The Industrial Relations system in this country is a mess. One Nation is committed to untangling the web of over-regulation.
The Fair Work Ombudsman
The Fair Work Commission Part 1
Fair Work Commission Part 2
For three years I have been raising the issue of casual coal miners being fraudulently dudded out of Long Service Leave entitlements. Finally, I was able to secure an audit into the Coal Long Service Leave Scheme from the previous government. Yet, exactly how much needs to be paid back to casual coal miners is still unclear. We’ll be following this up again at next estimates and ensuring casual workers receive the leave payments they are entitled to.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/myNJXhidJfA/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-12-21 14:53:412022-12-21 14:53:46Fair Work and Coal LSL at Senate Estimates
This isn’t someone you would expect to see speaking out about these issues. The narrative continues to crumble and even the most left are being forced to acknowledge reality.
Former federal MP Dr Kerryn Phelps has revealed she and her wife both suffered serious and ongoing injures from Covid vaccines, while suggesting the true rate of adverse events is far higher than acknowledged due to underreporting and “threats” from medical regulators.
In an explosive submission to Parliament’s Long Covid inquiry, the former Australian Medical Association (AMA) president has broken her silence about the “devastating” experience — emerging as the most prominent public health figure in the country to speak up about the taboo subject.
In an abuse of Parliamentary process and at great expense to the taxpayer, Anthony Albanese has called everyone back to Canberra for one day to pass his thought bubble that will not bring electricity prices down.
While capping gas prices might sound good in the short term, in the long term it will mean less supply and more expensive power prices when the cap runs out in 12 months.
Instead, we need to remove all of the wind and solar subsidies. Let coal do its job as a reliable baseload power and remove the roadblocks for nuclear energy.
Wind and solar caused this energy crisis, capping gas prices won’t fix it.
Transcript
President, as a servant to the many varied and hard-working people in our QLD community, I’m happy to travel back to Canberra for this session while recognising that due to yet another Labor-Greens-Teal rushed bill many senators cannot.
I’ve submitted a document discovery today to find out exactly how much taxpayers’ money was wasted on this disgusting spectacle.
It would have been wise for the Government to work out what we were returning for prior to recalling the Senate, instead of this chaos to get a bill ready at 9.30pm the night before.
With no Committee oversight, no public scrutiny, no industry scrutiny, a shocking bill rammed through courtesy of the ALP, Greens and Teals Senator Pocock in a single day, in return for quid pro quos next year.
There’s a point where the process this Government uses to get Greens’ and Teal Senator Pocock’s support moves past what is proper into very questionable territory.
Under this bill, the gas industry is being murdered for the financial benefit of rival industries – wind and solar, who are financial supporters of the Greens and Teal Senator Pocock.
It should be clear by now the Albanese Labor Party are not the ones running the country. In the senate, the Greens-Teal Pocock alliance run government.
The Treasury Laws Amendment (Energy Price Relief Plan) Bill 2022, has I’sure been met with popping champagne corks from comrades on the labour left.
Soviet-level powers right there, in the Government’s grasp.
The Government regulation will decree what gas can be sold, to whom it can be sold, for how much it can be sold, who can be refused permission to buy or sell and who can be forced to buy and sell.
The Greens and Teals can’t wait to write those regulations.
A frightening power grab from a desperate government without a clue how to solve the energy crisis it helped create and now worsen.
What industry will be next?
Don’t be fooled with this talk about temporary price caps. This legislation includes a code of conduct with permanent price controls built in.
How much will that ongoing cap be?
This is done through Legislative Instrument, so whatever the cap is, the Commissar, Minister can change it at the stroke of a pen with no appeal mechanism.
Make no mistake if this bill is passed those regulations will escalate in lockstep with the Government’s desperation to control runaway energy inflation caused from escalating power shortages.
Under the Liberal/National government, tens of billions of dollars in direct subsidies have been poured into unreliable wind and solar.
These are incapable of supplying baseload power at an affordable price.
Because the market has not closed hydrocarbon power down as fast as climate bed-wetters want, coal-fired power stations are now being threatened with closure using State Government powers.
This is what is known in finance as political risk.
As the supply of electricity becomes less reliable, afternoon price spikes are becoming common place and everyone’s power bills go up.
There’s a lesson here. Intervening in energy markets to push a political ideology has unintended consequences.
With this legislation Australia is preparing to take our place alongside the Weimar republic, Yugoslavia, Hungary and Venezuela on the list of Governments who ignored history and as a result destroyed their economies.
Venezuela should be a lesson for Australia. Socialist President Maduro spent his first term in 2012 spending every cent the Government earned from oil exports.
Windfall revenue was spent on programs that sounded good on social media, yet proved unsustainable.
Australia is spending every cent we earn from coal, gas and mineral exports just like Venezuela.
When the oil boom ended, Maduro started printing money to keep wasteful government spending going.
Australia over the last three years printed $500bn using electronic journal entries.
Maduro’s print and spend caused prices to double each week, and Maduro responded with price controls.
Australia’s inflation rate is at a 30-year high, nothing like Venezuela’s, and yet we have price controls being introduced with this bill.
Price controls cover up the problem. They never solve it. They make it worse.
To take such an authoritarian measure is an indication that something has this Government and the Premiers spooked – likely the REAL inflation rate that will result from net zero measures?
Time will tell.
The way in which a western country like Venezuela lost control of their economy should be a warning to Australia.
For three years ’print & spend’ measures have been waived through on Liberal, National, Greens and Labor uni-party voices.
Labor did not inherit Scott Morrison’s mess, Labor in the states were part of Scott Morrison’s mess.
Whether our inflation rate from this point forward moves up or down is squarely in the Government’s hands.
A small number of people in the government think they are smarter than the free market.
The same free market has for generations successfully combined hundreds of thousands of workers with hundreds of billions of dollars of capital equipment, in order to successfully manage trillions of dollars in mineral resources for the lowest cost to the consumer.
Now though, our Federal and State Labor Governments, together with the fake Christian, fake Conservative NSW Government of Matt Kean and Dom Perrottet, think this piece of legislation will fix what they broke.
So much hubris combined with so little knowledge of history & economics will be the downfall of our beautiful country.
Veneztralia here we come.
In six months the Albanese government has steered Australia from ‘welfare liberalism’ to socialism.
Next port of call will be ‘statism’ before Labor reach their ultimate destination – communism.
I notice some commentators have been calling for the Government to penalty tax the very high profits being experienced in the minerals industry in recent years.
Instead of making money for taxpayers the Prime Minister decided instead to just destroy those profits, so the shareholders don’t get them, the tax man doesn’t get them, nobody gets them AND the taxpayers are paying $1.5bn a year in subsidies from our debt-financed budget.
$1.5bn over two years is only one percent of the household and small business electricity market, this measure is more public relations than realistic assistance.
One Nation will not be wedged on this payment. Borrowing money from Australians to give back to Australians is a pointless exercise. It literally transfers money from children to their parents.
Responsible parents do not fall for this.
It is a sugar hit that takes attention away from why electricity prices are so high.
Rising electricity prices come from several different aspects of the government’s net zero transition, which, for clarity is a transition away from cheap and reliable, coal baseload power to fairy tale, nature-dependent solar and wind power.
Treasury are projecting electricity prices will rise 36% next year. If passed this bill will reduce that rise 6.5%, and if the States cap the coal price this will save another 6.5%.
In any event electricity is still going up next year. Households can expect a rise of $420 using the Government’s own sums. A rise of 23%. Almost a quarter higher.
When these measures fail, and they will, the rise will be $650.
Today I submitted a motion for a document discovery on the modelling claiming the increase will be 23% not 36%. Including the element of any electricity price rise caused as a result of the Ukraine war.
I look forward to seeing this ‘modelling’
The Treasury Laws Amendment (Energy Price Relief Plan) Bill 2022 deals with gas only. The Albanese Government has dumped the coal price ceiling on to the states to avoid having to pay compensation.
John Howard’s government pulled that same bypass around the Constitution when he took property rights away from farmers to meet UN Kyoto targets without paying a cent in compensation to farmers.
The Albanese Government has joined John Howard’s government in destroying trust in Government, with the result Government must apply more and more coercive measures to govern.
Australia’s gas price has been a problem since the end of 2020. The government’s Australian Energy Regulator confirms the rise in gas prices started a full year before Russia invaded Ukraine.
Treasury and the Government spin doctors blaming Russia for electricity price rises is dishonest. Deceit.
Gas and coal price rises have resulted from the need to back up unreliable wind and solar with gas, combined with colder temperatures and a wind drought across Western Europe.
At the same time the idiots in power in Western Europe closed their coal and nuclear plants.
Gas became the only thing keeping their lights on.
Dishonestly blaming Russia instead of the correct cause – net zero energy deficits, will lead Australia down the same dishonest, inhuman path as Europe.
This bill quite simply fixes the wrong problem.
The war on coal has meant Australia cannot meet the world demand for coal and as a result prices are high, and market demand has switched to gas, those prices are now going up.
Australia has a coal and gas supply problem, not a price problem.
Australia must take the jackboot off the coal and gas industries and allow more production.
Rather than imposing old soviet-style controls on the gas industry under this bill, the Federal Government could have gone with a much simpler and less onerous option.
Western Australia has had a domestic gas reservation since 2006. This requires Gas extractors to reserve 15% of production for Australian domestic use.
This scheme has produced a gas price around $5 a gigajoule, which is production cost plus a fair profit.
Prime Minister Albanese could have used this system on a national level. He chose not to.
Instead, the Prime Minister has gone with old soviet-style legislation that will cost Australians twice as much for gas than a reservation system would have cost.
Why would they do that unless the reason for the legislation is not the price cap and is instead this bill’s industry control powers?
In two or three years’ time the public will be marching on Parliament House to protest electricity bills that are so out of control power that companies will be disconnecting people left right and centre.
Once the serious protests start this Government will reach for the permanent price controls in this bill to force coal and gas extractors to sell to electricity generators at next to nothing, just to save themselves.
There is a showdown coming in this place.
This morning Adam Bandt confirmed that the Greens and Teals are committed to eliminating the gas industry.
Hydrocarbons have lifted Australians and the world out of poverty. The Greens will cast our beautiful nation back to the dark ages.
Gas is essential to firming solar and wind, which means gas and coal are the only things keeping our lights on, our fridges running and industry functioning.
Without gas and coal the economy will be entirely reliant on nature dependent solar and wind power and battery backups that carry a price tag above $100bn and require renewal every 10 years.
Green energy is no energy. Eliminating gas and coal is insanity.
The Albanese Government’s proposal for a coal price cap will not reduce electricity bills and most likely, will increase them.
Coal plants buy their coal on long term supply contracts. The cost they are paying is not the spot price, it is much less.
The cap of $125 a tonne is above the contract supply price currently being paid at coal power stations, of $80 to $100 a tonne.
It is most likely that suppliers will increase their supply price of coal to $125, knowing that’s the safe limit.
A coal price rise is the most likely outcome from these measures.
A 6.5% fall is technically impossible. For the sake of argument let’s assume the price of coal in 2023 would have been $175 and is now $125 as a result of the cap.
Let’s have a quick look at the effect of that $50 a tonne reduction.
The energy density of coal is 6.7kw/h per kilo, which means one tonne of coal produces 6.7MW/h of electricity.
That’s enough to run 1600 homes in Queensland for a day.
So a $50 saving divided by 1600 homes….at the most simple level of analysis, this measure will save householders .3c a day on their electricity bills.
Not 6.5%, which is $110 a year, $11 a year.
Because coal fuel costs are a tiny portion of the coal-fired electricity price.
The Government’s measures are being sold with a deceitful public relations spin, hiding onerous, soviet-style powers that are the real reason for this legislation.
There’s another serious risk to our energy security this bill ignores – rising interest rates.
Six interest rate rises in 6 months under this Albanese Government.
Rising interest rates increase business overheads right across the energy industry.
Our electricity generation capacity must be replaced to meet ‘net zero by 2050’ – generators, transmission lines and a whopping $100bn bill for big batteries.
Rising interest rates are pushing up the capital cost of this replacement, as well as operating costs across the energy sector.
If this Government cannot get interest rates under control the outcome will be catastrophic for taxpayers and energy consumers.
There is a better way.
Even to the global warming believers One Nation’s plan can deliver cheap, stable baseload power without upsetting your sky god of warming.
All we have to do is
Stop closing coal power stations;
Build Collinsville power station and replace Liddell with modern Hele coal;
Transition Australia’s coal generators to modern HELE coal.
Transitioning to clean coal and ending government handouts for renewable fairy tale solar and wind power will dramatically reduce electricity bills.
It’s time to walk away from this net zero dumpster fire.
I call on the Senate to reject this bill and say no to soviet level powers that will inevitably backfire and cause an economic and social catastrophe.
One Nation has been right to oppose net zero madness for 25 years.
We will continue to be a voice of reason, bringing better solutions to this Parliament.
Solutions that will provide everyday Australians and the businesses they rely on with opportunity and prosperity for all.
We have one flag, we are one community, we are One Nation.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/NcoOHJamt_s/0.jpg360480Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2022-12-15 16:07:582022-12-15 16:44:07Labor rams through communist style control over the gas industry
Meat and Livestock Australia is meant to fight for cattle producers in Australia, making sure there’s plenty of cheap red meat available for Australians and the world. Instead, they are “aligning” themselves with the “sustainable development” goals of the United Nations. This is the same United Nations whose goals will result in less cattle, less meat and more bugs being eaten. You have to ask why the industry body for livestock isn’t standing against organisations that want to see livestock reduced.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for attending today. Can I start by confirming, Mr Strong, that the sustainability update 2021, this document, is designed to provide an update on the progress of the carbon neutral by 2030 road map?
Mr Stron g : Yes, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you. That was quick. I note the new document reproduces the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. So we’re all the way with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. Is Meat & Livestock Australia endorsing the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals relevant to the meat and livestock association, which I believe is eight of the goals? Is that correct?
Mr Strong : No, it’s not our position to endorse those goals. We’re just referencing them in the program so if people are aware of those broader commitments that have been made by the UN, for example, they can see where the activities in CN30 line up with that.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got here, in prime position on page 5, ‘Sustainability—Australian red meat and livestock industry alignment with global goals’.
Mr Strong : It’s a reference. The goal is to be CN30 as an industry. The important part of that document is what’s on the very front page; the statement that says something like, ‘The drivers’—you might even want to read it out.
Mr Strong : The efforts we have in this place and the focus we have in this space are very much driven by the profitability and production of our producers and industry.
Senator ROBERTS: Which of the UN sustainability goals does red meat fit into?
Mr Strong : I don’t have that in front of me. As I mentioned, it’s just a reference. The more important piece are the things that we’re investing in is a research and development corporation to support our producers and the industry to be more sustainable while they can still productive and profitable. That’s the focus.
Senator ROBERTS: You said while they can still be profitable? Sustainability, surely, if it’s genuine sustainability, they would be supported by that. It wouldn’t be opposite. It’s not productivity versus sustainability. If there’s genuine sustainability, that would help profitability. Your language betrays the UN. The UN sustainability goals are not possible without subsidies. So the UN really is about profit or sustainability. Now, what is it?
Mr Beckett : We think it’s both.
Mr Strong : I don’t have a position on the UN’s role. But our view is that you can actually be profitable, productive and sustainable.
Senator ROBERTS: There are eight sustainable development goals, which are not yours, that the MLA have targeted in this document and to which each RDC contributes. They are: zero hunger; clean water and sanitation; affordable and clean energy; decent work and economic growth; responsible consumption and production; climate action; life on the land; and peace, justice and strong institutions. Have you got KPIs for each of those eight?
Mr Strong : As I mentioned at the start, that’s a reference to those goals. They’re not goals that we would set.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s get on to the nuts and bolts then. What’s the average weekly adult consumption of red meat and red meat products in Australia?
Mr Strong : It depends how it’s measured. Red meat and red meat products, did you say?
Mr Strong : Across all species, I’m not exactly sure. The total protein consumption is nearly 90 kilos, and red meat’s the largest contributor to that. The beef consumption that comes out of the ABS figures—which is as sold—is just over 19 kilos, which is the actual consumed product.
Senator ROBERTS: The United Nations is pushing for a 30 per cent reduction in methane production by 2030. How will that affect Australian red meat production?
Mr Strong : I’m not sure the two things are as closely connected as where you’re heading. The commitments that the red meat sector have, particularly the CN30 commitment, which was made in 2017, are about a path to being carbon neutral, as far as a total contribution to the national greenhouse gas emissions inventory is concerned, and about doing that in a way whereby the industry increases its production and profitability at the same time.
Senator ROBERTS: We need to get down to nuts and bolts, because it’s systems that drive behaviour, including farmers’ behaviour. The 2021 update says:
The red meat sector has reduced CO2 emissions by 53.22% since 2005 baseline.
What does that mean?
Mr Strong : The current number is actually 59 per cent, and that’s a number which has been calculated by the CSIRO using the national greenhouse gas emissions—
Mr Strong : In 2005, the contribution that the red meat sector made to the national greenhouse gas emissions inventory was just over 20 per cent, and it’s now just over 10 per cent. That’s what it means.
Senator ROBERTS: There are only eight years left. Where are we now, and what measures will be needed to get to 100 per cent?
Mr Strong : Where we are now is that, as you mentioned, there are eight years left on that goal that the industry set in 2017, so we’ve more than halved the contribution to the national greenhouse gas emissions inventory, and we’ve got, as you mentioned, the roadmap that lays out the things that we’ll invest in and develop over the next eight years to take us the rest of that journey.
Senator ROBERTS: Let me understand a bit more. Genetics, feed management, feedlot, and fattening as opposed to grass finishing—that all helps. Right?
Mr Strong : Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: But they’re already doing these things close to saturation, as I understand it. So what else have you got?
Mr Strong : They’re not close to saturation. There’s a long list of things. To date, we’ve invested between $140 million and $150 million in research and development, and there’s a runway roadmap for about the same level of investment over the next few years to head us towards that goal.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it the case that what you’ve really got to do in order to reach a 100 per cent reduction on 2005 levels by 2030 is cut production?
Mr Strong : No, not at all—absolutely not.
Senator ROBERTS: As I see it, this could be another major industry being derailed.
Mr Strong : No, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: The UN has put goals out with regard to food, and they’re basically wanting to cut food; they’ve stated that. The UN has put out goals regarding different energy, by which they really mean no energy. The UN has put out different cars, electric vehicles, they really mean no cars for the masses. This is what they’ve said: the UN calls for initially 500g per week of red meat, which is 70g per day. They failed to get an endorsement for much, much lower. That’s what the UN’s stated.
Mr Strong : I’m managing director of Meat and Livestock Australia. We’re a service organisation for the Australian red meat sector.
Mr Strong : We’re committed to the productivity and profitability of the red meat sector, intergenerational sustainability of the sector and leaving the environment in better shape. We are not aligned to the UN goals; we’re not driven by UN goals. We understand individuals concerned with those things; they are not the things driving our decisions or investments, which we make on behalf of the industry and with the industry. Our absolute focus is on the profitability, productivity and intergenerational sustainability of our sector.
Senator ROBERTS: Last question: I understand some of these documents have gone from being fairly prominent on MLA’s website to being obscure.
Mr Strong : No, not at all. I’m more than happy to provide hard copies, soft copies—
Senator ROBERTS: A way to increase profitability for a few is to cut the number and dramatically increase meat prices.
Mr Strong : No. I’m aware of the comments that you made in the Senate about that. It’s absolutely not the truth. The commitment of MLA is about long-term profitability and productivity of the sector and supporting red meat production across the country.
Senator ROBERTS: We won’t have farmers scratching around, sitting in a town, relying on carbon dioxide credits while the others make money?
CHAIR: I will have to remind you of the time, Senator Roberts.
Warning: Distressing Content. New Zealand authorities have lawfully ‘kidnapped’ a child from his parents to forcibly perform a medical treatment on him when there was an equally valid treatment available that the parents supported. Baby William required a blood transfusion which the parents agreed to as long as the blood was from unvaccinated donors. The parents had found suitable donors for the request yet NZ health authorities declined it. The matter ended up in the courts which ruled in favour of the authorities.
The judge said the parents would remain the guardians of the child but all health matters would now be determined by the State. The Mother was not allowed to hold Will all night. She was not allowed to cuddle him. She was also not allowed to sleep all night, as she was told that if she did any of this, she would be forcibly removed back to the ward, from the pre-op room, and would not see the baby before the operation.
The traumatic way in which this situation has been treated does not make sense. This video is confronting but it is the reality of what medical tyranny really means.
With each new day we find more evidence of conflicts of interest, lies from the supposed “experts” and none of these bureaucrats want to acknowledge it. We need a Royal Commission to bring their lies out into the daylight.
Transcript (click)
Senator ROBERTS: Can you tell me how many medicines were approved under the provisional approval pathway during the COVID period 1 July 2020 to date? My numbers are 13 vaccines and six drugs; is that correct?
Dr Skerritt: Are you talking specifically about COVID treatments and COVID vaccines?
Senator ROBERTS: No, any vaccines or drugs that have been approved using the provisional pathway.
Dr Skerritt: I will start with COVID vaccine treatments. There have been seven COVID vaccines and eight COVID treatments. I’ll just check whether I’ve got the numbers for other medicines during that period. You’re talking about the provisional approval pathway?
Dr Skerritt: From 1 July this year there have been five provisional approvals. From the period 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022 there have been 23. That would include those COVID treatments. What it does show is a lot of other medicines, such as cancer medicines, such as medicines for rare conditions, have also been approved. In the financial year 2021, from 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022, there were five. Over the period you’re talking about, that would add up to 33.
Senator ROBERTS: How many drugs have been approved under the normal process during that same period?
Dr Skerritt: During the same period? I will add the three financial years and I’ll check my mental arithmetic. So 36 this current financial year, and 117. These are either new approvals or new indications approved. And 95 the year before. So, it is a significant percentage, but not most of them.
Senator ROBERTS: Is the maximum provisional approval period six years because it can take that long to get drugs approved under the old approval system?
Dr Skerritt: A provisional approval is only valid for two years and then the company either has to come back and show why they cannot obtain all the data within the period and apply for an extension.
Dr Skerritt: They are possible extensions; they’re not guaranteed.
Senator ROBERTS: How much money do you save pharmaceutical companies by switching from full approval to express approval? I understand it’s hundreds of millions per approval?
Dr Skerritt: It actually costs the pharmaceutical companies more in regulatory fees for provisional approval.
Senator ROBERTS: No, I didn’t say regulatory fees. How much are you saving the pharmaceutical companies by giving them express or provisional approval rather than going through the six-year period for getting proper approval?
Dr Skerritt: No, you’ve misinterpreted the system. It’s not a six-year period to get full regulatory approval.
Dr Skerritt: Most of our approvals are submitted as a standard approval, especially, for example, if it wasn’t a public health emergency or it’s a drug that already has others in the same category. They’re submitted as a standard approval.
Senator ROBERTS: Dedicated trials for their drugs, I understand, can be hundreds of millions of dollars. How much time and money would they save by going express?
Dr Skerritt: We would not give a provisional approval to a medicine unless there were clinical trials.
Senator ROBERTS: How much money does it save if they do a provisional without doing a formal or normal approval process? How much money does it save the drug company?
Dr Skerritt: I don’t believe there are necessarily savings. The situation would be different for every drug. It’s really important to emphasise there were very extensive clinical trials for the vaccines and treatments that have been through provisional approval.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that it can cost hundreds of millions of dollars to get the full approval process. Without the dedicated trial, they could save hundreds of millions of dollars per drug?
Dr Skerritt: I don’t necessarily agree with you.
Senator ROBERTS: When does the provisional approval for Pfizer expire?
Dr Skerritt: The two-year period will be two years from the anniversary of the first approval. I would emphasise that in certain countries—
Dr Skerritt: For the very first approval, for 16 years and over, the two-year period finishes on 25 January 2023.
Senator ROBERTS: I have in front of me a document called the Australian Public Assessment Report for Tozinameran, from Comirnaty (Pfizer), dated December 2021. Is this the approval application for the paediatric version of the Pfizer vaccine?
Dr Skerritt: No, it is not. An Australian Public Assessment Report is a summary of the assessment that we did of the application. You mentioned Pfizer. The actual application is over 220,000 thousand pages of paper from Pfizer for that particular group of vaccines.
Limitations of the current application data. Safety follow-up is currently limited to median 2.4 months post dose 2 in cohort 1, and 2.4 weeks for the safety expansion cohort.
What is the safety expansion cohort?
Dr Skerritt: Remember, also, this was going back to the time of approval. We now have hundreds of millions, actually more than a billion, people who have been vaccinated with that vaccine and experience going on since December 2020, when the first vaccination was done. The safety expansion cohort is in a clinical trial where individuals are monitored closely and the data reported back to regulators for periods of months, leading to years, after their vaccination.
Senator ROBERTS: Did you recommend this substance based on 2.4 weeks of safety testing or did you get more in? If so, over what period? How many months?
Dr Skerritt: Remember the initial approval from TGA was based on that two months of follow-up, but we also had the experience of other countries that had more than a month before starting mass vaccination campaigns. When we approved Pfizer on 25 January2021, we were in almost daily contact with the British, who by that stage had vaccinated millions of British people by 25 January 2021. Real-world evidence played a very important role in both the approvals and in the ongoing safety monitoring of these vaccines.
Senator ROBERTS: So you relied on data from other countries and you relied for periods of months, merely months. It can’t be more than six months, because there’s a gap between application and approval and to give time for collection of data and analysis. There should be years of data before we start putting this stuff into our children, yet it’s months.
Dr Skerritt: I disagree in the context of a pandemic and a public health crisis. Regulators globally felt that it was appropriate to do initial approvals—
Dr Skerritt: As the head of the Australian regulator, I would do precisely the same if I had my time again. The alternative would have been to leave Australians unvaccinated through the course of 2020, 2021 and 2022, and there would have been tens of thousands more Australian deaths.
Senator ROBERTS: Can I reference a letter from the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care, signed by Radha Khiani, Director, Governance and Coordination section, in which the department makes this claim. The letter from 4 November 2022, just last week, states:
A large team of technical and clinical experts at the TGA carefully evaluated the data submitted by the sponsor. A treatment or vaccine is only provisionally approved if this rigorous process is completed.
This document concerned the use of Pfizer stages 2 to 3 cynical trial data in support of their application for provisional approval. Did the TGA check the stage 2 and stage 3 clinical trial data from Pfizer? Did you check it?
Dr Skerritt: We did check the phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trial data from Pfizer and we also took it to independent external medical experts as well as consumer representatives.
Senator ROBERTS: Referencing Freedom of Information No. 2289, in which the applicant requested a copy of the stage 2 and stage 3 clinical trial data, the TGA responded that the ‘TGA does not hold any relevant documents relating to the request’. That was a request for stages 2 to 3 clinical trial data.
Dr Skerritt: Without seeing what’s in your hand, I believe that you asked for individual patient data rather than the phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trial data. I can give you my word that we assessed the phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trial data; otherwise, what else did we do? Look at the colour of the label on the bottle? That is the main thing our team of several thousand clinicians look at in reviewing a new vaccine, the phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trial data. It is the centrepiece.
Senator ROBERTS: The freedom-of-information request then asked for ‘any documents confirming the process of analysing this data to a decision, including meetings, notes, dates and times’. Again the TGA replied, ‘We have no relevant documents.’ Did you review the stage 2 and stage 3 data or not, and, if you did, why did you tell this freedom-of-information applicant you did not have these documents? Which document is the lie? One of them is.
Dr Skerritt: I don’t have that document in front of me. We can review it on notice. But we reviewed the phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trial data at length.
CHAIR: This really needs to be the last one so I can share the call.
Senator ROBERTS: I just want you to think about this and confirm it or otherwise: and ‘the trail data contained sufficient proof the vaccines were safe and effective, sufficient to meet the criteria for provisional approval’; is that correct?
Dr Skerritt: Correct. Yes.
Transcript (click)
Senator ROBERTS: I asked a question earlier, Professor Skerritt, about the number of drugs approved under the full approval process, the normal process. If you exclude the number of drugs that you said were new uses for existing drugs and medical devices, what is the figure for new drugs approved under the full approval process in the last three years?
Dr Skerritt : It will be about 90, but I’ll give you the exact answer on notice. We approve between 30 and 40 new drugs a year.
Senator ROBERTS: You also confirmed your view that ‘the trial data contained sufficient proof that the vaccines were safe and effective, sufficient to meet the criteria for provisional approval’. Yet after 18 months and analysing the data, some of the world’s leading virologists and pharmacologists from UCLA, Stamford and here in Australia found that the ‘Stage 2 and Stage 3 trial data showed the vaccine was associated with a 36 per cent increase in serious adverse events’ and ‘out of every 10,000 people injected, 18 will experience a life-threatening or altering complication, and the vaccine should not have been approved, as it caused more harm than it prevented’. That’s what they said. One of the papers—there are several papers—is titled ‘Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomised trials in adults’. How could ATAGI review the data and conclude that everything was fine, with the world’s leading experts on the subject, in a peer reviewed and published paper, then finding the exact opposite? Did you approve the vaccine in a deal with colleagues in the pharmaceutical industry?
Dr Skerritt : I think that’s an offensive allegation, and we certainly did not.
Dr Skerritt : people in terms of the courts, including the criminal court. So, we work with people in the pharmaceutical industry and we work with other government people, but they’re not colleagues in the sense of working for the same organisation.
Senator ROBERTS: Did you do a deal or come to an arrangement with the—
Dr Skerritt : No.
Senator ROBERTS: It could have been just provisional approval to get it through. Did you do that with the pharmaceutical industry?
Dr Skerritt : No. No, that’s an offensive and unfounded allegation, and I’d like you to withdraw it.
Senator ROBERTS: There are thousands of people who are dead, and we’ll get on to that in the next session.
Dr Skerritt : I disagree with you. There are 14 deaths associated with vaccines in Australia, all—
Just months after the globalists got tired of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, new Prime Minister of England Rishi Sunak has shown his true colours. He has abandoned election promises and is instead implementing the WEF agenda of more control. “We want to rewire the entire global financial system for net zero” really means “we want to be able to cut you off if you don’t do what we say”.
It’s been nearly three months since the platform LinkedIn inexplicably banned me for sharing this video. Big tech censorship is getting out of control. Just imagine the consequences when getting labelled with “wrongthink” is combined with the power of a Digital Identity.
https://media-exp1.licdn.com/dms/image/C4D12AQFJh266gvHYUw/article-cover_image-shrink_720_1280/0/1617973631243?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=xiMWqxwDLl5yk1gIEadfi0Gi4ZdSNHakseMIb23kZwQ7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-12-06 11:50:402022-12-06 11:50:46The video that got me BANNED from LinkedIn
Vaccine mandates are still in effect across the private sector even though we know they do not stop transmission.
While Labor’s Industrial Relations Bill is a rushed dog’s breakfast, I’m hoping to give it some redemption by including a clause that would stop companies from discriminating based on vaccination status.
There’s no reason for blanket mandates in workplaces given it will not protect workers or customers from infection. The IR Bill and my amendment are due to be voted on today.
Transcript
Minister, you look like you need a break, so I will give you a break from your legal jousting and setting up definitions of terms for the future. In proposing this bill, the government says the bill aims to secure jobs. My amendment on sheet 1768 goes to the heart of ensuring job security and protecting workers’ rights. To ensure job security, my amendment on sheet 1768 ensures that unjustified vaccine discrimination is stamped out in employment. The original bill inserts breastfeeding, intersex status and gender identity as attributes that the Fair Work Act protects from discrimination. This amendment copies that approach and simply adds COVID-19 vaccination status as an attribute protected from discrimination. The protection is still subject to the limits imposed on the other discrimination grounds in the Fair Work Act. An employer will not be in breach of the antidiscrimination grounds where the employer can prove, as they should have to, that it is a genuine and reasonable requirement of the position. This amendment is reasonable in its approach. It is not radical, because it uses and simply extends the existing mechanisms in the Fair Work Act.
We’ve long known that COVID vaccines do not stop transmission. Before this came apparent, however, getting vaccinated to ‘protect others’ was the justification many businesses used to roll out vaccine mandates. As a condition of keeping their job, many employees were coerced and still are being coerced into receiving COVID injections and boosters they do not want. The vaccine mandates cannot be justified, given the fact that vaccines do not guarantee protection from transmission.
The New South Wales Personal Injury Commission agrees with this view, with workers compensation being awarded for psychological distress stemming from mandates in the determination of Dawking and the Secretary of the Department of Education, handed down on 3 November. Sometimes the wheels of justice turn slowly, yet we are happy that judicial bodies are taking up this self-evident position that broad vaccine mandates cannot be justified.
Despite this, mandates are still in effect across much of the private sector. It’s clear that further legislative action must be taken. Businesses are simply ignoring the evidence against unjustified vaccine mandates. A clear message needs to be sent that unreasonable directions that infringe on workers’ rights have no place in Australian workplaces.
Often mandates do not even account for Australians that have accepted medical contra-indications to vaccination. The Australian newspaper reports that Qantas sacked a pilot for failing to comply with a vaccination mandate while he was off work in a serious health condition: being treated for bowel cancer. Separately, I’ve met a Qantas employee who, after being injected with the first COVID injection, was rushed to hospital with severe disability—possibly life-threatening—due to the COVID injection. After hospital care and partial recovery, he returned to work, where Qantas insisted he get the second injection. He contested it and is on a vastly reduced pay on workers’ compensation. He fears his career with Qantas is finished. How can this be in this country?
This amendment seeks to reinforce workers’ rights to refuse a workplace direction where it is not a reasonable and justified requirement of the job. It leaves no doubt for employees and employers that vaccine mandates must not be in place unless there is a reasonable and justifiable need for them. Minister, given that businesses continue to ignore workers’ rights in this area, will the government support this amendment to reinforce the decisions of the Fair Work Commission and codify protections for workers against unreasonable workplace directions?
https://img.youtube.com/vi/AhYIkipO-J8/0.jpg360480Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2022-12-01 16:27:072022-12-15 16:41:55Vaccine Anti-Discrimination Amendment moved on Industrial Relations Bill
