Posts

Transcript

Australians and people worldwide criticise politicians. After three years in parliament, I know why. Yet people allow politicians to rule their lives and allow governments to take control of their lives. Why? I invite people to ask basic questions and to then decide. Consider the drug ivermectin. It’s been given in 3.7 billion doses over 60 years—no adverse effects; safe. Ivermectin is off patent—affordable. In 2013 ivermectin was approved in Australia for treating diseases. In 2014 I took ivermectin after working in India. It cured me—no adverse effects. Australian doctors regularly prescribe ivermectin for illnesses.

Is it effective with COVID? In April 2020 in the Senate, I raised ivermectin’s promising in vitro trials at Monash University. Counties, states and regions in South America, Asia, Africa and Europe have had amazing success with ivermectin for treating, curing and preventing COVID. More than 40 peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published hailing ivermectin’s success in treating COVID. A study among Indian healthcare workers showed an 83 per cent reduction in COVID infections with just two tablets. Ivermectin, overseas, is recognised as a cure.

I’m told that Queensland doctors and dentists are stockpiling ivermectin for their families. An internationally respected Australian specialist recently saved 24 very sick patients in quarantine using ivermectin. All quickly recovered. Two others not treated died. Overseas, ivermectin is a prophylactic, stopping COVID transmission. Where vaccines are failing, ivermectin is succeeding. How many deaths would have been saved if the health minister had acted?

I have prescriptions for ivermectin from two doctors. Why can’t all Australians have that freedom to choose? Why isn’t Australia’s government adopting ivermectin? Why did the TGA threaten and try to silence me with a letter when I discussed ivermectin with constituents as their representative in parliament? I mentioned ivermectin in a YouTube video and was banned for a week. Member of parliament Craig Kelly made statements based on solid data. After speaking about ivermectin, Facebook banned him forever. Why are doctors scared of being struck off the doctors’ registry if they prescribe ivermectin to cure their patients?

Consider the vaccine maker Pfizer’s profits. It’s second quarter 2021 revenue was $19 billion, up 89 per cent. In three months, it made $4 billion profit. The European Medicines Agency discovered a definite link between Pfizer’s vaccine causing myocarditis. In September 2020, our TGA approved Pfizer’s Vyndamax drug to treat myocarditis. Our health department confirmed the AstraZeneca vaccine’s links with blood clots. Pfizer’s Eliquis drug treats blood clotting. Last quarter its sales were up 13 per cent. So are those blood clots rare? Really? In 2019 Pfizer’s Zavicefta drug was approved to ICU patients on ventilators. Is Pfizer making profits making people sick and more profit treating the sickness it caused?

Consider the ownership of vaccine makers. Alphabet owns YouTube and Google. Alphabet owns 12 per cent of Vaccitech, which created the AstraZeneca vaccine. YouTube bans videos mentioning ivermectin as a COVID treatment. Aren’t these conflicts of interest? If ivermectin was approved for COVID, what would happen to big pharma’s hundreds of billions of dollars in profits? These profits are a transfer of wealth from taxpayers to big pharma.

Before becoming health minister, Greg Hunt was the environment minister, where he joined Malcolm Turnbull steering a law through parliament as a basis for a global carbon dioxide tax. In 2000 and 2001, he spent two years at the World Economic Forum in Davos developing strategy. A simple question: did he work on the forum’s great reset? I have already spoken on the government’s lack of a proper COVID management plan. Why has Minister Hunt falsely claimed that the government’s COVID policy is based on science when he is contradicting science? Finally, who owns the legacy media suppressing news of ivermectin’s success? In summary, ivermectin would complement vaccines, give people informed choice, save many lives, end lockdowns—and, in doing so, save more lives—save money, restore our economy to secure future health and end any need for vaccine passports or vaccine prisons. Basic freedoms, jobs and livelihoods could be restored. Why is the government not using ivermectin as a proven, safe, affordable life saver? Feel welcome to share your answers with my office or Facebook page. Finally, I add, I have no financial interest in any drug or medical suppliers or companies.

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vaccines or Injections.

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

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

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

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

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

Health & fitness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The politics of today seek to turn Australians against each other. We must resist this division as it only serves the interests of multinational companies and power-hungry politicians.

Transcript

The architect of our Parliament House, Romaldo Giurgola gave the Australian flag pride of place in his design.

A flag the size of a double decker bus, atop an 80m flag pole with supports that bring together the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The symbolism is clear, the Senate and the House of Representatives hold up our flag.

Not the other way around.

Any person who comes into this place, who does not then look up and feel awestruck with where we work, and with the responsibility we have, as Senators has no place being here.

The Australian flag flies above us for direction, not decoration.

We are directed to remember those who were here first and the millions who have come since. Immigrants who have come to this beautiful country to make a better life for themselves and to lift up all Australians in the process.

Including the Italian born architect of Parliament House – which I imagine explains all the marble.

Mr President we are directed to remember that we represent people not corporations.

Yet the winners from 18 months of COVID crony Government are not everyday Australians. The winners from croney govt are foreign multinationals. Big Pharma.

Never in the history of this beautiful country of ours has government policy so comprehensively abandoned those we represent, in favour of those we do not.

When Government needs to deploy the military to maintain control of our own people, to effect a social outcome rather than a medical one, there is only one description for that.

Martial law.

How this government acts in the coming months will decide if a second description should be added.

Treason.

Dividing Australians by any arbitrary measure including vaccination status flies in the face of everything our flag stands for, of everything this nation stands for.

We will not be divided!

We have One flag, we are One Community, we are One Nation.

On this page:

  1. What letting the government enforce vaccines means
  2. Mandatory Vaccines, unconstitutional?
  3. Lockdowns
  4. Vaccine Safety
  5. Further details on the constitutionality of vaccines
  6. Confused about the Government rules on vaccines?
  7. Informed Consent
  8. Vaccine passports/prisons
  9. Where did COVID come from?
  10. Vaccine approval status
  11. The plan is coercion
  12. Ivermectin

What letting the government enforce vaccines means

There are far-reaching consequences of letting the government get away with their new enforcement of vaccines in aged care workers. We must fight against it.

Transcript: (click here)

When it comes to vaccines in our bodies, we must always have access to informed consent and freedom of choice. In August, 2020, Prime Minister, Scott Morrison said, “It’s not going to be compulsory to have the vaccine.” On Monday 28th of June, 2021, he went back on his word and stated that it will be mandatory for all aged care workers to have the vaccine.

No one can argue the vulnerability of those in aged care. No one can argue the vaccination is not yet proven and everyone who is having the vaccine is part of the world’s largest clinical vaccination trial, which is exactly how our health minister Greg Hunt describes it. My office put out a call on Facebook for any aged care workers to contact us if they have concerns around the vaccine. We were swamped with phone calls and hundreds of emails just within hours. In summary, there are many workers distraught, anxious and terrified of being forced to get the jab. These concerns are raised from fears about the known and unknown side effects, religious beliefs, pregnancy, allergies and having pre-existing conditions.

If that isn’t enough, those that haven’t had the vaccine are harassed and intimidated by colleagues. We had people sobbing over the phone. We know many are casuals within the aged care sector. When they cannot afford to be without work, their concerns around the vaccine are so profound, they know when the September deadline comes, they will have to leave their jobs. The aged care sector could be challenged by increased staff shortages and standards of care will slip.

Aged care residents are at risk of losing the stability of those long-term care relationships with staff. Our aged care workers have had their rightful freedom of choice around the vaccination stripped away from them by the Prime Minister. Aged care workers are losing their fundamental worker and human rights. Some unions are by default, supporting the mandatory vaccinations.

In the words of Sally McManus, Secretary of the ACTU, “Just get the job done and support the casualization workforce so that they are not out of pocket if they get side effects.” Nowhere in that, does she advocate for workers’ rights to not get the vaccine. And a statement of side effects is an admission there are problems with the vaccine. All Australians must be able to make their own informed choices on whether to have the vaccine and not be rammed into it.


Mandatory Vaccines – Unconstitutional?

Mandatory Vaccination is against the federal constitution. That means Scott Morrison can’t enforce them, but, State Governments can. It’s an unethical backdoor around the protections in the constitution, and Premiers look set to bow to Scott Morrisons demands on mandatory vaccination.

Transcript: (click here)

During these COVID 19 times, the government messages are getting more and more confusing. It was only a few months ago that the prime minister, Mr. Scott Morrison, said that he would not make COVID-19 vaccinations mandatory. Yet, that is what he has recently said would be necessary for aged and healthcare workers and for those drivers working in the quarantine sector. If he gets away with this, it will be just the beginning, before spreading Australia wide across our industries and nation.

Can he do it? Well, the Australian constitution states in section 51, paragraph 23-A, that the Commonwealth government cannot impose mandatory medical treatment on a person. That would include vaccination. The states though can do it. If they pass legislation to that effect. Now Victoria and Western Australia have legislation in place that could force a person to be vaccinated. There’s nothing to prevent other states and territories from passing similar enabling legislation, to be in line with Victoria and Western Australia.

The result of that, is that if the prime minister can persuade the states and territories to follow his line, they can enable the Commonwealth demands. Is this ethical? Well, that’s another question, but absolutely not. It would be a backdoor way for the Commonwealth to sneak around the constitutional prohibition on enforcing vaccination. On this issue, the Commonwealth government is behaving like an authoritarian dictatorship. Acting in an unethical, unjustified and unprincipled way.

Forcing vaccinations represents an attack on bodily integrity and without a valid consent, they may well constitute an assault. People should be able to freely choose what will be injected into their bodies. These vaccines remain unproven and the long-term prognosis are unknown. On that basis the vaccines are unjustified.

We should be able to trust our prime minister when he makes promises. It’s clear that we can’t.


Lockdowns again? That’s so 2020

More than 18 months into COVID19 State Premiers are still using the same old trick, lockdowns. It shows they have got no idea how to manage COVID.

Transcript: (click here)

The cities of Brisbane and Townsville have only just come out of yet another brutal lockdown and Sydney is in the middle of a three week lockdown. The only time a lockdown is justified is when the virus is so out of control, the government needs to buy time to reorganise and regroup resources and protect exhausted health workers. Using lockdowns 18 months later is a sure sign that our political leaders are yet to master living with COVID. It seems that their only trick is to grind the towns or states to a halt over a handful of cases, while they madly scramble for testing and tracing.

My message has been consistent, quarantine those unwell and waiting on tests and allow the rest of the state to get back to work. Other countries have found a way to balance both the health and the economic priorities. Yet, after 18 months in Australia, we are still unable to find that balance. The Premiers and the Prime Minister may say that we can’t have any further deaths from COVID as justification for these brutal lockdowns.

What they aren’t saying is that deaths from loneliness, social isolation, suicide, and unchecked medical conditions such as missed cancer diagnosis are okay. Apparently those deaths don’t matter because they aren’t COVID deaths. We’re at the mercy of our Premiers and their insatiable need to appear to be looking after the people. They want to look good, not do good. They tell us, “We’re keeping you safe from COVID,” while what they do is wreck our businesses, take away our jobs, devastate our livelihoods, isolate us, and let our loved ones die alone.

Internet searches for loneliness have increased, as have rates of self-harm, eating disorders, anxiety, and domestic violence. Meanwhile, the government tracks every shop, supermarket, stadium, pub, and government office we enter. After 18 months of collecting health data, learning from national and international experience and knowing the costly economic and mental health concerns, we would have hoped that Australia’s approach would have evolved past brutal capricious lockdowns.

It’s a shame on these power hungry politicians that it hasn’t.


Vaccine Safety

Since 2020 the number of concerned Australians “very unlikely” to get the vaccine has increased 10% and there’s good reason for this.
The government gave vaccine manufacturers immunity so vaccine makers will not be liable for adverse effects. If a company is not willing to stand behind its product as safe there can be no trust.

Transcript: (click here)

Many Australians are hesitating about getting a Covid injection. Since 2020 the number of concerned Australians “very unlikely” to get the vaccine has increased 10% and there’s good reason for this. People are recognising that our safety, liberty and personal freedoms are at stake, and asking many questions about the safety of these injections. The government gave vaccine manufacturers immunity so vaccine makers will not be liable for adverse effects. If a company is not willing to stand behind its product as safe there can be no trust.

The federal health minister said this is the world’s largest clinical vaccination trial. The Chief Health Officer, head of the Health Department and head of the Therapeutic Goods Administration all refused to say the vaccines are 100% safe. We have no idea what these products will do to our body months or years from now. How will it affect pregnant women? The babies they’re carrying? Infertility?

We know the vaccine can make people unwell, that 60% experience tiredness, 50% experience headaches and 30% might have chills and there are more serious complications including vascular deterioration and death. No one knows the dosage. Nor the number of injections. Nor the frequency of injections. Will they be annual? Twice a year?

There’s been no public debate among health officials, scientists or in parliament. People with questions or contrary opinions get silenced and healthcare workers are being intimidated not to step out of line. COVID’s first victim was free discussion.  The Morrison government is mandating vaccination for aged care workers yet many are afraid of the vaccine and afraid they will lose their jobs.

Yet despite all this, people having the vaccine can still get the virus AND still spread the virus. We all deserve to have access to the facts so we can make informed decisions. The simple legal fact is that a death associated with a government approved injection is different in legal status from a death due to an accidental infection.


Further details on the Constitutionality of Mandatory Vaccines

I oppose vaccines being made mandatory and so do many Australians. There are some incorrect claims being made about sections 109 and 51 of the Constitution, the Biosecurity Act and the Nuremberg code. Some people may not like the information I’m about to tell you, but I assure you it is accurate. I wish it wasn’t, but there is nothing to gain in misleading you and giving you false hope. Please watch this video or read the transcript in full on my website.

Transcript: (click here)

I want to address some claims in relation to mandatory vaccines. I completely oppose mandatory vaccines, but there are some false claims about their legality. Some people may not like the information I’m about to tell you, but I assure you it is accurate. I wish it wasn’t, but there is nothing to gain in misleading you and giving you false hope. Can the Commonwealth Government make Covid vaccinations mandatory?

The Australian Constitution in Section 51(xxiiiA) does not provide an authority for mandatory medical treatment on a person. That would include vaccination. It does allow the Commonwealth to fund treatment but not to compel it. Because the power to mandate treatment was not given to the Commonwealth under the 51(xxiiiA) of the Constitution, the Commonwealth cannot mandate treatment under this provision. There are provisions in the Biosecurity Act 2015, made under the Commonwealth’s quarantine power, that in limited circumstances may authorise directions for individuals, but not groups of persons.

The States, on the other hand, can mandate treatment if they pass legislation to that effect.  s.51(xxiiiA) of the Commonwealth constitution does not restrict them. At the moment, Victoria and Western Australia have explicit legislation in place that could force a person to be vaccinated. There is nothing to prevent the other States and Territories from passing similar enabling legislation to be in line with Victoria and Western Australia.

The result of that is that if the Prime Minister can persuade the States and Territories to follow his line, they can enable the Commonwealth demands. Is this morally right?  Absolutely not. It would be a backdoor way for the Commonwealth to sneak around the Constitution on enforcing vaccination. Scott Morrison can’t do it because of the Constitution, so he’s getting the State Governments to do his dirty work.

Another issue that requires some explanation is the effect of s.109 of the Australian Constitution. This says that if there is a conflict between a valid Commonwealth Act and a valid State Act, the Commonwealth Act shall prevail to the extent of any inconsistency. Some people believe this makes mandatory vaccinations illegal even if the state does them. The Constitution however is a special document, not being a Commonwealth Act, and s 109 does not apply in the context of mandatory treatments.

If there was a Commonwealth Act saying vaccinations are not to be mandatory, and a State Act saying that vaccinations are mandatory, the State Act would be inconsistent with the Commonwealth Act and the State Act would fail under s109. However, there is no Commonwealth Act that says vaccinations cannot be mandatory so s109 does not apply. There may be a number of human rights protections against forced vaccination but these have not yet been fully tested under Australian law.

Some people have raised the Nuremburg Code, which is an international agreement that says that people should not be subject to experimental treatment unless they have consented to it. It is only enforceable in Australia if it is in legislation, which is not the case apart from the ACT, where s.10(2) of the Human Rights Act 2004 provides the right not to be subject to medical treatment or experimentation without free consent. The Nuremberg code is a principle that should be adhered to ethically, but it is not a guaranteed legal requirement generally in Australia.

Forced vaccinations represent an attack on bodily integrity, and without a valid consent may well constitute an assault. People should be able to freely choose what will be injected into their bodies. In Queensland, the Chief Health Officer has made several directions based on her emergency powers under the Public Health Act 2005, applicable in Queensland. These emergency-based powers are proposed to be extended out until 30 April 2022 and apply while there is a declared public health emergency.

The powers are very broad and recently included student nurses being  excluded from a Restricted Vulnerable Facility if not fully vaccinated, having not had both planned injections. Currently this directive applies for a period up to 6.00pm on 16 July 2021. A Restricted Vulnerable Facility includes hospitals, a residential aged care facility, disability accommodation and correctional centres. These Directions are all supposed to be temporary.

If an employer tries to force an existing employee to be vaccinated this may well constitute an unreasonable direction and the employee may refuse unless the employer has a particular authority. If that employee is fired or is threatened with being fired if they do not comply with the request this may constitute unlawful dismissal and can be fought in court. The proximity of the employee to vulnerable people may be a factor the court would look at when considering if the request to vaccinate is reasonable.

The court would also consider the risks to the vulnerable people and the risk profile of the employee through being exposed. The greater the risk, the more likely the direction to vaccinate would be considered reasonable. If before being hired an applicant is told this is a condition of employment and the applicant does not wish to be vaccinated, the employer is legally able to hire someone else. The decision in these circumstances is really a legitimate choice by the applicant.

In summary, although it is unethical, unjustifiable and a shocking intrusion on people’s bodily integrity, the States have the technical legal power to mandate vaccines. The only solution is to tell them you oppose it, and if they don’t listen vote the wannabe tyrants out of power.


Confused about the government rules on vaccines?

The government has been relying on fear and panic for the vaccine. When the government does that, they’ll just jump from brain snap to brain snap without a plan.

Transcript: (click here)

Did you know, after the AstraZeneca vaccine had already been approved in Australia, the Health Minister Greg Hunt said that the world is engaged in the largest clinical vaccination trial in history? This government is just making it up as they go. In February the Government said AstraZeneca was perfectly safe and approved it. In April, they backtracked due to blood clots and said to avoid it if you are under 50. In June they backtracked further and said avoid it if you are under 60.

Then the Prime Minister announced that anyone under 40 can get AstraZeneca. The Queensland Chief Health Officer said that was wrong, and quote,

“We’ve seen up to 49 deaths in the UK from [blood clots]. I don’t want an 18-year-old in Queensland dying from a clotting illness who, if they got COVID, probably wouldn’t die”.

If you’re losing track of the advice, I don’t blame you. Despite saying the vaccines are completely safe, the government has given indemnities to vaccine makers and doctors who administer AstraZeneca to people under 40. This means that if something goes wrong and you need to sue someone, the taxpayer will end up paying the bill. Why would the vaccine makers and doctors need protection from being sued if the vaccines are so safe?

And if they aren’t safe, it should be the vaccine makers who foot the bill for any damage they cause, not us, the taxpayers. The government has been relying on fear and panic for the vaccine. When the government does that, they’ll just jump from brain snap to brain snap without a plan. You, and all of Australia suffers from the government’s brain snaps, and they’ve been non-stop lately.

There is a better way, with data, with honesty, and respecting freedom of choice. That’s what Australians want. That’s what I support.


Informed Consent

Informed Consent is vital to any medical procedure. I’m being told that many people receiving a vaccination in Aged Care are deliberately not being told which vaccination is being administered. This is in addition to it being made mandatory for Aged Care workers or they will lose their job.

Wherever there is coercion (you will lose your job and livelihood if you do not take this vaccine) it is impossible to have informed consent.

Transcript: (click here)

Every doctor, every allied health professional and every lawyer who works in the medico-legal field knows that for a consent to medical treatment to be valid, a necessary element is that the consent must be fully informed. If the patient has sufficient information about the proposed treatment that will provide the treating practitioner with a defence against a civil suit for assault.

However, if the practitioner is being sued for negligence, by way of breaching the duty of care owed to the patient, the consent from the patient must be by way of a fully informed consent. Sufficient information in the context of an assault action would be that the patient has been provided information in broad, general terms as to the nature of the proposed treatment and what it is intended to achieve. Informed consent in the context of an action in negligence requires a much higher standard of information provided for the patient.

This information should be detailed as to the nature of the treatment; what alternatives there are; what are the risks involved, in detail more than just statistics; what are the possible side effects and how they may be treated. I’m being told that many people receiving a vaccination are deliberately not being told which vaccination is being administered. I’m hearing that in some aged care facilities, the residents are not being told of alternatives that may be available such as Ivermectin, and deliberately kept in the dark about the actual treatment.

They are very frightened. Deadly side effects such as blood clotting and heart problems are being downplayed. Simple questions about long term effects of the vaccinations go unanswered because the answers remain unknown. How can a patient give a fully informed consent with all these unanswered questions? They can’t. The government has recently said they would indemnify doctors who administer the vaccine when something goes terribly wrong. This does not indicate the government has much confidence in the vaccine being administered and indicates they’re presuming something harmful will happen.


Vaccine Prisons

A vaccine passport is no different to a vaccine prison, saying you can’t go to the pub or join the rest of society unless you prove you are vaccinated.

That’s coercion. We must completely reject any form of vaccine passport in Australia.

Transcript: (click here)

You might think the government has gone quiet about their proposed vaccine passport, but they’ve just renamed it to something that sounds a bit more innocent, a “vaccine certificate”. That’s the government’s proposal to say that you can’t travel, go between states, maybe even go to the pub unless you’ve been vaccinated, and you carry something to prove you have been. Whatever they call it, it’s still the same tool of a dictatorship.

It doesn’t belong in Australia. Really it is a vaccine prison. It means that unless you are vaccinated you will have your rights taken away from you: rights to travel interstate, rights eventually to interact with society and community. That’s coercion. Informed consent, which is absolutely essential to any medical procedure, is not possible where there’s coercion. To be clear I absolutely oppose any form of vaccination passport or vaccination certificate.

I support vaccines being available and for people to have choice. I have concerns about the long-term effects of the current batch of COVID vaccines because we simply don’t know the effects. I support anyone making an informed choice and giving their informed consent to choose to take a vaccine, yet there is no justifiable reason that the government should enforce vaccines or make vaccines mandatory – ever. A vaccine passport, a vaccine certificate, a vaccine prison is just another way to make a vaccine mandatory by coercion and the idea should be tossed in the bin forever.


Where did COVID come from?

Despite being dismissed as conspiracy theorists in the early days of COVID, many Australians still have concerns whether the pandemic came from the Wuhan Lab. As time has gone on, more and more evidence has emerged giving the supposed conspiracy theory credibility.

Transcript: (click here)

Many everyday Australians are concerned not just about COVID-19 but where it came from. We recently heard that CSIRO and several Australian universities have engaged in at least 10 joint projects with the Chinese Wuhan Institute of Virology over the past decade. This is a laboratory that US intelligence has linked to the Chinese military and which is suspected of being at the centre of the COVID-19 outbreak. Concerningly, at Senate Estimates hearings CSIRO at first denied any links to Wuhan. Later, the truth came out.  

What’s worse is that CSIRO is linked to a Chinese infectious diseases expert who is now head of the Bat Virus Infection and Immunity Project at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.  There are links into Australian universities too, one being the University of Queensland, which has been partnering with the Wuhan Institute, experimenting on emerging diseases, environmental science and infectious disease epidemiology. 

These experiments are called “Gain-of-Function” which is a euphemism for biological research aimed at increasing the infectiousness, danger and severity of pathogens and viruses. These deadly science-enhanced pathogens can and do escape into the community where they infect and kill people – it’s biological warfare. The risks posed by these dangerous experiments far outweigh any speculative benefits.  Many Australians are asking why our government is not being proactive and protecting us from the release of lab-created viruses, and why the government does not have an end-to-end plan for managing the COVID-19 outbreak.

It’s time the Morrison Government cancelled funding and support for research and collaboration on projects and with nations that may weaponise a virus and harm everyday Australians.  We all deserve to be safe.


Vaccine Approvals

The government has simply taken BigPharma’s word, accepting Pfizer and AstraZeneca’s data which by their own admission may be inaccurate.

It’s no wonder Australians don’t believe in mandatory vaccination when data on the long term effects of these vaccines is simply unavailable.

Transcript: (click here)

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), part of the Department of Health, has granted a provisional determination to the Pfizer Australia and the Astra Zeneca vaccines. The granting of a provisional determination means that the TGA has made a decision that Pfizer and Astra Zeneca are now eligible to apply for provisional registration for the vaccine in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG).

This Provisional approval pathway is available to sponsors with preliminary clinical data. To put this simply, the TGA takes the drug companies’ word for the accuracy of the data, which will have come from limited foreign trials. There is no checking or peer review. none. In looking through Pfizer’s clinical data, our office team noticed this disclaimer: “Pfizer advise that substantial risks and uncertainties exist in connection with their data, including the possibility of unfavorable new data and the ability to produce comparable clinical results, including the rate of vaccine effectiveness and safety observed in the trials.”

With those words, Pfizer just said that they cannot guarantee once deployed the vaccine will be safe and will provide a level of protection claimed during the application process with the TGA. This is what happens when approvals are given on wafer thin clinical testing, so quickly that replication and peer review has NOT happened. The vaccine approval process takes between 5 and 10 years for a reason. This approval was 3 months.

The public are right to be concerned that the TGA has not tested these vaccines enough, and in fact, have not tested them at all.


The plan is coercion

Even at 80% vaccination the Government won’t rule out lockdowns. They don’t have a plan for managing COVID at all.

Transcript: (click here)

The Australian people and our business community are fatigued with the limping and damaging mis-management of our response to COVID. The only real plan, post flattening the curve, has been to stoke the fires of exaggeration and hysteria to keep the population scared and compliant.  This ensures many of us won’t notice that no one has any idea of what’s next and it facilitates people accepting illogical and inconsistent health orders.

After 18 months of widely different responses across the country the Prime Minister announced on Friday 2 July what he believes will be a plan to get back to normal. You might breathe a sigh of relief… yet that would be premature.  There’s no real detail, that will take another month to assemble. The promise to use lockdowns only as an extreme measure seems to mean that lockdowns will be here to stay for the rest of the year.  That gives business no confidence at all.

The real message in the plan is the use of coercive power to get the population vaccinated.  Our freedom of movement, our freedom, is being directly tied to being vaccinated.  The Prime Minister is ushering in a two-tier society – those vaccinated and those unvaccinated.  Personal choice and health considerations around the unproven and experimental vaccine with known and unknown negative side-affects have become irrelevant. 

The unvaccinated will be condemned and not allowed to live a normal life. Instead of this vaccine prison Australians need a plan that respects the rights of Australians and brings us all along without the intrusive and unconstitutional curtailing of personal freedoms. This one trick pony of a plan is all about coercive control – get the vaccine or lose your job, lose your business or stay at home.

We are being forced to choose between our freedoms – freedom over our bodies or freedom over our movement or freedom over which job we can have.  That is no plan. That is a con, a disgraceful con. No wonder so many people have vaccine hesitancy.


Why isn’t Ivermectin available in Australia

All along, we’ve been told that the only escape out of the pandemic is completely new, expensive vaccines. But what if alternative and complementary treatments were available? Would it threaten BigPharma’s monopoly?

Transcript: (click here)

When it comes to treating and preventing people getting Covid-19 we’ve been told that the only solution is a brand new vaccine. This is not true, there are alternative and complementary treatments for respiratory conditions, which COVID19 is. One of them is Ivermectin. It’s had over 3.7 billion doses administered over the last 60 years. In that time, it’s had a proven safety record. Over the past year Ivermectin has been successful where used against COVID in some Indian states, and in some South American, European and Asian countries.

There are over 40 medical and scientific papers which hail Ivermectin’s success. So why is it banned for this use with Covid in Australia? It raises serious questions about BigPharma’s monopoly and conflicts of interest. For example, Google’s parent company Alphabet owns YouTube. YouTube has banned any videos that even mention Ivermectin as a possible COVID treatment.

They even took down one of my videos, and I’m a Federal Senator. But here’s the kicker, Alphabet owns 12% of Vaccitech, who created the AstraZeneca vaccine. Aren’t these conflicts of interest? The federal government’s Therapeutic Goods Administration wrote me a threatening letter for publicly discussing Ivermectin.

The way I see it I’m a duly elected member of Australia’s national parliament doing my lawful duty, sharing accurate information with you. Silencing debate and data is a form of control. And always beneath control there is … fear.

Is dishonest BigPharma afraid of losing its hundreds of billions of dollars in profits? Is the government afraid to admit they’ve made a mistake? I have no financial or other ties with vaccine makers or Ivermectin or drug companies. My interest is in ensuring we protect people’s health & restore our nation’s economic health and security. That’s why alternative and complimentary treatments must be available.

On the best evidence we have, Ivermectin should be available. Without it, the government has blood on its hands.

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After failing to get some of the answers we were seeking on vaccines, I went back to the Department of Health and Dr Murphy to ask some more questions about informed consent and vaccination by coercion with a vaccine passport. I think you’ll find their answers in this part 2 just as interesting as part 1.

Part 1: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/vaccine-passports-and-compensation/

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts] And one that I touched on briefly, the intergenerational effects of the vaccine are unknown, the effect of the vaccine on transmission is unknown, GPs are not even allowed to say which vaccine they have available. Well Australians have a right to know the foundation of informed consent is accurate and full information. How is it possible to achieve real informed consent in this information vacuum?

So, I think the GPs are certainly able to say which vaccines they have available and they provide informed consent-

[Malcolm Roberts] Just to interrupt there, We had a presentation, I attended a presentation by you and Professor Kelly saying that the vaccine injection rooms would not be disclosing which vaccine was given at that time. Where people go to get their injection.

They’re not given a choice. They’re not given a choice

I think you’re talking two different things, Senator, so, clearly, at this stage of the rollout, the GPs are distributing AstraZeneca. The issue would’ve been the choice and perhaps there might’ve been some other issues that…

[Malcolm Roberts] It was certain, nonetheless, Minister, with so many effects unknown, how can there be an informed consent?

Well, Senator, I’m not going to try and give you health advice, and so I’ll prefer to-

Professor Kelly might be able to address that, but just to be very clear that people undergoing the informed consent process are very clear about which vaccine they’re getting, we’re not disguising the vaccine. So Professor Kelly can can go through the informed consent process.

Yeah, so, informed consent is a very important component of any medical medical procedure or treatment. And doctors do that with their patients every day, every time they see them pretty much is talking through the pros and cons of various, in this case, vaccines. As the Secretary has said, it’s pretty clear if you turn up to a GP at the moment with a couple of exceptions, but almost all GPs are only using one vaccine and it’s only for those over the age of 50 if it’s AstraZeneca. And there is some benefits of that in the particular circumstances of the person in front of them would be discussed in great detail. We’ve provided a lot of information, very detailed information based on the ATAGI advice in relation to that risk and benefit equation for GPs and other medical practitioners and nurses to use.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. My first question goes to the, question of mandatory vaccination. Is the government considering mandatory vaccination?

Government’s repeatedly said it is not considering mandatory vaccination for COVID vaccines or any other vaccines.

[Malcolm Roberts] So is the vaccine passport still under consideration?

The only situation that, as we referred to early today, where people might be on a public health, state and territory, for example, may say that they would refuse entry to a residential aged care facility, that’s the position that AHPPC is considering. That is not mandating vaccination, it’s basically saying that in certain situations it may be not possible to participate in a certain activity unless you’ve been vaccinated. But there has not been a position that we’ve taken so far, AHPPC is reconsidering it.

Can I just add Senator? So, obviously the issue of medical advice is the extent to which and whether and when you might want to limit access to aged care facilities, which the Secretary’s talking about, the broader issue of whether there’s a vaccine passport to identify you’ve had a vaccine and what impact that might have, internationally or otherwise, is a matter for the Department of Home Affairs. You should refer it to them.

But we are providing citizens with evidence of vaccination, they can get a vaccination certificate and they can use that in whatever way they choose.

[Malcolm Roberts] So that’s essentially a vaccine passport then isn’t it? Ms. Edwards?

It’d be a certificate. I mean, at the moment, it’s a long… The Australian Immunisation Register has been around for quite a long time, it got expanded a few years ago to cover all vaccinations and it will have the evidence of your vaccination of COVID-19 vaccine in it. And you have access to it in a printed form or electronically. That’ll evidence you’ve had the vaccine. There is no activity, at the moment, of that you’re either permitted or prevented from doing by virtue of vaccine status but as obviously medical information for you.

[Malcolm Roberts] So that vaccine register should be confidential, shouldn’t it?

It is.

It is, but any citizen can print their own certificate and they can use it as they choose fit.

And we use it for aggregated data. So a lot of the data we’re getting about how many people have been vaccinated not just for COVID-19 vaccine, but for the range of vaccines that we know is drawn out of the Australian Immunisation Register in a de-identified aggravated form.

[Malcolm Roberts] So a vaccine passport, though, could be established for restricting movement of people or entry of people to a specific venue?

Well, it’s a hypothetical question, not one within the remit of the health department. All that we’re talking about is having evidence that you’ve had the vaccine, which is really important, apart from anything else, so that people know what your risk is if you come into contact with COVID-19. And also, it’s used in vaccination clinics to check that it’s your second dose. So if you turn up for your second dose they’ll check the register to check that, yes, Senator Roberts has had one dose of AstraZeneca and here’s the time for the second one. So used for those safety reasons for an individual and it’s evidence of the medical treatment that you’ve had. But any further use of it, one’s not in contemplation that I’m aware of, we’re certainly not involved in that. And the questions about how it might be used internationally, or so on, is a matter for Home Affairs.

[Malcolm Roberts] So Home Affairs, where would they get their advice from? It would be from you, wouldn’t it?

They seek health advice from us,

[Malcolm Roberts] Yes.

and also advice about how the Immunisation Register works and so on, together with Services Australia, and they would be engaging with other agencies as well.

[Malcolm Roberts] So as I see it, threatening Australians with the loss of privileges of free movement, or a job, or even a livelihood without a vaccine passport, that’s really a digital prison.

I’m not aware of any proposal to do any of those things, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts] You’re not aware of any? So is the government enforcing vaccination through coercion, if that would occur?

[Secretary] Well, Senator, that’s a hypothetical and it’s an opinion, Senator, and I don’t think it’s appropriate to ask the officials that question.

[Malcolm Roberts] So, going back to the vaccine, people expect the vaccine to do more than prevent deaths, more than not cause deaths, people expect the vaccine to bring back life as we know it, the removal of all restrictions and the resumption of international travel. Clearly, while acknowledging the many unknowns that you commendably and openly acknowledged this morning, what percentage of vaccination unlocks the gate and removes the restrictions, and when?

I think Professor Kelly can address the fact that that’s still an unknown parameter and our knowledge is evolving, but Professor Kelly has been asked this question on many occasions.

And I’ve since answered it. Thank you, Secretary, just on the-

[Secretary] They’re still asking it.

Yeah, I will get to your question just on the proof of vaccination. On my phone through my Medicare app, I have proof of my vaccination, it arrived within 24 hours of that vaccination happening, and it’s just shows that this is already happening. Anyone who’s had a vaccination will be able to access that, and if it’s needed to be shown it’s there.

[Malcolm Roberts] We’re not worried about that. My constituents are very worried about it becoming a condition of entry to a venue or to travel or something like that.

Well, as the associate Secretary has mentioned that it’s a matter for other parts of government to consider but we will provide medical advice about how that information can be verified in terms of a vaccine that we trust and know that works. So, to your question about where’s the target, this has come up on multiple occasions, I guess my answer is that these are non-binary states. So every single extra person that’s vaccinated in Australia is part of our path to the post-COVID future you’re describing. There’s no magical figure that says when we get to that, we’ve reached herd immunity and everything will be fine, rather it’s a process of getting towards that. We do need quite high coverage, though, to be able to get to the situation where, for most of the time, a seeding event, such as what we’re experiencing in Victoria, right now, will not lead to a large outbreak. So, that is, modelling that is being done at the moment by colleagues at the Doherty in Melbourne, and others. It’s part of the work that AHPPC has been asked to do to provide information into Mr Gaetgans’ committee, which is in turn providing information and advice to the national cabinet.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Where’s the government’s plan for managing the COVID virus because, the six components we discussed, the three of us discussed at the last Senate estimates, isolation lockdown, testing, tracing quarantining, restrictions, treatments, such as cures and prophylactics, and the fifth was vaccines. And then I think Professor Kelly added personal behaviours as number six. Perhaps we could add a seventh, and that is prevention through health and fitness because we’re seeing now that obesity and comorbidities are a big predictor of people dying from COVID. When will we see action in number four, which is treatments, cures and prophylactics, and health and fitness?

I can perhaps address treatments. The Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee, which is the committee that looks at the vaccines also as a watching brief on all treatments and has considered whether there are any treatments that we are recommending government to purchase. There’s also the TGA obviously also is reviewing treatments as they appear at this stage. And we also have an evidence taskforce that looks at the real-time evidence of treatments. At this stage there really is very limited options for treatment other than vaccines, but Professor Skerritt can perhaps give you more information.

Thank you Secretary. So, at the moment in Australia, the Clinical Evidence Taskforce endorses three TGA-approved treatments. The first is, and may depend on how sick you are, whether you need oxygen and so forth. So if you’re in hospital requiring oxygen, corticosteroids are recommended for use with COVID patients. And I would venture to say that, globally, they’ve probably been the most successful intervention. A drug called Remdesivir is approved for moderate to severely ill patients who don’t require oxygen or ventilation. And more recently, there’s a drug that was originally an arthritis drug, known as Tocilizumab, T-O-C-I-L-I-Z-U-M-A-B, I don’t get to name them.

[Malcolm Roberts] You barely get to pronounce them.

No, no, no, no. But it’s tricky, If they have unpronounceable names, everyone uses a trade name. That’s the trick. But Tocilizumab is for people who do require oxygen. Now, what we don’t have yet, and I think I may have said this at last estimates is a antiviral drug that’s up there as effective as the recent antiviral drugs for Hepatitis-C or for HIV. But trust me, there’s a major effort of companies working on that area. The other thing that has been coming through the system, and seem to be getting better, are these antibody-based treatments. And we’re currently looking at a drug, or an antibody, called Sotrovimab. It’s S-O-T-R-O-V-I-M-A-B and it has some very promising early results, and we’re currently assessing that. But we have always said that antivirals and other treatments will be important for a range of reasons. One of which is that even with the greatest adherence to, say, the three week gap for Pfizer vaccination, or the 12 week gap for AstraZeneca vaccination, neither treatment is 100% effective against catching or transmitting the virus. They seem to be very effective against death or hospitalisation, but we do know that treatments will play an important part in getting on top of this virus.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, just building on that, you didn’t address item number seven, which I suggested, health and fitness. But the focus on the vaccine is not addressing the end to end from prevention to resiliency to treatment. Don’t we need the full gamut? A comprehensive and complementary approach, what would that look like? And would it not include Ivermectin, assuming someone sponsors it and other treatments for those who want alternatives to vaccines? Because there are people who want alternative.

Well, very briefly on general health, the fact that people are going to many general practitioners and having the COVID vaccination is always an opportunity for the GP to have a quick discussion, “well, hey, smoking doesn’t actually help your respiratory chances with COVID.” There are some mixed messages out there and some mixed results. For example, a lot of people with asthma were very worried early in the COVID pandemic, but some of the asthma drugs, there’s a drug called Budesonide an orally inhaled steroid, inhaled steroid, which is actually quite effective in the early stages of COVID. People with asthma, for example, in general, especially if they’re on those drugs don’t seem to have been affected. But it is true that if you have co-morbidities such as diabetes and so forth, your risks of COVID infection are greater. And that’s why in Phase 1b a number of people who, for example, had drug resistant hypertension or had diabetes and so on were prioritised early for vaccination. Going back to other therapies, we’re always interested in evidence-based submissions for any other therapy. The challenge is that some of the early papers that suggested, for example, with hydroxychloroquine there was a lot of promise, when the blinded trials were done objectively the early promise very sadly didn’t hold up.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. Thank you, Chair. I’ll leave it there.

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

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

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

Transcript

Thank you. Senator Roberts.

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

– Yes – I guess Dr. Kelly onto that.

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

So, just repeat the question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was once, but it’s a long time ago.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Malcolm Roberts] I’m going–

[Member] Senator Roberts…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you.

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

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

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

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

[Professor John] No, the AstraZeneca vaccine–

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

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

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

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

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, Chair.

Ivermectin has been proven as a safe treatment over 3.7 Billion doses across the world. Why it isn’t at allowed as one option to treat COVID is perplexing. Have the vaccines available sure, but also have the proven safe anti-viral treatments available as well.

It’s no silver bullet, but we should have everything we can get in our arsenal to help save lives.

Transcript

[Gary Hardgrave] And he went different ways. I mean, Malcolm Roberts, that’s the point that it’s like, Oh I sort of joke, You know, we’re not all in this together. Part 53, the latest example, the frequent flyers the people that are able to jet overseas and many times over the last 12 months. Well, good luck to them, I guess because there’s plenty of countries in the world a lot worse off than we are, but they’re landlocked.

They’re connected to other countries, we’ve got that part of it pretty right, there’s no doubt about that. But somewhere along the line this fear factor has gotta be stared down. We’ve got to muscle up and say, well if the celebrities and the highly paid and the really rich and their private planes can jet here and jet there and in their tens of thousands then the rest of us should be able to do it too.

[Malcolm Roberts] What we need, Gary is a plan. On Monday the 23rd of March last year, we assembled for the first for the first simple first single day sitting of the Senate on this COVID supposed crisis. And I stood up and spoke and said, look we’re going to wave everything through. This is, we’ve seen people falling like flies overseas, so we don’t know the scope, the size of this but we’re just going to put, the government giving them everything they need, job seeker, job keeper but I said, we expect you to collect the data.

We will hold you accountable. And we expect you to build a plan. I have not seen a plan. What I’ve seen is lots of fear as everyone has talked about on this show and always behind fear there’s control. And that’s what we see Bronwyn nailed it again, as she always does. We’ve also seen a lack of a plan. In Senate estimates in late March this year I had checked with the chief health officer and the deputy chief health officer for this country.

And I said let me just check that we’ve got the understanding of what’s needed to manage a virus. So the first thing is lockdowns and border lockdowns in particular. And I said, but even the UN world health organisation which I see as corrupt incompetent and dishonest and it’s been proven, such, even they say a lockdown is only used initially to get control. So that means Anastasia Palaszcuk, Mark McGowan and Dan Andrews in Victoria.

And I leave out Gladys Berejiklian because she’s done the best job so far. It’s not a good job, but she’s done the best job so far. That means they’re using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and what they’re doing is they’re admitting they have not got control of this virus. The second thing, and I checked this with the, with the chief health officer. The second thing is testing, tracing and quarantining of the sick and the vulnerable. Testing and tracing to track the virus and nail it quickly. Third thing, individual restrictions things like masks and so on. Yes.

They agreed with me so far. And I said the fourth thing is to have an antiviral treatment a prophylactic, a cure. And they said, yes. Then the fifth thing is a vaccine, if it’s tested and if it’s found to be safe. And they said, yes, and then they added one more. And they said, individual behaviours, things like social distancing. And I said, okay. So I rattled off the six that we agreed on. Anything missing? No. Anything that shouldn’t be there? No.

So my point is what happened to number four, the antiviral treatment? I’ve taken Ivermectin when I came back from India to get rid of a condition that I caught over there. Ivermectin has been given to 3.7 billion people around the world, no health problems.

It’s proven safe over six decades, six decades. And on top of that, it’s cheap. And on top of that it’s now being used successfully with the virus in South America and various European countries and in Asia, why aren’t we discussing it here? I mean, the chief health officer and the deputy chief health officer have said it’s part of the plan and we can open up borders. We can relax a lot of things if we provide what is now a proven, safe cure, in addition to the vaccine, let those who want a vaccine have it. I will take the Ivermectin, I’ve already taken it once for something else. And it worked. And I’m still here mate, I’m not going anywhere.

[Gary Hardgraves] No, I can tell you’re very much so still here. Look before we go to the break,

The Liberal/National government has handed down a budget that the Labor party would be proud of. The Government is increasing borrowing to respond to a phoney climate emergency. Our ports and much of our power grid are in the hands of malicious foreign owners, and yet there is nothing in the budget to buy back these vital strategic assets.

Defence funding is being spent on wasteful white elephant programs like the attack class submarines instead of caring for our diggers and making sure they have the equipment they need. There is no vision or care for the future in this budget. Only One Nation has the vision to fix the country.

Transcript

As servant to the people of Queensland & Australia I remind the senate and all Australians that 24 years ago Pauline Hanson warned that Australia was heading to a place that we would not recognise as Australia.

The Media devoted much attention to the immigration aspects of her comments, and completely missed the substance.

Today we have arrived at the place Pauline warned us about.

Australians are living with restrictions on association, on speech, on movement, on protest and we even have mandatory face coverings.

Our federation has broken apart, we have seen border checkpoints between States.

The phrase ‘papers please’ which has defined tyrants throughout history, is now life for everyday Australians.

Our police are arresting law-abiding citizens in their own homes for the crime of organising a peaceful protest.

Our police are forcefully arresting a journalist for the crime of reporting that protest.

Dictators have been overthrown for less than this!

In the famous words traced to French, English and American philosophers Montaigne, Bacon and Thoreau, our leaders had “nothing to fear but fear itself”, and they chose fear!

The Premiers and the Prime Minster have surrendered power to ‘unelected bureaucrats with medical degrees’ who have shown themselves incapable of seeing the big picture.

While social media are calling the COVID restrictions on businesses a war on Capitalism, it’s much more sinister.

Corporate Australia have record sales, record profits and have paid themselves higher dividends and bonuses.

The Liberal National Government sent JobKeeper to these same companies who used the money to pay themselves yet more dividends and bonuses.

Now with this budget the Company Tax clawback has been extended to 2023/24. Companies making a loss in 23/24 can claim that loss against tax paid in 2018/18 and the Government will give a refund.

Let me explain the concept of taxation to the Treasurer. The Government is not supposed to take the tax paid by corporate Australia… and give it back to them.

This money was supposed to pay for the things that define Australia as a caring society – Medicare, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, childhood education and social security.

The Treasurer cannot give corporate tax back and then borrow the money to pay for recurring expenditure.

Yet that is exactly what this budget does.

Debt, debt and more debt to pay for profligate spending seemingly with no thought to the next generation that will be left to pay for it.

This is a budget of which Labor would be proud.

When I talk about the Lib Lab duopoly, even their budgets are looking the same.

As a result of coronavirus measures the world’s 400 richest people have increased their wealth by over 1 trillion dollars. We do not need to add to their wealth accumulation.

Much of this wealth is money that was once spent in local communities, in local hardware stores, community supermarkets, gift stores and greengrocers. Now many of those have been forced to close.

Online growth has gone to Amazon whose owner is the world’s richest man.

The real outcome from coronavirus measures has been the largest transference of wealth, from small business to the elites in Australian history.

We expect this sort of thing from the Liberal Party and their sell-out sidekicks the Nationals.

But Labor has embraced the politics of fear and cronyism in Queensland, Western Australia and Victoria.

Shame on you.

Only One Nation is committed to restoring a fair go for working Australians.

As our motion today on the National Curriculum and last sitting on de-gendered language shows, One Nation will continue to defend Australia as a faith-based nation committed to family and community.

One Nation continues to champion the natural environment. We continue to fight for clean air, for clean water, for clean food and for clean medicines.

We leave worshipping of the sky god of warming to Labor, the Greens and sadly now, in their final act of surrender, the Liberal-National Party with their policies contradicting science, common sense and nature.

With this budget the Government is borrowing money to increase funding for a fake climate emergency. There’s no climate emergency and a gutless pandering to the bed wetters on the left is not in the best interests of Australians.

This budget has a black armband view of Australia’s future. The projections for the contribution to GDP from agriculture are based on the assumption that lower rainfall will return and agricultural output and exports will decline.

According to the Government’s own research a drought like this last one has happened 10 times in the last 1000 years. It was not climate change 1000 years ago and it is not climate change now.

Cold weather has overtaken the northern hemisphere with widespread crop failures, reduced harvests and higher prices. This will not change over forward estimates.

Natural climate cycles have given our farmers a wonderful opportunity to grow our agricultural sector and exports.

Foreign influence and ownership in Australia has reached crisis levels and this budget has not done anything about it.

Our ports in Darwin, Melbourne and Newcastle and much of our power grid are now in the hands of a hostile foreign power. Those owners have publicly professed their loyalty not to Australia but to the Chinese Communist party.

This budget makes no provision for the cost of buying these contracts back so one can assume the Government does not intend to act to restore Australian sovereignty over our strategic assets.

Our armed forces are incapable of waging war against any serious challengers. Our subs are in pieces, only 1 sub is combat ready at this moment.

One.

The budget continues the new subs project despite the cost rising to an estimated $200 billion and delivery pushing out past 2030.

On the bright side Mr President, Australia is advancing our space capability.

Later this year an Australian designed and manufactured satellite will be launched into orbit from an Australian designed and manufactured rocket, using an Australian launch facility.

How amazing is that?

This is proof that it is time to get the government out of people’s lives and let free enterprise and Aussie ingenuity fix this mess.

Starting with withdrawing from the United Nations and their sovereignty-sapping, wealth-sucking, industry-killing conventions that make Australia less not more.

One Nation’s alternative budget will recover the freedoms, opportunities and living standards that Australians once enjoyed.

One Nation will cancel the submarine contract and purchase nuclear powered submarines off the shelf to expedite delivery and recover our defensive capability.

One Nation will terminate the clean energy fund and the Department of Climate change while honouring agreements already in place.

Every year Liberal-Labor-Nationals climate and energy policies cost Australians an ADDITIONAL $B13. The Liberal Energy Minister admits he is afraid for future electricity prices and terrified of losing reliability and stability.

Rightly so thanks to Liberal-Labor-Nationals policies starting with John Howard in 1996.

One Nation will abolish all energy subsidies for fossil fuel (except the diesel fuel rebate) and renewables so that free enterprise can build reliable, baseload power of whichever type they consider the most efficient.

This will restore our productive capacity by breathing life into our devastated industries.

One Nation will allow doctors to prescribe Australian medical cannabis to anyone with a medical need.

One Nation calls for a national taxation summit to reach agreement on how our taxation system is failing everyday Australians and destroying our country and to arrive at solutions based on proven principles.

This budget increases the number of public servants by 5000 over the next 12 months.

One Nation will freeze employment numbers in the Federal public service and re-allocate staff away from virtue signalling and pork barrelling projects into productive pursuits.

One Nation will reduce immigration such that our net population growth becomes zero. This will allow infrastructure like roads, hospitals, schools and housing to catch up with the avalanche of migrants that Labor/Greens and Liberal/Nationals have let in over the last 20 years.

A net zero population policy will actually allow around 80,000 migrants to still come in each year to replace the 80,000 who leave each year. We would expect 10,000 of those will be refugees.

This contrasts with a peak arrival rate of 275,000 new migrants annually pre COVID – 3 & ½ times our stable number.

The reduction in demand will take the heat out of the housing market and allow everyday Australians some relief from the extreme inflation we are seeing in housing, education, aged care, child care and medical expenses.

One Nation is preparing a plan that will turn Northern Australia into a growth engine for the whole country, offering a new future for Australia based on agriculture, mining, value adding.

More importantly, based on community.