the sanction.
Senator Roberts: All five are associated with COVID?
Dr Orchard: All related to COVID in some way, but not necessarily solely in relation to making antivaccination statements.
Senator Roberts: How many health practitioners have either been suspended or had their registration cancelled because they made statements that supported the use of ivermectin in the context of treatment of COVID-19?
Dr Orchard: We’d have to take that on notice and have a look.
Senator Roberts: In the 9 March 2021 position statement, it threatens regulatory action for criticising the COVID-19 injections and/or the national immunisation campaign. Is that still in effect?
Mr Fletcher: Senator, the statement you refer to, just to remind you of the context, was issued by all of the 15 national boards with AHPRA.
Senator Roberts: It’s a joint statement.
Mr Fletcher: So it’s a joint statement. Essentially, it was issued in response to queries from practitioners about their obligations in relation to COVID-19 and vaccination, and the statement essentially aims to make clear how existing obligations on a registered health practitioner, through codes of conduct and the like, applied in the context of COVID-19 and vaccination. That statement is still in force.
Senator Roberts: When can we expect this statement to be amended or removed in light of the best available medical scientific advice, which now shows the COVID-19 vaccines, the injections, to be unsafe and not effective? The risk-benefit is undoubtedly terrible.
Mr Fletcher: The statement has always been aligned with the public health advice at the time. We look to jurisdictional health departments, the TGA and ATAGI as the primary sources of public health advice. We will certainly be consulting with them in the near future about the current status of that public health advice and whether any amendment to that statement is needed.
Senator Roberts: Health practitioners like the GPs I’m about to mention—they’ve given me permission to use their names—Dr Mark Hobart, 19 months; GP registrar Dr William Bay, nine months; and emergency department registered nurse Beulah Martin, 11 months, continue to have their health practitioner registration suspended for allegedly engaging in conduct not supportive of the COVID-19 injections. Why are they still being punished?
Mr Fletcher: We’re going to need to be a bit careful about what we say publicly about individual matters, but I’ll just ask Dr Orchard to comment about what we can say publicly about at least two of the practitioners you’ve named there.
Senator Roberts: The context is why they are still being punished in regard to what’s now emerging about the injections?
Mr Fletcher: Let me ask Dr Orchard to explain what we can say publicly.
Dr Orchard: Senator, the action in respect of any practitioners—including those that you’ve mentioned—that was taken by the relevant boards at the time to suspend those practitioners was taken pursuant to the provisions of the national law, either for the purpose of preventing serious risk or in the public interest, and that’s the basis on which they were suspended at the time. Those matters are currently still before the courts because there are appeals going on in respect of each of them, so we can’t really go into further detail while the matters are still being considered by the courts.
Senator Roberts: Let’s come back to national law in a minute. Despite lengthy delays in investigation and AHPRA’s commitment to the Senate to achieve timely investigations and keeping in mind that the section 156 suspension powers under so-called national law are meant to be only an emergency and temporary measure for the most serious of threats to the health and safety of the public, how long can we expect AHPRA to keep maintaining the suspension of doctors, nurses and medical professionals around Australia who have expressed concerns regarding these vaccines, these injections, when now, in light of the best available evidence, those concerns are well justified? You have been suppressing medical professionals giving their honest advice and forcing them to go against the Hippocratic oath or to surrender.
Mr Fletcher: I reject the assertion you made that we have in any way been censoring practitioners. What we have said in that statement is that we expect that people dealing with patients use the best available evidence and their clinical judgement. That is an obligation that has been in the code of conduct for health practitioners that predates COVID-19. There is no change in that. Suspension is an interim measure while we investigate, and it has to meet a legal threshold under that national law. Sometimes one of the reasons that suspension is extended or takes a period of time is because a practitioner exercises the right to appeal their suspension, either to a tribunal or a court. Obviously, while those appeals are underway, we put our work on hold. Essentially, the suspension is there, as I say, on the one hand to allow us to ensure there is appropriate public protection meeting a legal threshold under the national law while we investigate each case.
Senator Roberts: Are you aware that some of the country’s best medical people, best specialists, are telling me that they are silent and changing their behaviour because they are suppressed by AHPRA? Are you aware of that?
Mr Fletcher: I have read the commentary on that, yes.
Prof. Murphy: I’ll make a comment. Senator Roberts keeps asserting that there’s new evidence that the vaccines are not safe or effective. We completely refute that suggestion.
Senator Roberts: I knew you would.
Prof. Murphy: There is no credible scientific evidence that the vaccines, other than—
Senator Roberts: That’s a false statement.
Prof. Murphy: No, I’m going on the best available scientific evidence, and I do not think you should be able to make that statement continually.
Senator Roberts: I will keep making the statement based on science.
Senator Gallagher: It cannot be left unchallenged.
Senator Roberts: He can challenge it, but I’m not going to quit.
Chair: Senator Roberts, I was listening carefully. Before you ask your last question, I am going to remind you that it is important that you put these as questions rather than as statements. I believe you did that with your last question, but the question before was a sentence without a question at the end of it. I think it is appropriate in that case for the witnesses at the table to respond, but the best way is to put questions and then we can hear answers.
Senator Roberts: I am happy to show you my questions.
Chair: Senator Roberts, I was listening carefully. I am happy to have a discussion if I have misheard, but in the question before your last question I didn’t hear a question; I heard a statement. You have a supplementary question, and I remind you that it assists the process of the committee if we frame questions for answers, as I’ve said from the start.
Senator Roberts: Many health practitioners have been suspended under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. Is it not true that such a singular national law does not exist, and that the national law is not a Commonwealth law at all but a collection of state based health laws such as the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) and the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria)?
Mr Fletcher: I defer to my general counsel to talk about the legal construct of the national scheme.
Dr Orchard: You’re correct in saying that it’s not a Commonwealth law; it’s not. It is a cooperative piece of legislation amongst the various states and territories of Australia. The legislation was initially passed, and any amendments that are passed are passed through the Queensland parliament and then the various states and territories have different mechanisms by which they apply both the original law and any amendments to that law in their own jurisdiction.
Senator Roberts: Thank you for confirming. If so, how can AHPRA accurately and lawfully enforce one national law across Australia, when in fact it is not a national law but many state laws, each with its own amendments, across each state and territory of this Commonwealth? We have state laws being enforced by a national body that’s responsible to the states.
Dr Orchard: I will say, when you talk about the differences, there are very limited differences across the various jurisdictions. It does operate largely as a single national law across the country, subject to some exceptions of course. We ensure that, in the course of our regulatory role in applying that law, we do so consistently across the country so that it operates in a sense in a seamless way and practitioners who operate in one jurisdiction are able to move into another jurisdiction and continue their profession without having to worry about the difference in the state laws that might apply to them.
Chair: Senator Roberts, I’m passing the call to the opposition.
In the Senate recently, I remarked on the Therapeutic Goods Administration’s handling of the pharmaceutical products imported as part of the COVID response.
Australia needs to know the Who, Where and How of COVID injection safety.
The Senate hearing held last week demonstrated the endemic level of contempt within pharma. We witnessed both Pfizer and Moderna failing to answer even simple questions and hiding behind pharma execs with scripts written by lawyers to the point that it became farcical.
The TGA took these same pharmaceutical companies word on safety testing. On 409 occasions, the TGA ticked and flicked the COVID injection batches and failed in its duty to safeguard the health and safety of Australians.
We need a COVID Royal Commission to investigate and provide much needed answers and assurances for the future. We need it now.
Transcript
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today relating to COVID-19 vaccinations.
It’s my duty as a senator to ensure the safety of the many different people who make up our one Queensland and Australian community. It’s a duty every senator shares. Yet COVID injection safety was bungled so badly we’re now experiencing tens of thousands of injection related excess deaths, and many more Australians have serious damage to their health.
On four occasions now I have detailed to the Senate peer-reviewed and published papers that show the COVID injections were granted approval under fraudulent circumstances; do not comply with good manufacturing process and were made with a high level of contaminants that should have caused a batch to fail testing; are responsible for fatal adverse events numbering far more than the database has tracked, let alone than the pharmaceutical salesmen at the TGA will admit to; and are causing serious damage at rates that make a tragic joke of TGA guidance.
How did all this get past the TGA safety testing? Simple answer: the TGA took Pfizer’s word about COVID injection safety during application. Then the TGA took Pfizer’s word for the safety of each batch as it arrived. Why? And what do we have the TGA for? That’s 409 times the TGA ticked and flicked the COVID injection vouchers without conducting its own testing. What makes this criminal is that sequencing a vaccine sample takes a few hours and costs very little. These days, this is a routine test.
Last Thursday night, One Nation’s bill to prevent vaccine mandates in the workplace and a similar Liberal-National bill were the subjects of a Senate inquiry hearing. Pfizer and Moderna had the opportunity to address concerns and instead chose to deliver what were apparently lawyers’ scripts that failed to answer a single question that was not already public knowledge. This was foreign multinational pharmaceutical companies showing complete contempt for the Senate and thereby contempt for the Australian people.
Surely now the Senate can see what it will take to get to the truth. Call a royal commission now.
The Australian, American, British & Canadian military forces formed this consortium to dominate COVID response.
Australia joined the consortium in 2012 under the Labor-Gillard government.
A military-pharmaceutical apparatus linking the USA, Australia, Canada and the UK.
Operation Warp Speed: The US Department of Defense signed the first contract between the US government and Pfizer for the purchase of US$11 billion dollars worth of vaccines.
We know our Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) did not review stage 2/3 trial data and instead relied on the US FDA, which took Pfizer’s word for how the trials went!
Pfizer committed systemic fraud during its trials, which has come out now through whistle-blowers’ testimony and in the release of Pfizer’s own data.
Pfizer, it seems, gave the US government the vaccine they asked for. It was developed using gain of function research in conjunction with Wuhan in China and, of course, Anthony Fauci. The military-pharmaceutical in action.
These are matters to be dealt with in a Royal Commission. The Royal Commission that was promised by the Albanese government.
Call a Royal Commission into COVID now!
Transcript
As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, tonight I speak to an aspect of COVID-19 I haven’t raised before. Information now in the public domain indicates the COVID response was not initiated through commercial interests but, rather, through an organisation called the Medical Countermeasures Consortium that Australia joined in 2012. According to Australia’s defence.gov.au website, the Medical Countermeasures Consortium is a four-nation partnership involving the defence and health departments of Australia, Canada, United Kingdom and the United States. ‘The consortium seeks to develop medical countermeasures to assist with … chemical and radiological threats affecting civilian and military populations and on emerging infectious diseases and pandemics.’ It includes drugs and diagnostics. Who knew we had a military pharmaceutical apparatus linking the United States, Australia, Canada and the UK, in place since the Gillard Labor government—an AUKUS for pandemics?
The consortium maintains a compensation scheme for people injured as a result of taking a countermeasure. Compensation claims were accepted for the 2009 H1N1 vaccine, the anthrax vaccine and flu vaccines. The medical countermeasures unit within the United States Department of Defense has been in the vaccine business for many years and has been injuring people for many years—and getting away with it. So it should come as no surprise that the American Department of Defense signed the first contract between the United States government and Pfizer for the purchase of $11 billion worth of vaccines. President Trump gave the order to the Department of Defense to commence vaccine development and even gave it a cool name: Operation Warp Speed.
President Trump reacted, as we in this place reacted, with the best of intentions and the worst of data. Intelligence was used that our security apparatus knew or should have known was wrong. Videos from China of people dropping dead have proven to be fakes produced with the assistance of Chinese intelligence, and they may not have acted alone. These videos should not have made it to the decision-making process in the West. How that happened—how so much fraudulent information was offered to elected members—is a matter for a royal commission. The United States has already started multiple congressional hearings and court cases that will eventually yield the truth. Australia must play its part in this process—our part, for we are truly all in this together to the very end. There are doors to be kicked down, and this time it will not be the doors of everyday Australians, guilty of no crime, who merely spoke the truth on social media.
The United States response to COVID brought the Medical Countermeasures Consortium into the process at a very, very early stage. Australia’s military were involved early, providing assistance including crowd control, border quarantine, contact tracing and medical personnel—things one would expect the military to help with.
Former Prime Minister and profligate officeholder Scott Morrison shuttered the COAG system because it was open and transparent—COAG being the Council of Australian Governments. COAG was not just a single meeting; COAG was a secretariat with committees, including a health committee, liaising across local councils and state and federal government. Although not a constitutional instrument, this COAG structure was very well positioned to administer our COVID response. Why was it abolished and replaced with a military pharmaceutical apparatus? I hope the royal commission asks that question. In place of COAG, Mr Morrison created a secretive so-called National Cabinet, consisting of only the state premiers and territory chief ministers. What was the secret so important that a well-functioning apparatus like COAG had to be demolished and the truth gagged for 30 years?
Mr Morrison then appointed a serving military officer, Lieutenant General Frewen, to run Australia’s vaccine rollout, rebranded as—wait for it—Operation COVID Shield. The United Kingdom responded to COVID in March 2020 with a massive military operation called Operation Rescript. This moved 23,000 military personnel into a new unit called the COVID support operation, under British powers known as military aid to civilian authorities, MACA. Command of this large military force remained with the military. And Canada—what of Canada? Canada called in the Canadian Armed Forces with ‘unprecedented measures’—their words, not mine—under operations LASER and VECTOR.
It’s clear the Medical Countermeasures Consortium agreement, which the Gillard Labor government signed in 2012, was designed to make pandemic response a military operation, not a civilian health operation. This should have been clear in July 2021, when General Frewen took to the microphone in full military uniform. Australia saw military checkpoints at borders, military guarding medical facilities, military in their hardware on the streets of Sydney and Melbourne locking people in their homes. All of this created a climate of fear and intimidation that facilitated acceptance of the COVID injection. Was this the plan? Has the pharmaceutical industry now donned fatigues?
Did our civilian health authorities stand up for established medical principles, based on the Hippocratic oath to prescribe only beneficial treatment? No, they did not. We know our Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA, did not review the Pfizer stage II and III clinical trial data and instead relied on the American FDA’s paperwork. We know the FDA didn’t review the data and instead took Pfizer’s word for how the trials went. Surely the TGA knew this. If it did, the TGA’s complicit. If it didn’t know, the TGA is hopelessly or wilfully negligent. It’s misfeasance.
Pfizer committed systemic fraud during their clinical trials, with whistleblowers revealing only healthy adult participants were recruited for a stage II/III clinical trial of a vaccine that was intended for the sick and elderly; trial duration was grossly insufficient to capture medium-term and long-term side effects like myocarditis; to drown out the number of adverse events being recorded among real participants, fake participants were created who recorded zero side effects; patients who suffered serious side effects were removed from the study and never existed in the paperwork; and the COVID injection was not tested on pregnant women, and women who fell pregnant were removed from the study before childbirth. The COVID injection was then recommended for pregnant women. How could any human do this? This is inhuman, and it’s monsters that did it. Why did Pfizer think they could get away with the most crooked clinical trial in history? Could an answer to this question be found in testimony of a Pfizer executive to US Congress? They made a comment that Pfizer gave the US government the vaccine the government asked for and so claimed Pfizer is not liable for the adverse events.
The military appears to have been involved in the cover-up of COVID’s origins. It’s now clear that COVID was developed during gain-of-function research in China’s Wuhan Institute for Virology, connected with the Chinese military. Who funded this research in China? The United States National Institutes of Health, under Anthony Fauci. Canada and Australia were involved in this research. In 2020, the CSIRO put out a press release not only admitting their gain-of-function research but defending it. I’ve spoken on that previously. After a series of lab escapes involving pathogens at the headquarters of America’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—the CDC—in Georgia, President Obama in 2014 suspended gain-of-function research. Anthony Fauci ignored the president’s order and moved the research offshore to Wuhan, China.
Gain-of-function research is countermeasure research. It’s the same process of finding and manipulating pathogens to produce a new virus—a Frankenstein virus. Once the virus is deadly enough, a vaccine is prepared, and then the whole thing is put on shelf in case an enemy or nature deploys that virus. Once the virus appears in the population, vaccines can be deployed, at a price, of course, because after all this is the corporate United States, racked with parasitic globalist predators.
In the early stages of COVID development and escape, did our medical countermeasure apparatus act independently of government? This is a question for a royal commission. Did anyone in this country accept orders from the United States military to do or not do a thing that may have interfered with this military pharmaceutical plan? That’s another question for a royal commission. Let me be clear: Australia has a long and enviable history of using our military to assist in civilian disasters to the benefit of all. If the need arises again, we should not hesitate to allow our military to help out again. The military should not be used against law-abiding civilians or against healthy civilians for the purposes of forced injections to transfer wealth to big pharma. What we saw was forced injection of people after succumbing to the threat of deprivation of their family’s livelihood and their ability to feed children. Fear, intimidation, blackmail and threats of loss of income and home are elements of force—inhuman force.
I have repeatedly said that COVID-19 was severely mismanaged, because it was never about health. It was about control of people and wealth transfer using deceit—deceit that’s inhuman, monstrously inhuman. We must know whether our TGA, in waving through a vaccine countermeasure that would not have been approved under normal circumstances, bowed to higher powers. Was this a military pharmaceutical operation or a civilian health operation? These are matters ordinarily dealt with in a royal commission. The Albanese Labor government broke its pre-election promise to have a royal commission. If it continues to break its promise, it will be complicit in hiding truth from the people, truth that is slowly yet relentlessly and inevitably coming out. Call the bloody royal commission now.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Die1Aeax1Tw/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-08-09 17:02:112023-08-09 17:33:43Did the Medical Countermeasures Consortium run COVID?
Minister Gallagher seemed to misunderstand the last question on both opportunities to answer it. She did not answer what happens with other medicines. She and others present around her made faces and lipreading Minister Wong would be interesting.
Minister Gallagher’s unguarded expressions give viewers the impression that she felt the question was inappropriate. She only wanted to talk about COVID emergency and repeat the tired pharma marketing messages.
Who does the batch testing? Not the safety testing which is part of vaccine approval.
Who is responsible for testing batches of medicines for quality when they are imported into Australia?
These are questions the Australian public are entitled to know the answers to because our lives depend on it. They are not impositions on ministers. They are part of the job of serving the best interests of the people.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: My question is to the Minister representing the minister for health, Senator Gallagher. Minister, the COVID batch release assessment for each COVID vaccine batch is produced after testing each batch. Who performed the test?
Senator Gallagher: This would have been work led by the TGA, but I will see if I can find further information about whether or not they were assisted by other laboratories. I imagine they were, as part of that work, but I will check and see if there’s anything further I can provide to Senator Roberts.
The President: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary?
Senator Roberts: If an Australian laboratory acting on behalf of the Australian government has not tested the COVID vaccines, we could be buying adulterated product, mislabelled product or saline. How do the people and how does the Senate know what’s in the vaccines?
Senator Gallagher: It’s because it will go through the TGA’s established processes—that’s why. There would be significant checking of those arrangements with laboratories doing that work. This isn’t something that would be just left to a laboratory saying, ‘I’ve done it,’ and it being ticked off. The quality and safety measures that would be put in place by the TGA in getting those approvals are thorough. As we have seen through the rollout of the vaccine, the vaccine is safe and effective. We’ve seen that over the last three years after it was rolled out and millions and millions of vaccines have been provided through the vaccine rollout program, including the fact that we are now seeing significantly less severe disease or loss of life from— (Time expired)
The President: Senator Roberts, a second supplementary?
Senator Roberts: How many other vaccines or schedule 4 drugs are being imported into Australia in a situation where the safety testing was on the honour system, allowing the drug company or manufacturer to provide their own safety testing?
Senator Gallagher: For a start, I don’t accept that it was done on an honour system. I do accept that in relation to the COVID vaccine process it was a shortened process because of the urgency and the crisis that the world was in, as the pandemic rolled through. It required the vaccine being created, and then—
The President: Senator Roberts, a point of order?
Senator Roberts: Thank you, President. My question was about other vaccines or schedule 4 drugs, not the COVID vaccines.
The President: I think the minister went to that, but I will remind her of that part of your question.
Senator Gallagher: I guess the point I’m making, Senator Roberts, is it was a highly unusual situation to be in. I think everyone’s acknowledged that the process around the approvals for the COVID vaccine were different and had been shortened, when compared to the approvals for other drugs. That is reflective of the fact that we were in a global pandemic and millions of people were dying from the effects of COVID and that we needed a vaccine in place to protect the community, and that’s actually what happened through the TGA’s approval processes.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ZpFxx0z8jIA/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-08-08 10:52:292023-08-08 16:35:34How bad is my batch just morphed into how bad is my Minister for Health!
Multiple peer-reviewed data coming to light in the wake of COVID demonstrate clearly how COVID medical interventions do more harm than good — far more harm. That ATAGI is not doing its job properly and is still persisting in supporting this ‘snake oil’ from pharmaceutical giants beggars belief.
In this video I review the latest data from peer-reviewed journals and from empirical data to show just how bad a situation we are now in.
Testing of samples of the vaccine show contamination with genetic material unrelated to the vaccine is ten times higher than approved levels. We have no understanding of the epidemiological effects in the years or generations to come. The direct link between COVID ‘vaccination’ and neonatal harm in Scotland is causing heartbreak and regret. It’s been found that one in 35 people who received a Moderna booster shot experienced myocarditis, not the 1 in 33,000 the TGA accepts.
ABS mortality data allows us a glimpse into just how bad the problem that nobody wants to acknowledge really is. In April this year we saw excess mortality of 27% above accepted level. 30,000 more people have died in Australia during the last 12 months than expected.
As a result of these excessively high rates of adverse events, a highly respected veteran oncologist, Prof. Angus Dalgliesh, has added his voice to the call for the immediate suspension of COVID vaccines. In his opinion the injections are related to the current unprecedented increase in cancers around the world.
One Nation could not agree more. We need a COVID Royal Commission today.
Transcript
As a servant of the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, tonight I’m going to speak about the need for a royal commission into the federal government’s response to COVID-19. Here are the latest reasons why, all coming to light since the last Senate sitting.
Firstly, there is the Pfizer ‘fakecine’ and malignant lymphomas. An article published in the journal Frontiers in Oncology in May asked if the emergence of malignant lymphoma, commonly called turbo cancer, was an adverse event caused by the COVID vaccine—the COVID injection. Researchers injected 14 mice with saline and 14 with the Pfizer COVID product. All the mice given the saline remained healthy. The mice injected with Pfizer appeared healthy. However, one died suddenly two days after the booster dose was administered. An autopsy revealed: ‘B-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma following the intravenous high-dose MRNA vaccination, at age 14 weeks.’ The autopsy further found:
… diffuse malignant infiltration of multiple extranodal organs (heart, lung, liver, kidney, spleen) by lymphoid neoplasm.
How many more of these studies showing fatal outcomes from the COVID products are needed before this government accepts our 30,000 excess deaths in the last 12 months are, in part, caused by these injections?
Secondly, one in 35 recipients of a Moderna COVID booster experienced myocarditis. According to the TGA, myocarditis is a very rare adverse outcome of the COVID injections, occurring at the rate of one in 33,000. A gold-standard, peer-reviewed study by leading cardiologists at the Basel University Hospital in Switzerland found that the rate of myocarditis serious enough to place the patient under restricted activity was not one in 33,000 but one in 35. Forty-four of the 777 participants were found with cardiac troponin markers in their blood at levels that showed their hearts were damaged, and that damage could not have resulted from any other factor but the Pfizer injection. Those same patients demonstrated reduced antibodies against viral and bacterial infections, as against an unvaccinated cohort. The average age of the subjects was only 37 years. This is an age when a heart attack is far from their minds. It’s an age when someone would get the injection and then go about their life, including exercising, and in so doing risk serious heart complications or even being another ‘died suddenly’ statistic. ‘Safe’ and ‘effective’ were two lies.
Third, hospital deaths from respiratory failure increased after the COVID products were at 90 per cent. This is data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare on the ECMO protocol. ECMO was a controversial and experimental intensive care treatment for COVID. Protocols dictated that GPs were not allowed to treat patients in the community with antibiotics—not allowed! Instead, they were told to go home without treatment until they could not breathe. Instead of receiving antibiotics in the community, as they should have, they got sicker and sicker and developed pneumonia. Then they were put on ECMO, and then some of them died. The rate of ECMO protocol use rose from 12,000 in 2020 and 2021 to 18,000 in 2022, despite a 90 per cent COVID injection rate. Many in those cases resulted in death. We can add to this the growing list to data showing that COVID products did more harm than good. Peer reviewed papers show that.
The fourth item is plasmidgate: the vaccines may be contaminated. Leading virologists have tested the contents of the Pfizer vaccines and found they did not meet the standards set out by the FDA for contaminants. COVID vaccines contain mRNA strands, which are grown in a vat using a derivative of E. coli as the base solution. Contaminants from that process are removed and the remaining DNA strands are then encased in a protein, called a lipid nanoparticle, to protect the strand. It is impossible to completely remove contaminants, so the FDA and Australia have set a maximum standard for safety of 10 nanograms per dose. Samples tested had contamination of 330 nanograms per dose, 33 times above safe levels. Even worse, some of that contaminant was encased in lipid nanoparticles, protecting the E. coli derived genetic material and introducing that into subjects—into people. We don’t know the side effects resulting from this genetic material being taken up by the body, and that is malfeasance. It is deliberate ignorance to maintain the safe and effective lie.
Fifth, Scottish data shows a clear correlation between COVID injections and neonatal deaths. Data from Scotland shows a clear correlation between the rate of COVID injection in mothers and the rate of neonatal deaths nine months later. Deaths rose in line with vaccination rates and then fell once the booster rate fell. One correlation can be significant, but a correlation between both the increase in injections and then the decrease in injections is telling.
Sixth, excess deaths in Australia are 27 per cent above expected levels. That’s more than a quarter. Perhaps we do know the side effects of this malfeasance by the TGA and the Department of Health. The Australian Bureau of Statistics provisional mortality figures to April 2023 show mortality is running at 12.3 per cent above the expected level. But, wait, there’s more. When I asked the Australian Bureau of Statistics about this data at Senate estimates, the ABS were very clear in saying this data only shows 85 per cent of the deaths. It’s provisional. It is entirely correct to add that to the provisional mortality figure, meaning excess mortality in Australia in April this year was 27 per cent above where it has been since the COVID injections—about where it has been since the COVID injections started. Around 30,000 more Australians have died in the last 12 months than were expected to die, yet this body count is being ignored by our health authorities, by our parliament and by our media.
Seventh, Professor Angus Dalgleish has called for the COVID injections to be suspended. Highly respected veteran consulting oncologist Professor Angus Dalgleish has called for the immediate suspension of COVID vaccines because of the high rate of adverse events. The professor went on to say:
I have no doubt that the vaccines are associated with the current increase in cancers that are being witnessed around the world.
… they suppress the innate and T-cell system, making your body much weaker at defending itself from new viruses … This also has the additional effect of disturbing the T-cell surveillance of dominant cancers.
… the message RNA of the spike of the vaccine binds to genes that normally control cancer
… It is high time that patients and the medical profession rose against the dreadful imposition of what was essentially mandatory vaccine with no informed consent.
They’re the professor’s words. One Nation could not agree more. We agree entirely. It’s time for a royal commission. I call on the Prime Minister to call the COVID royal commission today.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/TJssznrNpBE/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-08-07 17:23:492023-08-07 17:23:53The Royal Commission Promised by PM Albanese Must Happen
Watch as I question Pfizer representatives in this Senate Hearing.
The company was very reluctant to attend the committee hearing and also reluctant to supply a straight answer, automatically falling back on their ‘safe and effective’ mantra to dodge answering the question.
Already, this Senate Hearing revealed that Pfizer is rewriting history on transmission of infection.
We’re supposed to conveniently forget they said “get it to protect others, to save grandma” and “when you’re vaccinated the virus stops with you”.
They’re hiding behind their indemnity contract with our government and dodging responsibility.
ATAGI and the Australian governments must stop pushing these unsafe and ineffective shots and drop the destructive mandates now.
If you’re interested in the hearing from all speakers at this AMPS event, including internationally-renowned cardiologist, Dr Aseem Malhotra, watch below.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Gc5mGfWUCPE/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-07-20 16:57:412023-07-25 15:51:14My Speech at Curing the Corruption of Medicine – A New Beginning
At Senate Estimates I asked the Australian Bureau of Statistics about the accuracy of the data they publish.
Many Australians, politicians, government officials and media should be watching the ABS data for signals that there could be a problem with our COVID response. Births and deaths would be the main indicators.
The ABS are slow in producing this data and don’t appear to understand that these datasets should be produced faster than pre COVID times.
In addition, the ABS has been loading incomplete data and not labelling it as such. After this was pointed out to them during our last senate estimates, the dataset referenced was changed to include the label “incomplete”.
How many other datasets are labelled as final when in fact they are incomplete?
The answers showed that the data for Provisional Mortality only includes doctor-certified deaths (which we knew) but that the comparison baseline includes ALL deaths, including coroner-certified deaths (which we didn’t).
This means the ABS has not been comparing apples with apples, and the figure for Provisional Mortality understates actual deaths by 15%.
What this means is that unexplained deaths in Australia is over 30,000 in 2022. Around 10,000 of those are attributed to COVID.
What are the other 20,000 deaths?
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Thank you all for appearing today. My first questions go to accuracy of data. In the last estimates session, we had a conversation around the accuracy of one of your datasets. I want to follow up on that. The dataset is births by year and month of occurrence by state. It’s available in your Data Explorer. The conversation was around the reduction in births shown towards the end of 2021, and that reduction was quite dramatic. I accept your position that this effect is caused by delays in reporting of birth, and a lot of December’s reports came through in January. Is this correct so far?
Dr Gruen: That is correct. There’s a pattern, which is repeated every year, which is that the first unrevised estimate of births in December is of the order of 6,000 or 7,000, and then, once you have the final numbers, the final numbers are of the order of 22,000 or 23,000. So, there is an enormous revision for precisely the reason you just mentioned—namely, not everyone has recorded the birth of their child. I think they have other things on their mind than making sure that the ABS gets its numbers right.
Senator Roberts: The dataset is titled ‘birth by month of occurrence’, not ‘births by month of reporting’. 2021 data was not available until 19 October 2022. Why was 10 months insufficient time to completely compile the full 2021 calendar year? I note that December is still showing 6,600 births against an expected 20,000 in your Data Explorer, as you’ve just said. Why is this data still incomplete 17 months later—and still wrong?
Dr Gruen: It’s unrevised; I wouldn’t use the word ‘wrong’. The answer is we have a schedule of births which has been the same schedule for an extended period. We haven’t yet got the revised numbers for 2021, but, when we do, we have a pretty good idea of the order of magnitude that they’ll be. This hasn’t changed. We’ve be doing it on this timetable for many years.
Senator Roberts: The database now carries a warning—thank you for this—’incomplete data’. Have you made a note of where else incomplete data is being loaded into your Data Explorer and ensured incomplete data warnings are attached as you load that data?
Dr Gruen: We provide preliminary data for a range of series, and we did more of that during COVID because we thought it was important for people who were making decisions to have the most up-to-date data that they could possibly have. So, we brought forward some releases, understanding that they would not be complete, and we were transparent about that. It is certainly the case that revisions are part of producing statistics, whether it’s births or the national accounts. The national accounts also get revised. It’s a common feature. We do not revise the quarterly CPI because there are legislative indexation arrangements. Again, it’s a longstanding practice that we do not revise the CPI, but, for many other series, revisions are a standard practice.
Senator Roberts: I don’t think anyone would complain, Dr Gruen, about data needing to be revised. Maybe the speed of it might be something we might inquire about, but what I was getting to was: are there any other datasets on your Data Explorer that need the words ‘incomplete data’ as a warning? Bad decisions are made off bad data, and it becomes misinformation.
Dr Gruen: I don’t think it’s misinformation. We are as transparent as we can possibly be about the nature of the data. For instance, we put out provisional data for deaths, which we have actually discussed in previous estimates hearings.
Senator Roberts: Yes.
Dr Gruen: That is based on the available information two months after the end of the reference period, and those are also revised subsequently. When we first started producing that data, again, that was during the early phase of COVID. We did it purely on the basis of doctor certified deaths, which is about 80 to 85 per cent of overall deaths. We’ve managed to include some coroner certified deaths in that series, but it’s still incomplete when it’s first published two months after the period. So there are several datasets where we are very clear about the fact that they’re not the final data and that extra data will come in for the period that we’re talking about.
Senator Roberts: I’m advised that the incomplete data warning arrived after our session last time.
Dr Gruen: That is possible.
Senator Roberts: So I’m just wondering if there are any others. The dataset ‘Causes of Death, Australia’ for calendar year 2021 was released in October last year. Can you confirm that 2022 will be released no later than October this year?
Dr Gruen: I’m sure there’ll be someone here who can tell you for sure. Around October is when we publish the annual data for the previous year, but we can take that on notice and give you an answer, for sure.
Senator Roberts: The provisional mortality figure is still showing that deaths are running above the previous known range. Has the ABS received any request from any minister or department—federal or state—for an explanation of where the increase is or what data the ABS has which could cast light on that substantial increase in mortality?
Dr Gruen: We do talk about provisional deaths, and we do talk about what proportion of those are people who died with, or of, COVID and from other causes, so I don’t think there’s a mystery about what is happening. We get lots of requests for our data, so I can’t answer the question. Since it’s on the website—
Senator Roberts: They wouldn’t need to ask you.
Dr Gruen: That’s right.
Senator Roberts: I was just wondering, in particular, whether Health had asked, but, as you said, they don’t need to. Do you send reports routinely, or do you just publish on the website?
Dr Gruen: We publish, and we answer media inquiries. We have outposted people in many of the departments in Canberra, and we have continuing discussions with them. If a department had a specific request, it would be straightforward for them to ask us.
Senator Roberts: There’s a disparity between datasets that I would like to ask about. Starting with the publication ‘Provisional mortality statistics, Jan 2020-Dec 2021’, which was released on 30 March 2022, the key statistic is that 149,486 doctor certified deaths occurred in 2021. If I then go to your Data Explorer, the figure for ‘Deaths and infant deaths, year and month of occurrence’, shows deaths in 2021 to be 160,891.
Dr Gruen: Is the subsequent number published? The number you first quoted is the number that was available from doctor certified deaths up until the end of March, and then the second number you quoted comes from more recent data. Is that correct?
Senator Roberts: I don’t know when that was published, but it shows deaths in 2021 to be 160,891, which is higher. So, I understand the difference in deaths because some would be autopsy certified and take time to come through; is that correct?
Dr Gruen: Yes, that’s right. As we say when we publish those provisional death numbers, they are provisional. They are the data that we have available on the date at which we finalised the numbers. As I said earlier, doctor certified deaths are something like 80 to 85 per cent of all deaths, so the number goes up when you add the coroner certified deaths.
Senator Roberts: It includes the autopsies. Is the figure on this graph for the baseline average calculated using provisional mortality or using final data from the ‘Causes of Death, Australia’ dataset?
Dr Gruen: We can check, but I’m pretty confident that it’s final.
Senator Roberts: Would that then include autopsy deaths?
Dr Gruen: Yes.
Senator Roberts: Provisional mortality is a widely shared dataset that informs much debate around our COVID response. It’s running well above our historical range. From today’s exchange, we know that the figure for provisional mortality understates actual rates of mortality. Your dataset does make that clear, so this isn’t a criticism.
Dr Gruen: No.
Senator Roberts: What I would like to know is: by how much does provisional mortality understate actual mortality in percentage terms on average? I think you’re saying 85 per cent?
Dr Gruen: I think the number that we get two months after the reference period is about 85 per cent of the final number.
Senator Roberts: I’d like to go briefly to data collection. A constituent of mine in Queensland has contacted me in person during a listening session in Rockhampton just recently. This elderly lady, who is single—widowed—and lives alone had a terrifying interaction with the Australian Bureau of Statistics that raises questions about either the staff training or your understanding of the fair exercise of power. The ABS maintained a dataset called the National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey, which apparently involves Australians being selected at random to participate. The survey consists of an Australian Bureau of Statistics officer visiting the selected person’s home and taking their height, weight, blood pressure and waist measurement, which is compulsory. Then the citizen has the option of submitting a voluntary blood and urine sample. Is that correct?
Dr Gruen: I think so. I think that is correct.
Senator Roberts: The constituent in this case advised the ABS worker that she lives alone. After receiving a series of letters they thought was a joke, an ABS field worker came by her home in the dark at 6.30 pm, showed her credentials, asked for her by name and advised that the constituent must submit to the government mandated physical. When the constituent declined, she was threatened by your worker with a fine of $220 per day until she submitted to this physical examination by a complete stranger. Is that how the ABS runs its survey?
Dr Gruen: Well, I can’t comment on a specific event. We obviously do our best to treat people in a dignified way. It is true that the surveys that we run are compulsory, but we also allow for the possibility that people who have extenuating circumstances can apply not to be part of the survey, and people do do that on occasions. It is important, in order to be able to collect data that is representative, that we can indeed choose a representative sample, but it is also true that, for people who are in circumstances in which they find it particularly difficult or who are in the circumstances that you described, we are understanding.
Senator Roberts: That goes to my next question. Why can’t you get this information from hospital records for admitted patients with de-identified data? Why pull names out of a hat, knock on their door, call out for them by name and terrorise them into submission? It seems like a massive overreach when there are alternative ways of doing it. Maybe the alternative ways are not entirely random, but they could be made so, couldn’t they?
Dr Gruen: Just to make it clear: our aim is not to terrify people.
Senator Roberts: This lady was terrified.
Dr Gruen: Well, I’m sorry about that. We obviously train our interviewers to be sensitive to people. On the general issue of being able to find alternative ways to get the data, we are very much alive to those possibilities. What you’re talking about is an example of using big data instead of surveys, and there’s a worldwide move from national statistical offices to do precisely that both because the big datasets that are becoming available—there are increasing numbers of them. For instance, early in COVID we started using single-touch payroll from the tax office to be able to give high-quality, up-to-date information about employment. That’s an example of a big dataset. But it is also true that response rates around the world are falling because people are, for whatever reason, getting less happy to respond to the surveys of the national statistical offices. That’s another push factor to lead us to do precisely what you’re suggesting. Now, we haven’t accessed the particular dataset that you have talked about, but the general proposition that we are moving in the direction of using big data and taking the burden off individuals and businesses is very much a journey that we’re on.
Ms Dickinson: For some of the surveys that we run, there are not alternative sources that we could avail ourselves of, and the survey that you referred to—the nutrition survey—has quite a range of questions that we ask people before we come to the physical measurements. It’s things like diet. We ask people to recall what they have eaten and sometimes do a food diary. That’s the type of thing that we can’t get from big data and in which there’s quite a range of interests from users, including the Department of Health, Treasury and so on.
Senator Roberts: By big data you mean data that can be automatically collected or harvested from existing datasets?
Ms Dickinson: Yes, such from the example that you gave, such as hospital data.
Senator Roberts: Okay. Have you ever fined someone for refusal?
Dr Gruen: Yes. And we fine a small number of people for not filling in the census.
Senator Roberts: Yes.
Dr Gruen: But not a large number. We have 10 million households fill it in and the number of people we fine is very small.
Senator Roberts: Minister, are you happy that this elderly widow was terrified?
Senator Gallagher: I’m sure the ABS and Dr Gruen would be very happy to follow up an individual matter, if you’re able to support your constituent to raise that—if she felt vulnerable over that. I think that resolving these issues is important and there are ways to do that. I’d certainly encourage you to think about how you could facilitate that. I also totally support the need to seek this information, because it helps in so many ways to understand what’s going on. Currently, for example, I’ve been selected for one of the household surveys—I think it’s for nine months. Do you get selected for that—
Ms Connell: Eight.
Senator Gallagher: Eight months—
Chair: You can—
Senator Gallagher: It was made very clear to me when I inquired about having to do it—the compulsory nature of it—and the consequences for not filling things out every month—
Senator Ruston: They didn’t believe you when you said you were too busy, did they?
Senator Gallagher: I had very helpful advice from the ABS when I rang to try to get out of it! I was told, politely, that those were not grounds for getting out of it. But that’s how we get information about what’s happening across the country.
Senator Roberts: Yes.
Senator Gallagher: And I don’t think that anyone who’s sitting here would say that they took any comfort in thinking that an elderly woman felt terrified by it; that’s not the intent, and I’m sure there are ways to work through that.
Senator Roberts: I applaud your comments about the need to use data in government but I don’t see much of it—and I’m not talking about this government on its own, I’m talking about previous governments as well. One of the sad things is that government doesn’t use data when making policy and legislation, in my view.
Senator Gallagher: But it’s not just for government. So many people rely on the ABS datasets for their work.
Senator Roberts: Dr Gruen, you mentioned something that I took to mean people are becoming more reluctant to share data—
Dr Gruen: More reluctant to participate in surveys.
Senator Roberts: Is that due to the pushback because of—well, what is the cause? Is it due, partly or maybe majorly, to the intrusion into people’s lives during COVID?
Dr Gruen: It’s a phenomenon that predates COVID, and it’s global. It happens in all countries. I’m aware that there has been a gradual decline in response rates to surveys. We have higher response rates than most advanced countries for many of our high-profile surveys, like the Labour Force Survey, which I think must be the one the minister is enrolled in.
Senator Gallagher: Mine is the household one.
Dr Gruen: Oh, can I—
Senator Gallagher: They want to know how many people in my house, what we’re doing and how hard we’re working. I’m skewing the statistics!
Dr Gruen: That’s the Labour Force Survey.
Senator Gallagher: Is it?
Dr Gruen: We have the labour force expert behind us.
Senator Gallagher: Okay!
Senator Roberts: In which way are you skewing the statistics?
Senator Gallagher: Because I work so much! I’m off the scale!
Senator Roberts: Oh, off the scale.
Senator Gallagher: And it’s, ‘Why are you working so hard?’ I fill it all out.
Dr Gruen: On the web?
Senator Gallagher: Yes.
Dr Gruen: Good, I like to hear that.
Senator Roberts: Because a pesky senator is asking questions in Senate estimates! Thank you, Chair.
Chair: I’ve got distracted and entirely lost control of the committee!
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ktfHpyahicM/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-13 17:36:192023-06-14 15:23:57Incomplete data leads to incomplete conclusions
