Australia’s best research tool for interpreting adverse events from the COVID vaccines, plus FOI information and more. All in the one spot and it’s free.
A lot of work has gone into this resource. ‘OpenDAEN’ is an easy-to-use database of TGA-reported COVID-19 Vaccines Adverse Events (de-identified) on a non-commercial, non-profit website.
A cheap, safe, award-winning, generic medicine, one that has been around for decades and was readily available, was shown to save people’s lives during an outbreak of a virus. Do you think it was a good decision for Australia’s Therapeutic Drug Administration (TGA) to arbitrarily ban its availability and off-label prescription in order to save it for skin conditions? Why not just buy more of it?
Despite substantial bodies of evidence from around the world, Australia did not recognise the available proof supporting Ivermectin’s use because no ‘sponsor’ (read pharmaceutical company) brought it to the TGA. What they did do was convene a Commonwealth-funded Clinical Evidence ‘Kangaroo Court’ which declared Ivermectin had no value in the treatment or prevention of COVID19.
This completely ignored a generation of evidence that Ivermectin was an effective early stage treatment for coronavirus.
The TGA continued to ignore the new data that showed Ivermectin was an effective and safe early treatment for COVID until the jab rate was over 95%, then they allowed its use. Here’s the kicker — the TGA admits in this video they made this decision because they were worried that people would not seek vaccination if they believed Ivermectin could help them.
Regulatory capture by pharmaceutical industries is a well known concept but I’m reassured that this “doesn’t happen at the TGA”. Yet in the same line of questioning, the TGA admits that if a pharmaceutical company sponsor does not promote a drug with them, and pay the fee of course, they don’t bother to show the initiative themselves.
This is purely a transactional process, as the TGA itself admits in this senate estimates. It’s clear that there is something very wrong with the system.
Senator ROBERTS: My questions are to the TGA. In the last Senate estimates, I asked Adjunct Professor Skerritt if the TGA was inquiring into the opportunity presented by albicidin, a natural antibacterial derived from a sugarcane virus that does not cause antimicrobial resistance. Dr Skerritt’s response was: We are very closely monitoring the science. In fact, I’m the keynote speaker next Thursday at the Australian Antimicrobial
Congress…We haven’t had a submission relating to that product because it’s still very early days, but we are monitoring…antimicrobial resistance because…it’s a serious threat.
I was concerned that was a non-answer, so I asked the minister about it, in question on notice 1449. His response was: ‘The department of health is not conducting a review into albicidin.’ Can you clear this up, please? Are you treating albicidin as a prospective revelation in the battle against antimicrobial resistance, thoroughly deserving of active research and development?
Dr Langham: The normal manner in which the TGA evaluates and assesses a product for use is through a process whereby a sponsor brings us a product, with all of the relevant research, clinical trials and a dossier of its safety and quality, and that has not happened at this stage. Until someone comes to us with this, we’re not able to do anything in terms of furthering what could potentially be a really important treatment; we’re not able to further that, in terms of making it available to the public.
Senator ROBERTS: Does the department of health have any role, ability or authority to sponsor?
Prof. Murphy: Generally, no. Occasionally, we have taken the role of sponsoring in very difficult circumstances, when there’s a drug that’s registered and available and the sponsor doesn’t want to sponsor it. But
with an experimental new drug, we would never take that role. Occasionally, there are avenues for us to support drug development through MRFF and NHMRC research. There have certainly been programs that have looked at therapeutic advances in that space. But with a new agent or a new molecule, it would be quite inappropriate for us to take a role as a sponsor.
Senator ROBERTS: The TGA is 96 per cent funded by pharmaceutical companies through fees. Albicidin is a naturally occurring substance. Can it be patented? I would say not.
Prof. Murphy: We’d have to take that on notice. It depends on the use, and patent law is quite complicated. I can’t answer that.
Senator ROBERTS: My point is: would it get a sponsor to make an application? Drug companies rely a lot on patents and making excessive profits.
Dr Langham: You would expect so, absolutely.
Prof. Murphy: If it were proven to be highly effective, I would imagine that a drug company would be very interested in pursuing it, but—
Senator ROBERTS: Drug companies have shown that they’re only interested in profits—the major ones.
CHAIR: Please put that as a question, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it is a question.
CHAIR: What was the question?
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t that the case?
Prof. Murphy: No. Private companies all make a profit, but profits can often come by sponsoring highly effective new agents; that’s where they make their biggest profits. This is all highly speculative and I don’t know
that we can progress it much further.
Senator ROBERTS: The CSIRO has produced a guide to controlling antimicrobial resistance that assumes massive government power, including close monitoring and regulation of homes, pets, agriculture, waterways, new vaccines against diseases that used to be controlled by antibiotics and, of course, conferences. Antimicrobial resistance is being set up to be a massive government and pharmaceutical company gravy train. Why are you ignoring a probable solution to antimicrobial resistance? Do you want the power to order more vaccines, to wield more intrusive powers and to make more sales for big pharma, which is the history of the last few years?
Prof. Murphy: We reject that assertion. We completely accept the assertion that antimicrobial resistance is a significant problem. One of the ways that we have been, for many years, trying to combat it is to try to encourage prescribers in the use of antibiotics to reduce their use of antibiotics, which is not in the interests necessarily of the pharmaceutical industry. We are very keen to make sure that we limit the use of antibiotics to those situations where they are absolutely essential. There’s a lot of unnecessary prescription of antibiotics, and some of that is a real problem. We certainly have a lot of interest in antimicrobial resistance, and any new agent would be of interest to us. But we are not in a position to sponsor something like that.
Ms Duffy: We are in collaboration with the CSIRO in advancing their work and we have been involved in a number of CSIRO roundtables on this project that they’re going through, so we are working in lockstep with them.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s turn to medical or medicinal cannabis. My office is getting reports that prescriptions of dried medical cannabis issued under the pathways scheme are being endorsed with the phrase ‘for
vaping’, and that requires patients to also buy and use a vape. A doctor that my office spoke to has advised that this is a TGA instruction; is that correct?
Dr Langham: Medicinal cannabis products, with the exception of two of them, are not regulated as ‘medicinal products’ by the TGA. They are available under a special access scheme, and it’s a condition of the special access scheme that the practitioner who is approved to prescribe adopts all of the undertaking to ‘consent’ patients, to understand the research, to advise on side effects and so forth. The TGA does not regulate any of the medicinal cannabis products in Australia.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you require someone who uses medical cannabis in dried form to purchase a vape— the device?
Dr Langham: It’s not our advice, no, and it would be coming from the medical practitioner, if the medical practitioner felt that there was a substance that was better done as an ointment, a tablet, a spray or a vape. I don’t know whether you’re able to add anything on vaping devices for that.
Ms Duffy: In terms of the method of delivery, it would be up to the treating practitioner to identify the most appropriate method for that patient.
Senator ROBERTS: To list a product under the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods for prescription under schedule 4, there’s a prescribed process, which is not legislative. The steps, time frames and levels of proof of safety are all in regulation issued by the secretary under delegated powers, and much of the process isn’t even regulatory but administrative. Is that an accurate statement?
Dr Langham: I’d need help on what’s in the act and what’s in the regulations.
Dr Gilmour-Walsh: I didn’t understand all elements of that question.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you want me to repeat it?
Dr Gilmour-Walsh: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: To list a product under the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods for prescription under schedule 4, there’s a prescribed process, which is not legislative. The steps, time frames and levels of proof of safety are all in regulation issued by the secretary under delegated powers, and much of the process isn’t even regulatory but administrative. Is that an accurate statement?
Dr Gilmour-Walsh: I don’t know that’s an entirely accurate statement. Some of the process is set out in primary legislation and some of it is set out in delegated legislation. But, yes, there are some administrative
policies that support the administration of the act.
Senator ROBERTS: Does the suspension of these processes by the minister and/or the secretary during COVID prove that the ARTG—the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods—process is whatever the secretary
or the minister says that it is?
Dr Gilmour-Walsh: That’s simply not the case. The secretary’s powers are bounded by the act and instruments made under the act, including regulations, which are made by the Governor-General.
Senator ROBERTS: COVID vaccines were not manufactured under good manufacturing process, GMP, so even this basic requirement for the approval of a drug is just a preference and not a legislated requirement, is it not?
Mr Henderson: For the provisional approvals of the vaccines, they needed to provide evidence that they were manufactured under good manufacturing practices.
Senator ROBERTS: But they weren’t. Could you get us a copy of that evidence, please?
Mr Henderson: I’ll have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, fine. Referencing section 26BF of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, this ‘allows the minister to direct the operations of the secretary in respect of the scheduling and listing of products’. Minister, isn’t it true that the minister could down-schedule medicinal cannabis to schedule 4 and move the products approved for prescription under the pathways program onto the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods right now, if he wanted to? He might not intend doing that, but it is within the minister’s power, isn’t it?
Senator McCarthy: I’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand that the minister could regulate right now to move medicinal cannabis to schedule 4. Thank you, Minister.
CHAIR: I believe that the witness is taking that on notice; is that right?
Dr Gilmour-Walsh: Yes. We can take it on notice, but I’ll just add that I don’t believe that power supports that. The usual process is that there has to be a legislative instrument, made under a power much further down in the act, to amend the Poisons Standard.
Senator ROBERTS: The way that I’ve been advised, I’m pretty confident that it’s just a ministerial regulation.
Dr Gilmour-Walsh: We can consider that further, but that’s not my general understanding.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, my office checked all the state legislation on prescribing and found much commonality. There is the use of a simple statement such as ‘prescriptions can be issued for anything listed in
schedule 4′. There is no separate state list of drugs. If medicinal cannabis were down-scheduled federally, the states would need to introduce legislation to over-rule that decision and then get that legislation through their own parliament; is that correct?
Senator McCarthy: I’ll take that question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Minister, could the bill introduced by Senator Hanson to down-schedule medicinal cannabis be regulated right now, today, if the minister chose to do so? In other words: the legislation is not needed and the minister could just regulate.
Senator McCarthy: I’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Let’s come back to today. Today is a wonderful day to celebrate. Today is 1 June 2023. From 1 June 2023, the prescribing of oral ivermectin for off-label uses will no longer be limited to specialists such as dermatologists et cetera. It’s back and can be used off-label. I must note, to keep the secretary calm, that the TGA says that it does not endorse off-label prescribing of ivermectin for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19. It doesn’t do that, but it can be used for that. Craig Kelly, a former member of parliament, contacted the office of the chief minister in Uttar Pradesh—Uttar Pradesh is a state in India—and
asked for guidance on how Uttar Pradesh had successfully used ivermectin to control the COVID virus in Uttar Pradesh. He received great information on their success. If a member of parliament, at the time, could reach out like that to be better informed, why didn’t the TGA reach out and be better informed on ivermectin?
Prof. Murphy: The TGA relies on the body of scientific evidence. Professor Langham can talk about that. We rely on the published scientific evidence and not the statement of a politician in India. Professor Langham, do you want to comment?
Dr Langham: Thank you. I guess it comes back to my earlier point that a drug, a medicine or a product that is on the ARTG is there for a specific indication. In this case, the specific indication for ivermectin—for which there’s been a dossier provided, evaluated by the TGA as robust, good clinical science—is that it is useful for the treatment of certain parasitic illnesses, be they gastrointestinal or skin based. No evidence has been presented to the TGA by the sponsor to demonstrate in any way, shape or form that ivermectin is useful in treating COVID-19. If the sponsor would like to do so, we’d be happy to consider that, because that’s the only way that the TGA is able to expand that indication.
Senator ROBERTS: Could I table these for discussion, please, Chair.
CHAIR: You can submit them to the committee for consideration. It’s going to take a while to work through them, by the look of it.
Senator ROBERTS: What is being distributed is an affidavit from Dr Pierre Kory in the United States. He has gone through this for many years and he has compiled many references—I think it’s over 96—that praise
ivermectin’s use in treating COVID. It’s been used in many countries and has stopped COVID in its tracks. It has been not only a treatment but also a prophylactic, to prevent the spread of the disease. This is my last question: are you aware of any successful programs overseas that used ivermectin to control the pandemic? Now you’ve got the evidence, Professor Langham.
Dr Langham: Obviously, there’s a very dense article here and a lot of different publications are being referenced. For me to pass judgement on this particular body of evidence, I’d need to take that on notice and get
back to you.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m pleased to hear you say that, because I wouldn’t want it done on the spur of the moment.
Dr Langham: Certainly not.
I joined Topher Field of The Aussie Wire to discuss my disappointment in the “toothless” COVID inquiry Anthony Albanese announced recently.
Topher Field: Cast your mind back to before the last federal election. If you can remember that long ago, and you may recall that promises were made. Specifically, Anthony Albanese promised that if he were to win election, he would hold a Royal Commission into COVID, looking into all the various aspects of the COVID response. That was quite some time ago, and the Royal Commission has not been forthcoming, but good news, we’ve just had the announcement of an inquiry. Surely that means that Anthony Albanese is making good on his word, and we will have a full and thorough inquiry into all aspects of the COVID response so that lessons can be learned and we can get it right next time. My next guest isn’t quite convinced and has released a press release to that effect. It is Senator Malcolm Roberts from the Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party. You’re a senator for Queensland, and I’m very, very grateful for you coming on The Aussie Wire.
Malcolm Roberts: Thank you very much for the invitation, Topher. It’s always a pleasure to have a chat with you.
Topher Field: Now your press release caught my eye, but honestly, there has been quite a lot of commentary on this already. This is something that a lot of people are very quick to point out. The terms of reference are a concern, are they not? Can you take us through your concerns and why you felt the need to release that press release?
Malcolm Roberts: Certainly, I do share huge concerns. I’ll make a quote from Dan Andrews. He says, “Any inquiry into COVID-19 should be forward-focused and not centre on the actions of government during the pandemic.” The premiers have rolled the Prime Minister because the premiers have done the dirty work for Scott Morrison, and the media release, as I pointed out, this is toothless. There’s no power to compel witnesses. It’s compromised because there’s a limited scope. It’s federal only. It’s a whitewash to protect labour premises, as I’ve said. For example, they raised the topic of international border closures in the terms of reference but not state. So it’s strictly federal.
He’s running from a Royal Commission, yet the same man, Albanese Anthony Albanese, had a Robodebt Royal Commission, which was far smaller. Robodebt was far smaller in cost impact. So he has broken his promise regarding a Royal Commission on the COVID tragedy, mismanagement, deceit. This COVID, what would you call it? COVID mismanagement was the most invasive and expensive responses in Australia’s history. We’re still suffering from it. We’ve got a high inflation. We’ve got excess of 40,000 excess deaths due to the COVID injections. We’ve got lingering injuries. This morning I am at a small business conference back in your old town of Melbourne,-
Topher Field: My hometown, yes.
Malcolm Roberts: … and I went to print out my speech just for practising it, and a lovely lady printed it out for me at the help desk, and I saw that she was walking very awkwardly. Sure enough, and this is months and months after her third injection, but there’s no doubt. I’ve got people, friends at home, who’ve been paralysed. They literally woke up in the morning, and they’re paralysed from the neck down. The three people they’ve appointed to be their reviewers for this panel, it’s not an investigation, it’s not an inquiry, it’s a review, the three insiders appear to be compromised. They appear to be former public servants, and one or two of them look as though they’ve had lots of grants in the past, and this will be a ticket for lots more grants in the future. So what I’m going to do, Topher, is, before the end of the year, as I said in my media release, I’m going to ask the Senate for an inquiry to recommend the Royal Commission in terms of reference because we’re going to have one.
Topher Field: Look, we need to. With the powers that were seized by governments, state and federal, and the sorts of things that they did, it’s quite extraordinary to think that we’re going to have an inquiry. But that inquiry in the terms of reference, correct me if I’ve misunderstood, explicitly excludes unilateral actions taken by a state, and yet during the pandemic we had now admittedly a different political party. The liberal party Prime Minister at the time, Scott Morrison, was sitting there saying, “Oh, the federal government can’t do so many different things. It’s up to the states.” And now that we’re having an inquiry, we’re excluding the decisions made by the states. Isn’t that where the response was, according to the federal government of the time?
Malcolm Roberts: I happen to think that the key response was in Scott Morrison, but the implementation was in the premier. So the premiers hold the can. They did it. They did it. So I agree with you entirely. We’ve had media criticising, we’ve had opposition, which you’d expect to criticise. We’ve had doctors criticise, I think, the front page headlines on the Australian newspaper today this evening, words to the effect that the medical practitioners have come out against it. So we’ve got, as you said, the terms of reference include the following areas, are not in scope for the inquiry.
Topher Field: Yeah.
Malcolm Roberts:Actions taken unilaterally by state and territory governments and international programmes and activities assisting foreign countries are not in it. That’s pretty much everything they did.
Topher Field: Yeah.
Malcolm Roberts: Then you get infectious disease expert Peter Collignon today, and I’m reading from these notes I made for you. He told the Australian, “A Royal Commission should examine measures taken to curb COVID infections, including those taken by states as their utility will not be probed during an inquiry.” He said, “Were lockdowns beneficial? Were border closures beneficial? This is an infectious diseases doctor stopping people going outside for more than an hour. That is what affected people personally the most.” He said, and the people that’ve got on this review, they’re not the sort of people who understand what everyday people suffered. They won’t understand what you suffered at the hands of that tyrant, Dan Andrews. This is ridiculous. It’s just a whitewash to protect Dan Andrews, Annastacia, Palaszczuk and the other labour premiers. McGowan was the other one, wasn’t he?
Topher Field: Yeah. Some people could be forgiven for asking the question. Senator Malcolm Robertson, yourself, and if I can mention a few names, we’ve had some wonderful work from senators Alex Antic, Gerard Rennick, Matt Canavan. Ralph Babet is a recent edition, but he’s really making a name for himself and getting stuck in. We’ve got a handful of really fantastic people who are getting stuck in on this issue. There are other great politicians who are getting stuck in on other issues as well, but just singling it down to this issue. We’re seeing a handful standing up, but we’re not seeing a lot of results.
Some people get very disillusioned. They say, “You’re a politician. Fix this. Why can’t you fix this for us?” We’re in a situation now where yourself and a handful of others are saying, “We need a Royal Commission.” The government is saying, “You’re not going to get one. All you’re going to get is this incredibly prejudiced whitewash inquiry.” What’s to be done from this point forward? You’re saying you’re going to be calling for a Royal Commission. You’re going to hold a Senate inquiry. What are the mechanisms at your disposal? How do we move forward from here towards what we all want to see?
Malcolm Roberts: I’ll be asking for the Senate to prove an inquiry to develop the terms of reference. The Senate will give me permission or not give us permission for that inquiry, just as the Senate does in every other request. So that’s one thing I’ll be doing some work. We’re lining that up at the moment, but doing an inquiry of our own, much the same as we did in March and August of 2021, I think, I can’t remember, 2022, where we had a multi-party, cross-party inquiry. But this one we’ll probably do in-house because it’s going to take a lot of getting top experts from around the world, particularly from Australia, and a whole variety of people, not just experts but also vaccine injection-injured people.
So we’re working on those kinds of things. But you might notice that every week in the Senate, I give an update. Two of my staff team are just wonderful on this issue, and we give an update every week in the Senate. We didn’t do it last week because we were flat out, but we give an update on the latest things unearthed around the world, and it is startling what’s coming out. It is absolutely beyond my most wonderful expectations. So we’re really getting there, and we’ll put a lot of pressure on these people to come clean, Topher, so we’ll just keep the pressure up. We will continue this forever until we get the Royal Commission, until we get the truth out, and until the guilty are punished.
Topher Field: The future is written by those who show up, and Senator Malcolm Roberts, I’m grateful that you just keep showing up every day, every week in that Senate, despite overwhelming odds against you at times. Like I said, there are some other wonderful people in there, but you continue to show up, you continue to persevere, and you continue to chip away. I tend to share your optimism. I look at what’s happening around the world. I do think we are making progress. Sometimes it doesn’t look that way, but I do think we are. The narrative has shifted, and the sins of the past are coming home to roost on those who committed them, and it can’t come soon enough as far as I’m concerned. Senator Malcolm Roberts, thank you for your press release today. Thank you for continuing to try and hold the federal government accountable, and he’s hoping we will see that Royal Commission someday. Thank you for coming on The Aussie Wire.
Malcolm Roberts: You’re welcome, Topher. Keep going with what you’re doing. Aussie Wire needs success. For Australia’s sake, we need success of the independent new media. Thank you very much for doing what you’re doing.
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!
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.
In 2020 when COVID was spreading like wild fire through aged care, hunting people down and infecting them, there was no excess mortality. In fact, there were over 2000 less deaths than in 2019.
Yet in 2021 we saw the first wave of COVID injections and a corresponding spike in excess deaths of around 9000. That’s a big leap from the previous year.
Then in 2022, Australians died at a rate not seen since World War II.
The surge of excess mortality saw 25,000 more Australians dying than historical averages.
These were not all deaths from COVID infection as Moderna’s spokesperson in this video falsely claims.
Excess mortality is happening globally and it has been happening in tandem with this experimental jab. Everybody knows someone damaged from the jabs and hardly anyone knows someone who died from COVID-19.
Moderna does not have data to support their self-interested claim.
We need a Royal Commission into COVID.
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.
Thank you Hoody for the great introduction.
If you’re interested in the hearing from all speakers at this AMPS event, including internationally-renowned cardiologist, Dr Aseem Malhotra, watch below.
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?
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!
Senator Roberts: No, you’re still in control.
Many of you have watched my previous sessions with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority as I question them on how much risk mandates introduced into the cockpit.
I was shocked to find out in a question on notice (they actually do come back with an answer eventually) that CASA’s medical systems don’t even have the ability to track adverse events or injuries. Whenever they’ve told me there’s no data to indicate a problem, it’s because they don’t have any data. They’re literally flying blind.
It seems because a pilot hasn’t had a stroke and crashed a plane yet, CASA thinks there’s ‘nothing to see here’. This level of negligence should be criminal.
List of QANTAS incidents
QANTAS B737
17/5/23
QF703 B737 Cairns-Brisbane
Engine damage, air return on one engine, PAN emergency declared. (Media reported)
5/5/23
QF 102 B737 Nandi – Sydney – engine surge and stall. PAN emergency declared into Sydney .. (Media reported)
23/4/23
Qantas B737 Melbourne – Perth forced to return due to fumes of uninown origin in the cockpit. PAN emergency declared, pilots on oxygen. (Media reported).
15/3/23
Qantas 737 experiences ‘engine overheat’ on start up at Ayers Rock. Engine fire bottle fired. Fire crews called, shutdown and precautionary disembarkation carried out. Thermal Imaging revealed hot spot in engine. (No Media Reports)
20/1/23
A Qantas B737 arrives at the gate in Brisbane. Engineer notices smoke emanating from the engine and finds zero oil quantity. Oil had been expelled on approach and engine minutes from critical damage. No emergency declared. (No media reports).
20/1/23
Qantas B737 QF430 Melbourne-Sydney turns back with insufficient thrust (unable to reach target) on one engine. (Media Reports)
19/1/23
QF144 B737 Auckland – Sydney. Engine failure. Flight continued to Sydney on one engine. PAN emergency declared. (Media Reported)
19/1/23
QF 101 Qantas B737 Sydney-Fiji forced to turn back with erroneous airspeed indicators. (Media Reported)
10/2/19
Qantas 737 Port Moresby – Brisbane diverts to Cairns with air conditioning issues. On attempted departure following rectification, engine overheat indication results in passenger tarmac evacuation (Media Reports)
A330
October 2022
Perth-Sydney
Engine severe damage. Operated at reduced thrust. White hot molten metal fragments collecting under engine cowl on shutdown.
15/12/19
Qantas A330 returns to Sydney after experiencing hydraulic fault. This caused fumes and smoke in the cabin with discomfort and distress to the passengers. Emergency evacuation on arrival. (ATSB report).
1/6/18
Qantas A330 Sydney – Bangkok. High Engine vibration. Air return to Sydney on one engine . PAN emergency declared. (ATSB report)
14/4/18
QF123 Brisbane-Auckland -Qantas A330 engine surge and high vibration. (ATSB report).
QANTAS A380
23/12/23
QF 1 Singapore London A380 forced to divert to Azerbaijan due to erroneous cargo fire indication.
QANTASLINK B717
20/1/23
QLink B717 flight QF1516 air returns to melbourne with flap retraction problem on departure (Media reports).
3/6/22
Qantaslink B717 Melbourne-Newcastle suffers engine failure and air return. PAN emergency declared. (Media Reports)
10/3/18
QantasLink B717 flight QF1799 Alice Springs-Brisbane suffers engine failure on takeoff. PAN emergency declared, air return. Media reports first officer suing Qantas group for damages due to poor maintenance.
QANTASLINK DASH-8
29/1/23
Qantaslink dash – 8 Sydney-Coffs harbor forced to air return with landing gear problem (media reports)
FOKKER 100 – Qantas ‘Network’ WA.
24/1/23Fokker 100 Perth – Kalgoorlie returns to Perth with engine trouble. PAN emergency declared.
22/1/23
737 engine overtemps with no response to thrust lever, then fails on the ramp on taxi out.
8/3/23
737 inflight shutdown due to oil filter bypass
25/4/23
Also an A330 in April this year, engine failure at 200 feet on final approach. Was signed back into service and failed again two days later on descent passing 20,000 feet. Same engine failed twice in three days,
11/5/23
Yet another QF 737 inflight shutdown has just been revealed, on descent due to fuel leak.
Also 16/5/23
A330 dumps all its hydraulic fluid on taxi out in Perth.
Senator Roberts: Thank you for appearing again tonight. Ms Spence, are you or any of your executive management or your board members the beneficiaries of any benefits given from any airlines here in Australia?
Ms Spence: No. If we received any hospitality or gifts or anything like that, we would declare it. I am certainly not a beneficiary. Can you repeat that phrase again?
Senator Roberts: Beneficiary of any benefits gifted from any airlines here in Australia?
Ms Spence: Only what we would report in our gifts register.
Senator Roberts: What are they?
Ms Spence: I can’t think of anything that has been. I can say that I haven’t. Certainly if any of my executive team had, it would be reported. As far as I am aware, nothing has been reported.
Senator Roberts: Can you please take it on notice to provide a list detailing anything CASA representatives have received?
Ms Spence: Yes. Mr Marcelja: It’s on our website.
Ms Spence: It will be on our website. Yes, of course we can.
Senator Roberts: So are you going to do that, Ms Spence?
Ms Spence: Yes.
Senator Roberts: Thank you. What is the definition of ‘subclinical ‘?
Mr Marcelja: I’m not a medical expert of that type.
Senator Roberts: Kate Manderson is not here again?
Ms Spence: The request only came to us yesterday asking us to come to Senate estimates. She was travelling overseas on official duties and so is unable to be here this evening.
Senator Roberts: Chair, I want to put on the record that we asked about two weeks before the previous Senate estimates. We asked several weeks before this Senate estimates. That is twice we have asked for Kate Manderson because of her role as a senior medical officer.
Chair: Senator Roberts, just get your office to send copies of that to the committee.
Ms Spence: Senator, while I’ve got you, one thing I probably should have mentioned, of course, is a number of the executive team would get lounge membership by the airlines. I will provide on notice who has those memberships. For example, I have a chairman’s lounge membership.
Senator Roberts: Thank you. Who is responsible, Mr Marcelja, for passenger safety with regard to pilot and medical health evaluation and monitoring in Australia?
Mr Marcelja: We conduct medical certification, as we have spoken about before.
Senator Roberts: Is there any other department, agency or organisation, either domestically or
internationally, that has legal authority, responsibility, jurisdiction, oversight or liability over Australian pilot and passenger safety?
Mr Marcelja: Senator, I would imagine that employers have obligations to pilots. When it comes to the certification of pilots and whether they are fit to fly, that is our accountability.
Senator Roberts: Apart from private company employers, no government agency, department or
organisation?
Mr Marcelja: When it comes to determining whether a pilot is fit to fly, that is our remit. Our remit is
aviation safety and the medical certification that would support aviation safety.
Senator Roberts: Thank you. It’s fair to say the buck stops with CASA?
Mr Marcelja: Within the scope that I described, yes.
Senator Roberts: Your website says that CASA uses multi-crew endorsements as a means of risk
mitigation. Their use enables pilots to continue flying despite the presence of medically significant conditions which would otherwise pose an unacceptable risk to the safety of air navigation. How many pilots with a medically significant condition are currently flying passengers under the CASA restriction which could result in a pilot being incapacitated?
Mr Marcelja: There is a requirement for most airline aircraft, as you would know, to have two pilots. That extends to safety that goes well beyond medicine. I am not sure exactly what your question is.
Senator Roberts: I want to know how many pilots cannot fly alone.
Mr Marcelja: I can take that on notice. It would be a very small number.
Senator Roberts: Can you please provide on notice how many multi-crew endorsements CASA has issued by year over the last five years?
Ms Spence: We can take on notice just to see if that data is available.
Senator Roberts: Thank you. How did you evaluate the aeromedical implications of the pilots taking the new MRNA technology injections, COVID injections, at low atmospheric conditions?
Mr Marcelja: We would not have made any evaluation of that.
Senator Roberts: No evaluation. In an aeromedical context, do you consider that you have any additional responsibility to evaluate or at least surveil a new medical technology that only has provisional approval?
Mr Marcelja: No, Senator, we don’t.
Senator Roberts: But you told me you have responsibility for aero health monitoring?
Mr Marcelja: When we evaluate a medicine, we look at the potential significance of that medicine on a pilot. We don’t test it. We rely on medical authorities to test whether medicines are suitable for use. We look at the implications for medicines in an aeromedical context. As we have spoken many times before, when it comes to vaccinations, we treat vaccinations all the same. With a vaccination that is approved for use in the population, we simply ask that pilots stand down from flying duties for 24 hours to make sure that there is no adverse reaction to it. If there are reactions beyond that, we would expect them to report it and stand down.
Senator Roberts: Are you aware that there is a COVID-19 vaccine injury compensation scheme in operation in Australia now?
Mr Marcelja: I will take your word for it.
Senator Roberts: So you weren’t aware of it?
Mr Marcelja: No.
Senator Roberts: I wonder what it is for.
Mr Marcelja: You tell me.
Senator Roberts: People have been injured or killed by these injections. You mentioned that they have to stand down for 24 hours.
Mr Marcelja: We do not have a role, as I think we have spoken about on many occasions, regarding the health implications of vaccinations on the Australian population. That is a matter for the Department of Health.
Senator Roberts: You are solely responsible for the fact that—
Mr Marcelja: We are solely responsible for determining whether there is an aviation safety risk. I can categorically tell you that it is our view there is no aviation safety risk from the vaccinations.
Ms Spence: As we have said repeatedly, we have not had a single incident involving an adverse reaction to a COVID vaccination by a pilot.
Senator Roberts: Are you aware that last year, 2022, there were more than 30,000 deaths after the vaccines were introduced for the whole of the year?
Ms Spence: That has nothing to do with us.
Senator Roberts: Let’s continue. It’s not of interest to you?
Ms Spence: To be honest— Senator Roberts: They are temporally correlated with the injections.
Ms Spence: I genuinely feel that we have nothing to add to the line of questioning.
Senator Roberts: Let’s continue, then. In February 2022, in a Zoom meeting with Virgin pilots, CASA principal medical officer Kate Manderson stated that the provisionally approved mRNA vaccines can cause myocarditis and pericarditis but that she would rather pilots got those conditions from the vaccine rather than COVID itself, which she claimed to be of a higher risk. What evidence did Kate Manderson have to substantiate these comments?
Mr Marcelja: We categorically can tell you that there is no aviation safety risk that we consider is associated with COVID vaccination.
Senator Roberts: Yet Kate Manderson, your senior medical officer, says that the vaccines can cause myocarditis and pericarditis.
Ms Spence: I expect that what she was saying is that you may. The bigger issue is that there is a greater chance of those sorts of impacts if someone actually got COVID. Again, I would definitely want to see that quote in a broader context. I think reading something like that out could be potentially quite misleading.
Senator Roberts: You are saying that without hearing it?
Ms Spence: I am saying that without seeing the whole context in which the statement was made.
Senator Roberts: We’ll get it to you.
Ms Spence: That would be great. Thanks, Senator.
Senator Roberts: I want to know what medical evidence Kate Manderson had that can substantiate her comments.
Ms Spence: Okay.
Senator Roberts: Take it on notice?
Ms Spence: Yes.
Senator Roberts: I asked you on notice at SQ23-003393 to provide me with the rates of significant diseases over the previous five years for the following conditions—pericarditis and myocarditis, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, immune thrombocytopenic purpura, capillary leak syndrome, Guillain-Barre syndrome, any cardiac related conditions or injuries and any immune related conditions or injuries. These are recognised adverse reactions to COVID-19 injections. The injection manufacturers and the medical authorities have acknowledged this. You completely failed to answer one of them for any year. Your response to me was that your medical record system does not even capture information on these diseases in a way that can be accurately reported.
Ms Spence: That’s correct.
Senator Roberts: I am struggling to understand how you have not been misleading in your previous evidence. Over many sessions, you have maintained to me that there have been no safety signals or concerns about COVID vaccination, yet I am only now finding out that your medical record system does not even have the capacity to report on some of the most significant adverse events to COVID vaccination. How can you maintain there’s nothing in the data to indicate a concern when you don’t have the data and you’re literally flying blind?
Ms Spence: We haven’t had any incidents associated with COVID vaccination. There is no data because there are no incidents. I am sorry, Senator. I don’t know how much clearer I can be.
Senator Roberts: But you can’t measure this?
Ms Spence: We haven’t had an incident to measure it with, though, Senator.
CHAIR: I am loathe to do this. Senator Roberts, I could go to the standing orders. I can’t remember the number, but it’s known as tedious repetition. I know you have been asking these questions in and out. I do not know how anyone in CASA can explain to you any more that they don’t have any more evidence. You have the call, Senator Roberts. Senator McDonald is waiting patiently as well. We have all waited patiently all day, so keep going.
Senator Roberts: Does CASA still maintain that it is unaware of any pilot grounded with a COVID vaccine injury?
Ms Spence: Yes.
Senator Roberts: I find that hard to believe given the rates of adverse events that are huge and startling. No pilots have it but every other category of citizen does. What supervision of Qantas engine trend monitoring is undertaken by CASA given that there have been a significant number of incidents over the near past?
Ms Spence: Is this about issues regarding turnarounds with Qantas aircraft?
Senator Roberts: It is air incidents. Can I table this, Chair?
Chair: Yes, of course.
Ms Spence: If what I understand is correct, you are talking about some of the media coverage on the number of turnarounds because of potential concerns with aircraft safety. We have done an analysis over a 10-year time frame saying that there has been no material increase in the number or severity of air turn-back type occurrences in 2023 to date.
Senator Roberts: Perhaps you could tell me on notice whether or not the list I have just given you from a whistleblower is normal or abnormal.
Ms Spence: Certainly I would be happy to do that. As I said, based on the analysis that we have done, there hasn’t actually been any material increase in the number or severity of air turn-backs. That is on the analysis we have done. I will take that on notice, based on the list you have just provided us.
Senator Roberts: This is a list of incidents that I have tabled that has been provided to me. Can you please verify if those have been reported or lodged with CASA? Do it on notice.
Ms Spence: Based on my quick scan, these are all ones that we are aware of. I don’t think that would change what I have just told you about no material increase in the number or severity of air turn-back type occurrences. But I will—
Senator Roberts: Perhaps you could have a look at it in detail first before making a comment.
Ms Spence: Yes.
Senator Roberts: I would like to know whether this is surprising or normal.
Ms Spence: I think that’s what I was just telling you based on—
Senator Roberts: I understand. I would like to know once you’ve had a look at it, not before you’ve had a look at it. I would be surprised if it’s normal. Thank you, Chair.
I asked Home Affairs why they’ve asked social media to censor more than 4,000 posts related to COVID.
We must protect people from being labelled or categorized based on their beliefs, and Home Affairs has no place policing COVID given the amount of “misinformation” that turned out to be true.
Is Home Affairs merely providing a conduit between the dictators in the Department of Health and the social media platforms? #COVID19 #HomeAffairs #SenatorRoberts
Senator Roberts: Thank you, Chair. And thank you for appearing today. Just to clarify, I looked up the
definition of regime, and it includes the government of the day, so, Senator Watt, you are a part of the Albanese regime.
Chair: Have you got questions?
Senator Roberts: Yes, I have, I just wanted to clarify that. Mr Pezzullo, counterterrorism is important; I want to say that up-front. Extremists can pose a threat; I want to say the up-front. But labelling and categorising people, anti-vax etcetera—that is not okay. What has been the arrangement between Home Affairs and social media platforms to intervene or censor or block posts related to COVID-19 that were or are contrary to government policy? Was it purely being the conduit from the department of health to the media platforms?
Mr Pezzullo: And also making judgements against the platforms’ own policies, but to answer the senator’s question, I said earlier that we’re not the arbiters of health science. Can you describe what might have triggered action on the part of our staff to start a to draft up a referral, for instance? Ms Hawkins?
Ms Hawkins: Senator in terms of the way I was answering the previous senator’s question, I would say to you that the government was concerned about instances of harmful mis- and disinformation in relation to COVID. This line of effort was set up in 2020 and, as the secretary has said, it came out of the fact that we had been doing referrals in relation to terrorist and violent extremist content. As I understand the secretary’s evidence in terms of having conversations with the department of health early in the piece about the fact that we could use that same kind of mechanism to provide referrals about harmful mis- and disinformation in relation to COVID, we could use a similar technique that we had been using in the context of terrorist and violent extremist content, and we could use that same kind of technique in relation to harmful mis- and disinformation in the context of COVID.
For example, in relation to Facebook’s policies on mis- and disinformation, we scanned the environment, we identified where there were harmful instances of mis- and disinformation in relation to COVID, and then we provided those referrals to platforms, such as Facebook, for them to determine against their own policy about not allowing COVID mis- and disinformation on their platforms. So, in relation to their own policy, we then made referrals to say, ‘You might want to look at these posts, in the context of your own policy, about not having COVID mis- and disinformation on your platform.’ That’s what we have been doing since 2020, and, as the secretary said earlier, we will finish doing that on 30 June this year.
Senator Roberts: Mr Pezzullo, your department has been a conduit between the department of health and Meta and other platforms, and those platforms have been funded by big pharma to shut down posts that raise any questions about the COVID-19 injections. So you’re actually aiding and abetting censorship of relevant and scientifically correct information. As Senator Antic pointed out, much of what was labelled misinformation by people like Meta is now found to be correct and true. So, you aided and abetted in the injection of Australians that led to 30,000 excess deaths in 2022.
Chair: Senator Roberts, do you have a question?
Senator Roberts: Yes, I did.
Chair: The officials are here to answer your questions.
Senator Roberts: You were a conduit from the department of health to Meta and other platforms. Are you a conduit for any other departments? Do you follow their instructions just like you followed the department of health’s?
Mr Pezzullo: On the question of health, ‘conduit’ may not be the right phrase, because that would imply that an action was initiated in the Department of Health, sent to us as, if you like, a clearing house and then forwarded on. I think the evidence you’ve heard is that, in order to relieve the Department of Health at the time when we were dealing with the front end of a public health crisis, we stepped into that breach to say: ‘We’ve got the capability. As long as we can understand from ATAGI and others what the broad parameters are of health information the public should be advised of versus harmful misinformation, we’ll run with that’. And we put in place a program that allowed us to do that. As to your characterisation of the COVID-19 response and the efficacy of vaccines—you made reference to Australians being injected—I ask you to direct those questions to the department of health.
Senator Roberts: I will be.
Mr Pezzullo: I’m sure you will be. They’re better qualified to give you a better view, certainly, than I can, about the efficacy of that advice. We’re not a health department. We don’t have an independent way of saying to the—
Senator Roberts: So, you’re a conduit.
Mr Pezzullo: Well, ‘conduit’—again, I’ll just repeat what I said.
Senator Roberts: You take orders from the department of health.
Mr Pezzullo: A conduit implies that an action is initiated in one department, it comes through a middle broker, such as ourselves, and ends up in Facebook. Other than the policy settings being made known to us by the department of health, this was an area of action, like so many other things in the early days of COVID, where we didn’t need any instructions; we were just told to get on with a function, which we performed. Occasionally there would be engagement with Health, to make sure that we weren’t operating off obsolete information.
Senator Roberts: So you were just told to do it. Who was the service provider advising you on what was or wasn’t misinformation?
Mr Pezzullo: We use the service provider to do the scanning, do we not?
Ms Hawkins: That’s right. The service provider that we have used is M&C Saatchi.
Mr Pezzullo: Who do the scanning.
Ms Hawkins: Who do the scanning. They—
Mr Pezzullo: They’re not scientific advisors, as such.
Ms Hawkins: Exactly. They’re scanning the platforms and then providing us with proposed referrals that they consider are in breach of the platform’s own policy on misinformation and disinformation in relation to COVID. Then there would be staff in my team who would consider that, and, after considering Saatchi’s proposed referrals, we would decide whether or not to pass it on to the platform.
Senator Roberts: Is it not true that it was said in past Senate estimates that Home Affairs considers that a significant threat to Australia is that of domestic terrorism?
Mr Pezzullo: I’m sorry?
Senator Roberts: Isn’t it true that in past Senate estimates Home Affairs has said that it considers a
significant threat to Australia is that of domestic terrorism?
Mr Pezzullo: Most certainly.
Senator Roberts: I was hoping you’d say that.
Mr Pezzullo: It’s one of the key risks that we seek to manage.
Senator Roberts: Do you consider that those who would challenge the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccinations are domestic terrorists—if they challenge government policy?
Mr Pezzullo: Not if it wasn’t associated with any extremism, politically motivated violence or planning to attack institutions of society, no.
Senator Roberts: Do you consider that those senators who have posted comments opposed to the COVID-19 mandated vaccines—injections—are domestic terrorists?
Mr Pezzullo: Senators?
Senator Roberts: Yes.
Mr Pezzullo: You can post whatever you like, Senator. You have the privilege of being a senator.
Senator Roberts: I’m pleased that you just said I can post whatever I like, but Meta will not let people like Senator Antic and myself, and Senator—
Mr Pezzullo: If they, with their own service conditions, take your post down, then you can you deal with them as an elected representative. If you want to contest their takedown, then feel free.
Senator Roberts: Are you aware of any social media posts by elected members of this Senate that have been secretly censored through this arrangement?
Mr Pezzullo: I have no advice or information on that.
Senator Roberts: Interfered with in any way?
Mr Pezzullo: I don’t know.
Senator Roberts: Limited in reach? Not just censored, but limited in reach, so we can get to fewer people?
Mr Pezzullo: A posting by a member of the House or the Senate? I don’t know. I will check. When we come back to Senator Antic, will I be surprised to learn that there were any referrals that related to a member of parliament?
Ms Hawkins: I hope not.
Mr Pezzullo: I’ll check, but I’m rather thinking I won’t be surprised.
Senator Roberts: Are you aware of any posts by members of parliament that were taken down as a result of your actions?
Mr Pezzullo: That was a side discussion I just had. I don’t even know that we made any referrals that related to parliamentarians.
Ms Hawkins: I would have to take it on notice, Senator.
Mr Pezzullo: I would be surprised and verging on disappointed if we had.
Senator Roberts: Could you find out in particular if Home Affairs has been involved with or responsible for any of the posts that have been taken down from my media pages and also restricted in any way.
Mr Pezzullo: That, in effect, is a subset of the question asked by Senator Antic, but we’ll make a particular effort to check. I’m interested as well. There are questions of privilege that I would be much more respectful of than Facebook might be. It might well be, if we have made such a referral, that it’s something that I’ll need to reflect on. But I will check. In fact, why don’t I come back to you directly in relation to your own personal circumstances, on notice?
Senator Roberts: Thank you. Several MPs, in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, have
been heavily censored for posting material that was classified by social media platforms as misinformation and has now been found to be true.
Mr Pezzullo: Regarding the latter part of your assertion—in what might have been a question; I’m not quite sure—I don’t have any basis for thinking that something that was considered to be misinformation at the time under social media policies is now, through some kind of scientific evolution, considered to be true. I just don’t know.
Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, would you mind clarifying who it is that you say has found these comments to be true?
Senator Roberts: The government itself. Pfizer itself has admitted itself that the COVID-19 injections are not safe and effective. Yet the government, the previous regime, under Morrison, said that they were safe and effective. They’re neither effective nor safe. They have negative efficacy. That’s proven.
Senator Watt: That’s always been your opinion. I’m wondering which authority you’re pointing to that has deemed—
Senator Roberts: Pfizer vice-presidents.
Senator Paterson: A point of order. It’s not appropriate for a minister to ask a senator a question.
Senator Watt: One of your senators was asking about this as well.
Senator Paterson: No. A minister is directing questions to a senator. I don’t think that’s the usual order of—
Senator Watt: Well, when an assertion is made that things are true—
Senator Roberts: Mr Pezzullo, are you aware that—
Chair: Senators! I think the minister is actually trying to assist Senator Roberts, as I think most of us do.
Senator Roberts: if—
Senator Watt: If an assertion is going to be made that something is untrue, I think someone—
Chair: Minister! I’m speaking. Thank you. Senator, you have one last question.
Senator Roberts: How many other senators have had their media posts censored through these
arrangements? Could you get back to me on that one as well, please.
Mr Pezzullo: I will, as a further subset of the question taken on notice from Senator Antic, make a particular point of checking whether any referrals related to members of the House or the Senate—inclusive of you, but others as well.
Senator Roberts: Thank you. Minister, if senators have had their media posts censored by Home Affairs being a conduit to Meta and other platforms, then I call for a full royal commission to get to the bottom of this gross breach of freedom of speech at the highest level. The Labor Party itself—
Mr Pezzullo: I’m so sorry, Senator, I missed the first part of your question.
Chair: I don’t think it was a question.
Senator Roberts: The Labor Party has already said—Anthony Albanese said, before the election, that he committed to a royal commission. Will we now have a Labor Party royal commission?
Senator Watt: The whole thing is based on a hypothetical about whether senators or MPs have had their social media interfered with. Let’s wait and see what the answer to that question is. Let’s continue the questioning with Senator ‘Professor’ Rennick.
Member of the committee interjecting—
Senator Watt: I don’t spread COVID misinformation.
Senator Rennick: We’re not the ones spreading misinformation, Murray.
Senator Roberts: Just a few questions for clarification, Mr Pezzullo. I will read from your website: Home Affairs brings together migration, cyber and infrastructure security, national security and resilience, and border-related functions, working together to keep Australia safe. You’ve been credited, justifiably, I would say, with the success in closing our borders after your appointment to Immigration in 2014. You have also been the inaugural and only secretary of the Department of Home Affairs, which is seen as crucial in that role. Is that correct?
Mr Pezzullo: Well—
Senator Scarr: He’s too humble to say!
Senator Roberts: I didn’t mean about the praise; I meant about the roles.
Mr Pezzullo: I have occupied the office for the time period you have spoken about. As to whether I have achieved any success in the role—
Senator Roberts: You have been widely credited with a lot of success, so we appreciate that.
Mr Pezzullo: That’s for others to determine. I’ve certainly been the occupant of two secretaryships over a decade, yes.
Senator Roberts: And key in security. Do you consider that elected representatives who challenge government policy are domestic terrorists?
Mr Pezzullo: I just go back to my earlier evidence. Terrorism has got a particular definition under our Criminal Code. Under the heads of security power set out in the ASIO Act, if any person, elected or otherwise, is acting in contravention of the criminal law, acting as terrorists—they are of course subject to a judicial process finding them so. Your question relates to elected members, I think you said, challenging government policy. All other things being equal, that’s just called democracy; that’s not called terrorism, no.
Senator Roberts: Do you consider it legitimate to deliberately or inadvertently censor elected senators who are duly elected representatives of the people, if their social media statements differ from government policy?
Mr Pezzullo: I took on notice, both at a general aggregated level from Senator Antic and from you specifically in relation to your own personal circumstances, whether we had—I think you might be going to COVID here, but I just want to be clear about what you’re asking about. I took on notice earlier that we would look at the COVID related referrals, the so-called takedown referrals, the 4,000 and some other number associated, and check that there were no members of the House nor members of the Senate included in that list. If the answer is no, zero, then the question, in a sense, becomes void because we haven’t done anything. If, frankly, regrettably, we’ve accidently, without identifying the person’s name—I don’t know if you self-identify as a government senator, but if we have taken a view of Malcolm Roberts—
Senator Roberts: Not a government senator but as a senator.
Mr Pezzullo: Sorry, as a member of the Senate, I should say. I do apologise.
Senator Watt: We’ve got some standards.
Mr Pezzullo: If we’ve inadvertently—and it would be inadvertent—made a referral of a sitting member or a senator, then I would find that regrettable because, in a sense, you’re held to account by your peers and by your electors; it’s not my job to hold you to account. There is a grey area. If you, whether you’re a senator or otherwise—and I couldn’t imagine for a moment that you would do this, Senator, or that any other senator would do it—inadvertently disseminated terrorist or violent extremist material, notwithstanding the privilege of a senator, my staff would take the view that there’s a referral here. On matters of COVID, which related to a public health emergency that was catalysed as a direction to us about three years ago by the then Morrison government, if one of your tweets or postings has been inadvertently swept up in our referral process, we’ll get to the bottom of
that on notice and get back to you through the notice process.
Senator Roberts: So I’m assured that if I were a terrorist or engaging in terrorist activities or promoting terrorism, you would treat me no different from a terrorist.
Mr Pezzullo: Your status as a senator in those circumstances would provide no protection at all.
Senator Roberts: That’s very reassuring. Thank you. It’s also reassuring that if you inadvertently caused me to be censored in any way, you would also protect my rights to free speech.
Mr Pezzullo: I’m distinguishing here between the service that we were providing in support of the health department on a public health emergency—which is really not about terrorism; it is about public health advisories. I’ll examine the data when Ms Hawkins and her people assemble it for me. I would take the view that we should not be doing referrals of sitting members or senators on public health issues. Terrorism? Acts of incitement to violence? Then we are in an area where the privilege that you have as a senator might well be thwarted by the criminal law, let’s say. But I can’t imagine that that circumstance would arise in relation to COVID.
Senator Roberts: I’m reassured, because privileges do come with responsibilities. I’m reassured by what you’re saying.
Mr Pezzullo: Thank you.
Senator Roberts: So do you not believe that Australian people have the same right to freedom of expression as I have?
Mr Pezzullo: I thought I’d answered this before, but let’s just recap. Even on the internet, which is considered to be untrammelled and unfiltered and uncensored, there is no accepted absolute freedom of expression, because you’ve got laws—for instance, you cannot stream the abhorrent abuse of a child.
Senator Roberts: Accepted.
Mr Pezzullo: But once you accept that there is some constraint at the outer edges—self-evident cases of child abuse, a terrorist’s live streaming of an abhorrent act—
Senator Roberts: But questioning government policy? That’s okay.
Mr Pezzullo: I was going to get to that, Senator. But then you start to get into distinctions and lines of definition. We’re not arguing the principle anymore about censorship because, even on the internet, which is thought to be this untrammelled, utopian public square of enlightened discourse and conversation, it’s been many years, if not several decades, since that view went out the window, because there have been laws, there are treaties, there are international understandings that say, no, there is certain content that is so vile and so unacceptable that it will be taken down by those providers who are acting responsibly. Now, you can’t get to every app and every dark website and every provider, particularly on the dark web, and they do peddle abhorrent material, so you’re not going to regulate that world; you’ve just got to go hunting and take other actions in relation to, if you like, what’s under the clear web.
Senator Roberts: I understand that there’s a lot of grey area there. But what you’re saying is that I have a right to speak but everyday Australians do not on COVID matters.
Mr Pezzullo: I’m struggling to understand how you’ve jumped to that conclusion.
Senator Roberts: Let’s go to two more points of clarification. In Australia in 2022 we had more than 30,000 excess deaths. That’s the equivalent of two Dreamliners crashing with total fatalities every week. Would you inquire into the crashing of two Dreamliner aircraft every week for 52 weeks?
Mr Pezzullo: My remit in that instance would be related to terrorism or related acts of violence or sabotage that caused those aircraft to go down, so of course I would get involved. I know it’s a hypothetical question that you’re putting to me but, as a matter of principle, that would fall under our remit of aviation security as well as counterterrorism. If you’re putting to me, by way of analogy, some kind of quantitative analogy that says this many people died who otherwise would not have died because of the advent of COVID vaccinations—you used the term ‘injection’—I would really urge you to direct that question to the secretary of Health and his officers, because (a) it’s not my responsibility to give you advice or evidence on public health issues; it’s—
Senator Roberts: No, I accept that. What I’m getting at is: would it be part of your remit to at least question what was going on with 30,000 deaths? That’s more than 10 times—
Mr Pezzullo: Sorry, is that 30,000 deaths in relation to COVID or in relation to airline crashes?
Senator Roberts: COVID injections.
Senator Watt: Again, that’s an assertion from you, Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts: That’s 10 times the level of deaths from the Twin Towers World Trade Center collapse.
Mr Pezzullo: If there’s a question of an abnormal rate of premature death, which is to say death beyond normal morbidity statistics—and I don’t know what the science or the evidence is; I don’t know what data you’re pointing to—
Senator Roberts: Would it raise questions in your mind?
Mr Pezzullo: It might raise questions for the secretary of Health, so I’m suggesting that that’s appropriately directed to him.
Senator Roberts: He’ll be getting it. I take my responsibility to serve the people because they pay my salary. Taxpayers pay your salary as a public servant. Just as a final point of clarification, do you work for the government or for the taxpayers?
Mr Pezzullo: Well, I’m a public servant employed under the Public Service Act, so ultimately I work for the public. In fact, as a matter of law, I’m required to be impartial, I’m required to be apolitical and I’m required to serve the government of the day responsively—because that’s in law—but also in a way which is apolitical. For instance, if issues arose as to the records of former governments or if issues arose in relation to the observation of the caretaker conventions, I would stand my ground and, potentially, provide difficult advice or decisions to the government of the day. Generally speaking, by law, we are required to be responsive to the government of the day. That’s in the Public Service Act. On those rare occasions—and in my experience it doesn’t happen very frequently—that a government of the day might do something inadvertently that relates, for instance, to the records of decisions of previous governments or to the application of the caretaker conventions, I’ve got a duty not simply to say, ‘Well, I work for you, so we’ll just do whatever you say,’ but to say, ‘Hang on—that is unlawful,’ or, ‘That is contrary to Westminster conventions.’
Senator Roberts: Final question: would you fully cooperate with the royal commission which Mr Albanese promised before he was elected if it were tasked with examining these take-down notices around COVID?
Mr Pezzullo: I would cooperate with any commission of inquiry, royal or otherwise, commissioned by the government and instituted pursuant to letters patent. It wouldn’t matter what the topic was. We would always engage dutifully and conscientiously with any commission of inquiry.
Senator Roberts: Thank you very much, Mr Pezzullo.
Casual Coal Wage TheftFebruary 21, 2024 - 2:09 pmOver $30,000 a year being stolen, and it’s been signed off by the union and the government. Find out about the largest wage theft from casuals in Australia.
My Other IssuesFebruary 16, 2021 - 12:08 pm
Murray Darling BasinMarch 23, 2020 - 3:05 am
Foreign OwnershipOctober 16, 2019 - 4:58 am
Property rightsOctober 16, 2019 - 4:39 am
United Nations #AUSEXITOctober 16, 2019 - 2:31 am