I questioned the Department of Defence regarding their ongoing COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
Other major institutions, like the Federal Police, have dropped these requirements, acknowledging that the evidence on safety and efficacy has shifted significantly.
While the Surgeon General tried to frame these injections as “recommended” not “mandatory” for general staff, the reality is that vaccine mandates are still hanging over the heads of our defence members.I don’t care where a soldier is stationed in the world; if a treatment isn’t proven safe or effective, our defence personnel shouldn’t be forced to take it just to keep their jobs.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’d like to move to vaccine mandates. The Australian Federal Police and other major Commonwealth institutions have removed their mandates for COVID-19 injections on the basis that resulting major health problems from the injections contrasted with very few benefits from the injections, which evidence now shows are neither safe nor effective. Does the Department of Defence still mandate COVID-19 vaccination for employees?
Adm. Johnston: Senator Roberts, the Surgeon General will come to the table to talk through our vaccine approach. While the Surgeon General is getting to her notes, Senator Roberts, as you would appreciate, the employment basis for the Australian Federal Police is largely domestic and delivered in a very different health environment to that which the ADF often finds itself, particularly when we are overseas or operating in very remote or austere occasions. So the circumstances of what law enforcement agencies might do or those agencies based domestically in Australia might do are not equivalent to the employment circumstances our people are often in.
Senator ROBERTS: I accept that, Admiral Johnston. As I said in the last phrase of my concluding sentence, these are injections ‘which evidence now shows are neither safe nor effective’. I don’t care where they are on the planet. They’re neither safe or effective, and that’s now accepted.
Rear Adm. Bennett: There are two aspects with respect to vaccinations, and I think your question is specifically around the COVID vaccine?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Do you still mandate COVID-19 vaccination for employees?
Rear Adm. Bennett: Defence routinely vaccinates our personnel both on entry and annually for certain vaccines, and then there are also operational requirements for vaccination that might be specified on an operational health support order. With respect to the COVID vaccine, on entry we follow the national advice, from the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, around recommendations for vaccines. Defence’s approach has changed over time as those recommendations have changed. The COVID vaccine is safe and effective, but the need for vaccination has changed as the virus has changed, as the prevalence of the virus in our community has changed and as the population’s immunity has changed as they’ve either had COVID or received vaccines. We follow the current recommendations, which I could describe: primary course is still recommended, but an annual booster is recommended for certain populations at risk or for people who, on discussion with their own treating clinician, would like to protect themselves from the virus that year.
Senator ROBERTS: Does that mean it’s voluntary?
Rear Adm. Bennett: It is recommended, but it’s not mandatory. That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’ve ended the mandates
Rear Adm. Bennett: There are two aspects, as I said: on entry and routinely. On operations, there has been an order for vaccination because, as you can appreciate, when personnel go on deployment they are often living together in close quarters and there are different viruses circulating depending on where an operation occurs. The risks of people becoming unwell are much greater, both for themselves and for their mates. But, having said that, with the shift in the virus, Joint Health Command, my team, is consulting with the service chiefs to consider how they feel about the removal of that mandate and about looking at operations on a case-by-case basis—so, should there be a risk, considering what vaccinations may be warranted then. That work’s currently underway.
Senator ROBERTS: How do you assess the risks? Whose medical advice do you take?
Rear Adm. Bennett: ATAGI’s—the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation. We follow their advice on all vaccinations and then consider our own needs for vaccination.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you ever go against ATAGI?
Rear Adm. Bennett: No—well, it depends on what you mean ‘against’. We may go beyond. ATAGI don’t just look at safety and efficacy; they look at the cost to the system. For those vaccines that are recommended, for instance, on the National Immunisation Program, we may provide more routinely in Defence for our personnel because, again, of those operational and other aspects.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that there are significant risks to healthy young people and that many other Commonwealth entities, including the Australian Federal Police, have now revoked their vaccine mandates?
Rear Adm. Bennett: Nearly all states and territories and organisations have revoked mandates. That’s not all on safety; it’s on need as well. All vaccines do have an adverse-effect profile, and part of vaccination is the clinician understanding that profile and informing each individual, case by case, of what that is. The balance of benefits versus risk is considered always in vaccination. As far as COVID goes, the recommendations provided are that, on balance, the benefits of vaccinating people at risk and others are considered to outweigh what is a small incidence of adverse side effects.
https://image2url.com/r2/default/images/1769576060615-9908c4ca-ee7d-414b-a9d0-fd4f37c717d6.png6371139Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-01-29 17:09:472026-01-29 17:10:42Mandates Must Go for Defence Service
In this Estimates session, I asked CASA about an incident that raised serious safety questions where a Qantas flight made an emergency landing in Sydney after the captain suffered chest pains. I wanted to know if a full medical review had been done since the event. CASA couldn’t answer on the spot and agreed to take it on notice.
I asked whether the pilot had received a COVID-19 mRNA jab and if CASA’s medical investigation screens for conditions linked to adverse vaccine events. Again, no answers — just promises to take it on notice.
Then I pressed CASA on something I’ve raised before: their refusal to provide the number of times “myocarditis” appears in their medical record system. They admitted they could do the search however argued it would take too much time and might be misleading. I made it clear — I want the data.
Finally, I shifted to another concern: wind turbines being installed on prime agricultural land. I asked whether CASA considers the impact on aerial operations like crop dusting. CASA confirmed they provide advice on aviation safety but don’t make the final decision — that’s left to local councils.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you have the call.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing. I want to ask about the Qantas plane that made an urgent landing at Sydney airport in March after the captain suffered chest pains. Has a full medical report been done on this pilot for his CASA licence after this event?
Ms Spence: I don’t have that information in front of me, but I’m happy to take it on notice and provide you with a response.
Senator ROBERTS: No-one has that information?
Ms Spence: No, sorry.
Senator ROBERTS: Did the pilot have a COVID-19 mRNA jab?
Ms Spence: As I said, I don’t have any information on that incident, but I’m happy to provide that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Did CASA’s medical investigation specifically screen for the conditions associated with adverse events from COVID-19?
Ms Spence: As I said, I don’t have any information on that incident. I’m happy to take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move slightly. I’m assuming you’re still refusing to draw the number of times the word myocarditis appears in your medical record system and provide it to the committee, even though you’re capable of doing it.
Ms Spence: I think we gave you information in response to your questions on notice explaining the time associated with doing a search for the terms you mention and how long it would take to do that.
Senator ROBERTS: So you are still refusing. You’ve made your position clear. You can do it. You just think it could be misleading. Now you’re saying it might be too much work. I want to ask if you’re still maintaining that you will refuse to provide that answer. I’ll ask you to take it on notice once again. The proper process is for the minister to raise a public interest immunity claim. Are you aware of that?
Ms Spence: What we can take on notice is whether there have been further references to that term in our system since the last time we gave you that answer and then we can provide you advice on how long it would take us to do any more detailed analysis about the basis on which that term was used.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you say that again, please?
Ms Spence: We can take it on notice to provide you with an update on the number of times, based on a search, that those terms have come up in our system since the last time. We can also provide you with advice on how long it would take us to do individual analysis of each time those words came up.
Senator ROBERTS: What I want is the information with no qualifications. I just want the information. If you’re not going to provide it, I want a public interest immunity claim from the minister.
Ms Spence: Taking it on notice is the process that’s normally followed when there’s—
Senator ROBERTS: If you’re not going to give me the data that I want—
ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you’ve asked the question. It’s been answered and taken on notice. We have limited time, so I suggest you move on.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you ever been consulted in relation to wind turbines that are being put up on prime agricultural land and the effect this will have on aerial agricultural operations like crop dusting?
Ms Spence: Our views are often sought in relation to the establishment of wind turbines. We provide our views on it. We don’t have a decision-making role as to whether or not those turbines can be installed.
Senator ROBERTS: So you do give guidance?
Ms Spence: We provide advice on what the impact might be.
Senator ROBERTS: Some of these issues were raised over 10 years ago with CASA, I understand, directly. Are you being asked about these developments today?
Ms Spence: Yes. We’re still being asked. As I said, we don’t have a decision-making role, but we certainly provide advice on any aviation impacts for the decision-maker, which is usually a local area council.
Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t make a final decision on that?
Ms Spence: No.
Senator ROBERTS: You just provide safety advice?
Ms Spence: That’s right. We don’t have any decision-making role in those areas.
The U.S. CDC has changed its guidance on vaccines. The new guidance states that it is not possible to declare vaccines safe because there is no proof that they are. I asked the TGA whether they had changed their own position as a result. The ensuing discussion was pure semantics, as the TGA tried to avoid agreeing with the CDC.
For the record, the theory of logic states: “An outcome that has not been proven impossible may be possible.” To avoid what comes next—a simple question—the TGA had to deny basic logic. That question was: If it MAY be possible, shouldn’t you take a fresh look?
In previous Estimates hearings, I have presented the TGA with peer-reviewed, published papers showing that adjuvants (preservatives) in vaccines can cause autism. These papers actually show causation—the damage to the brain caused by adjuvants used in vaccines.
The testimony from Professor Lawler was simply wrong, and I will revisit this question in the February Estimates.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Now, I’d like to turn to vaccines and autism again. In America, the CDC have changed their guidance on vaccines and autism. The guidelines now read:
… there are still no studies that support the claim that any of the 20 doses of the seven infant vaccines recommended for … the first year of life do not cause autism.
The American FDA has accepted that vaccines may cause autism because there is no study to show they are safe. Yet I’ve sat here repeatedly, including earlier tonight, and been told by the TGA over and over again that they are safe. You can’t be right. Either there is proof they are safe, or there is not. Which is it?
Prof. Lawler: I discussed this at length with Senator Antic. The policy decisions and announcements of the FDA are matters for the FDA, and those questions should be directed to them. I would just highlight a couple of your question.
Senator ROBERTS: Correct.
Prof. Lawler: That’s not what they said.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s correct.
Prof. Lawler: They’ve not said that vaccines cause autism.
Senator ROBERTS: They’ve said:
… there are still no studies that support the claim that any of the 20 doses of the seven infant vaccines recommended … do not cause autism.
Prof. Lawler: I think you went on to say at the end of your question—and please correct me if I’m wrong—that the FDA is thereby saying that vaccines cause autism.
Senator ROBERTS: No. I said the FDA, though, has accepted that vaccines may cause autism because there are no studies to show they are safe.
Prof. Lawler: Again, the three-point statement that appeared in November on the CDC’s website, which replaced its previous guidance on vaccines and autism, was of a particular wording. It seemed to me to quite clearly say that, in its view, it cannot be said that vaccines do not cause autism, because no studies have shown that they do not cause autism. As I mentioned previously in my response to the question by Senator Antic, there is a fundamental scientific challenge in stating that something exists because you haven’t been able to prove that it doesn’t. The scientific process is that an individual or a party that makes a scientific claim holds the onus to provide the evidence that supports that claim. For instance, if you’re claiming that vaccines cause autism, the obligation is on you or another person who’s claiming that to demonstrate the evidence that supports that claim. The challenge that we have in that space is that a significant amount of the initial conversation around vaccines causing autism arose from a 1997 article by then doctor Andrew Wakefield that was published in the Lancet and subsequently retracted and thoroughly debunked because there were personal, professional, ethical and methodological conflicts and flaws. Since then, there have been multiple studies over decades involving millions of children and adults who have received different types of vaccines over different years, and, in that time, there has been no demonstrated causal or associative link between vaccines and autism. So, as I say, if there is a claim there, it has never been substantiated by rigorous and dependable evidence, and all of the evidence that we have is supportive of the view that there is no link between vaccines and autism.
Senator ROBERTS: In my view—and I think this is probably correct—the approver has the onus to say that something’s safe. The approver is you, the TGA. According to FOI No. 1345-01, you had 43 sudden, unexpected deaths reported on your Adverse Event Management System following injection of the Infanrix hexa vaccine. Are none of those caused by the vaccine?
Prof. Lawler: I’ll throw to Dr Dascombe, who’s online, to respond to that. I will just say, initially, as I have said in response to your questions and the questions of others and indeed in the conversation that we had previously this evening around mesh, the role of the regulator is to ensure that the risks are managed appropriately such that there is an effective balance for the community between access to a therapeutic product and the benefit derived from the product, and the risk that’s presented. As we’ve discussed on a number of occasions, overwhelmingly, for the COVID vaccine and for other vaccines, the risk-benefit profile is positive. Dr Dascombe, I’ll ask you to respond as well.
Dr Dascombe: To go to both of your questions, Senator, Professor Lawler has comprehensively answered on two occasions now tonight questions around the updated guidance from the US CDC. There are a couple of things that I’d reaffirm there, particularly from a post-market regulation of vaccines perspective. The TGA, like our international counterparts, takes an evidence based approach to the regulation of vaccines registered in Australia. This means that our regulatory decisions are based on the weight of available scientific evidence. There are a couple of key points worth confirming. There is no scientific evidence of a causal link between autism and any vaccine or vaccine ingredient. There is a substantial body of scientific evidence to refute the claim that vaccines are linked to autism. Neither the TGA nor any international regulator has detected or confirmed a safety signal for autism in any vaccine. Those are key points to reiterate, to your first question. To your second question, around reported adverse events with the Infanrix hexa vaccine on our Adverse Event Management System, as you know, this is a system that relies on spontaneous reports from healthcare professionals, consumers, states, public health units and medicine sponsors. The existence of a report in that system and a report made to us doesn’t necessarily confirm that the vaccine has caused that death. We encourage reporting of all adverse events, even if there’s only a small chance that the vaccine is related to that death.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Prof. Lawler: Thank you for that, Dr Dascombe. I would also just reflect on your comment earlier about the onus on the approver to ensure that something is safe. That is correct. The challenge that every regulator in the world faces is that the only way to ensure that there is no risk in a product is to not approve any product for supply in the country. That’s the only way, and then the public would be quite rightly clamouring for access to goods that are enjoyed by populations around the world. So the role of the regulator here in Australia, as in other countries, is to appropriately assure itself that the evidence indicates that the risk-benefit profile is positive. As Dr Dascombe’s indicated, there’s no identified causal link between vaccines and autism.
Senator ROBERTS: You weren’t here, but I asked Professor Skerritt a question about the testing of the COVID Pfizer shots in Australia. He said, ‘Oh, no, we didn’t do any testing; we relied upon the FDA in America.’ At that time, it had been already been stated that the FDA did no testing itself and relied on Pfizer, and Pfizer cut short its trials because of the number of people who died. So we had a failed study that led to the approval of vaccines—of COVID injections—in this country, and no-one knew about it, yet it was open public knowledge in the United States. Let me continue. A Korean study published in Biomarker Research in September this year followed up 8.4 million Koreans and found as follows: within a 12-month period following their COVID jab, the vaccinated group had a 27 per cent greater chance of being diagnosed with cancer when compared to an unvaccinated group. This was a massive study. This does not prove causation, although many studies I have shared with you prove how these products cause cancer. It does prove correlation. Do you still maintain that COVID vaccines are safe?
Prof. Lawler: I do not recall, Senator, an article that you shared with me that does prove causation between these vaccines and cancer. Also, given the need to analyse the documents, I don’t have the article that you’re describing in front of me, so I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it specifically.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’ll check that. On 28 November 2025, Dr Vinay Prasad, director of the American FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, sent an email first reported by the New York Times. It described findings from a recent internal FDA review of paediatric deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, VAERS, between 2021 and 2024. According to the memo, an analysis of 96 reported paediatric deaths among people aged from seven to 18 concluded that at least 10 were causally linked to COVID 19 vaccines, primarily due to vaccine induced myocarditis. Prasad describe this as a ‘profound revelation’. Professor Kidd, do you acknowledge that paediatric vaccines can cause death?
Prof. Kidd: I’m going to have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: You can’t acknowledge it or you can?
Prof. Kidd: I’m going to take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: The FDA analysis—
Prof. Lawler: I’m happy to provide some comment on that if you like, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Sure.
Prof. Lawler: We did respond to questions about Dr Prasad’s announcement earlier this evening when questioned by Senator Antic. As far as I’m aware—Dr Dascombe, please feel free to correct me—we have not at this stage been provided with information regarding that. As we have indicated previously, we rely not only on our own information that comes through our own adverse event monitoring system but also on signals that come from other regulators. This is not a signal that has been replicated, to my knowledge, in other regulators. As I say, we have not had detailed information regarding Dr Prasad’s claim shared with us. In terms of the question that you posed to Professor Kidd, one of the reasons we have robust postmarket vigilance in place for medicines, devices and, in fact, all therapeutic goods that we regulate is that we recognise that individuals sometimes react to medicines. To give you an example, we have a number of other medicines—non-vaccine medicines—to which individuals can have allergic reactions. So it would be inappropriate, I think, for either Professor Kidd or me to say that people can’t react to these things. Our role as the regulator is to ensure that appropriate systems are in place to identify safety signals as they arise, to analyse them, to understand them and to respond to them in an appropriate way.
FOI requests, and the information they reveal, are an important element of Senate Estimates. In the past, a reference to the FOI number would prompt a staff member to appear with the relevant information to enable discussion. At the start of my question, a staff member approached the table with their laptop open—most likely with the FOI document displayed—so that system still exists. Nonetheless, Professor Lawler avoided discussing the FOI.
Some Senators provide their questions in advance so the FOI can be ready, however this also gives the witness time to prepare an evasive answer and removes the possibility of an unguarded admission. The point of my question was simple: the TGA’s own guidelines—which the FOI meeting notes confirmed—state that single-use medicines and vaccines should not contain preservatives. That unguarded admission is exactly what I was referring to. Professor Lawler stated that preservatives relate to multi-dose vaccines, not single-dose vaccines.
This is the argument I will make moving forward. At the last Estimates, I reviewed data that clearly linked preservatives in vaccines with autism. Single-use vaccines do not contain preservatives (or should not). Why don’t we immediately return to administering vaccines in single-use doses that are certified and tested as preservative and contaminant free? Then we can monitor autism cases in real time.
Many mothers have told me their child’s autism began the day after their shots. This approach would quickly show us whether there is a link in the real world. Let’s take a simple, immediate step to address this issue, and then conduct a full review of vaccine safety and efficacy.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I reference freedom of information 26-2122, released 30 September 2025. It’s weirdly specific: the minutes of the pharmaceutical subcommittee of the advisory committee on prescriptions. I think that’s part of the TGA. Is that correct?
Mr Comley: That sounds to me like PBAC.
Prof. Lawler: Can I clarify which committee you referenced?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes: the pharmaceutical subcommittee of the advisory committee on prescriptions. They’ll be coming to the TGA pretty soon.
Prof. Lawler: No. We have a number of advisory committees, but we don’t have an advisory committee on prescriptions. We have an advisory committee on medicines and an advisory committee on vaccines.
Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps if I give you the question you might be able to tell me. Held on 24 March 2015 and regarding the matter of preservatives in single-use injections, the meeting concluded: … single-use injections should be preservative-free. … if an ingredient is added for a reason other than use as a preservative, then the sponsor should provide scientific justification for inclusion at that concentration. Is this guideline still current?
Prof. Lawler: I must admit I don’t have that document in front of me, so I’m finding it hard to respond to that on the fly.
Senator ROBERTS: You can take it on notice.
Prof. Lawler: I’m happy to do that. The best I can take it is that we look to preservatives predominantly for multi-use vials because, obviously, there’s a period between them being used first—but I’m happy to take that on notice and come back to you.
Senator ROBERTS: It sounds like the answer to the question, ‘Is this guideline still current?’ is correct, but I’m not going to hold it to you. Thank you for that. The next questions, possibly also on notice, are: have you allowed any single-use injection product to contain preservatives, and were all of those approvals compliant with your own guidelines?
Prof. Lawler: Again, given the first question, I’m happy to respond to that on notice, if that’s alright.
Senator ROBERTS: And could you provide the list of any that were approved. If you have allowed single-use injections to contain preservatives, why did you make the change to allow preservatives when your expert committee opposed the idea?
Prof. Lawler: My understanding is that the committee you’re referencing—what was the date of the—
Senator ROBERTS: It was 24 March 2015—probably before your time.
Prof. Lawler: It was well before my time. That is an older committee. I think, in the interest of providing you with a comprehensive response, we’d be happy to roll those up into one response, if that’s alright.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d just like to know if it’s still current.
Prof. Lawler: Absolutely.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know this too: Which multidose vaccines contain preservatives? Have you obtained safety data to show those preservatives are safe at the levels used?
Prof. Lawler: There are a number of branches across the TGA and also, potentially, ATAGI to which those questions apply.
Senator ROBERTS: Sure.
Dr Pengilley: To the best of my knowledge, the only use of preservatives in multi-use vials is for pandemic vaccines, and that, at the moment, is the influenza ones; COVID, just for clarity, doesn’t contain preservatives. We haven’t—
Senator ROBERTS: It does or doesn’t contain—
Dr Pengilley: Does not. I probably can’t go into applications we have and haven’t had, but, as far as I know, we haven’t registered a preservative-containing pandemic vaccine—say, an H5N1 vaccine.
A peer-reviewed, published study has revealed some astonishing findings—though they come as no surprise to supporters of One Nation. The study found that only 14% of adults who were diagnosed with COVID using a PCR test went on to actually develop COVID, based on their blood antibodies.
This study is a slam dunk: PCR tests were misused to “show” a pandemic, when the actual infection rate was much closer to that of a bad flu outbreak.
There was criticism at the time about using PCR tests for this purpose from the man who invented them—Kary Mullis, whose invention earned him a Nobel Prize. The world should have listened, yet health authorities were more interested in manufacturing a pandemic that didn’t exist, to further their own power and sell products for the pharmaceutical industry.
This was criminal. The countless hours of work lost, the loss of income that went with that, the cost to small businesses, and the disruption and isolation caused by lockdowns and unnecessary isolation for false positives is a scandal that demands a Royal Commission. It was a deliberate decision to misuse PCR tests, followed by another deliberate decision to cover up the disparity between PCR test results and actual infection rates by claiming people could spread COVID without having symptoms. Shameful!
Another significant finding from the study: one year into COVID, just before the vaccine rollout, 25% of the German adult population already had natural immunity. A quarter of the population didn’t need the “vaccine” — and as the next year rolled on, the figure for natural immunity would have increased. We don’t have the data to prove this because the German government, along with other governments worldwide—including Australia—stopped collecting data to prevent their lies from being discovered.
We have enough evidence anyway. One Nation demands a Royal Commission into COVID now.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/586396998_1455359182825298_3687437840688695968_n.jpg?fit=1000%2C667&ssl=16671000Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-11-27 14:38:312025-11-27 14:38:37COVID Testing: The Truth They Tried to Hide
During a session with CSIRO at Senate Estimates, I raised serious questions about Australia’s pandemic preparedness and biosecurity.
The Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza took a decade to develop, yet it was shelved during COVID. I asked CSIRO whether this plan is being updated and what lessons have been learned.
I also pressed CSIRO on their handling of live viruses—rabies, Ebola, and others—and sought assurances that Australia’s highest-security facility will never repeat the mistakes of Wuhan. CSIRO advised of their world-class biocontainment standards and of their 40-year record without a breach.
Finally, I asked Professor Sutton about his recent comments suggesting future pandemic responses could avoid harsh lockdowns. His view: policy decisions should be “less restrictive” than what we saw during COVID.
Australians deserve transparency and accountability on pandemic planning. I’ll keep asking the tough questions.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My questions now go to pandemic preparedness. This is the Australian—
Senator Ayres: We’re off the horses and ferrets now, Senator Roberts?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, and the rats and the birds.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you’ve got three minutes.
Senator Ayres: We’re now going to move on to the main event.
Senator ROBERTS: The Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza was developed over 10 years, concluding in 2019, just in time for COVID. But it wasn’t used; it was binned. As your department is pandemic preparedness, Professor Sutton, are you working on updating this plan and correcting whatever reason caused it not to be used?
Dr Hilton: Again, Professor Sutton is not responsible for the ACDP, which is our centre for pandemic preparedness. Professor Sutton is responsible for our research unit, named health and biosecurity.
Senator ROBERTS: Does the CSIRO handle live viruses? Your achievement page mentions lyssavirus— including rabies and Ebola, for example. If you have live viruses, which ones do you have?
Dr Hilton: So are we back to horses and weasels and ferrets?
Senator ROBERTS: Just viruses.
Dr Hilton: Yes; we hold a number of—
Senator ROBERTS: I treat this pretty seriously.
Dr Hilton: So do I.
Senator Ayres: I’m trying, Senator.
Dr Hilton: I just want to make sure we’re going back to your first line of questions.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m just going through whether or not you handle live viruses.
Dr Hilton: I think we’ve established that. We do handle live viruses.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Can you assure the committee that CSIRO will not slip up in the way the Wuhan Institute of Virology did in the escape of their Frankenstein COVID experiment?
Dr Hilton: I would not characterise it in that way. CSIRO takes its responsibility for biosecurity exceptionally seriously in all of its facilities and works closely with regulators to ensure that it maintains the highest standards.
Senator ROBERTS: So you can give me an assurance it won’t escape?
Dr Hilton: What won’t escape?
Senator ROBERTS: Live viruses.
Dr Hilton: Any live viruses? I will give you assurance that we work assiduously to maintain the highest standards of biosecurity as an organisation, across our sites.
Senator ROBERTS: Highest standards—can you give me an assurance that they won’t escape?
Dr Hilton: Senator, we maintain our facility to the highest standards of biosecurity.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you give me an assurance it won’t escape?
Dr Taylor: Senator, I can add that the Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness is one of three facilities in the world that has the highest biocontainment. It is quite unique in its capabilities. Its box-in-a-box design means that, even if the facility fails and if electricity fails, there are triple redundancies in the system. It is world renowned for its secure capabilities. That is why we handle high consequence live viruses there, and that’s its purpose. It’s done that for 40 years without a biosecurity breach.
Senator ROBERTS: Obviously you won’t give me an ironclad guarantee, but that’s fine. In Professor Sutton’s podcast interview, conducted recently, he made the statement that the government could consider not introducing the intrusive COVID social restrictions—lockdowns for instance. Is his opinion based on the work you have done at CSIRO or could you expand on what aspects of the social restrictions should be reconsidered? If Professor Sutton can’t answer it, perhaps you could do it.
Dr Hilton: I think that would be one that Professor Sutton could shed light on—to the interview.
Senator Ayres: He’s been champing at the bit to respond!
Prof. Sutton: That reflection was really based on the fact that it’s a matter for future governments as to the policy settings in response to any future pandemic. It’s not for me to say what the settings could be, but I could certainly imagine a future in which policy decisions could be less restrictive than we’ve experienced historically.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. See, that wasn’t so difficult.
Prof. Sutton: Not at all.
Dr Hilton: It was a pleasure.
CHAIR: Thank you for your rapid-fire approach, Senator Roberts.
I was invited to speak at ‘The Misdeeds of AHPRA’ conference held in Sydney on Saturday, 3 May 2025. As it was election day, I couldn’t attend in person and was asked to pre-record a video, which I happily did.
My brief video exposes the many serious conflicts of interest among Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Agency (AHPRA) board members. The conference organisers used it to open the day.
AHPRA faced heavy criticism during the COVID period. Established in 2010, AHPRA was meant to be an independent body overseeing medical practitioners. Yet its board members are deeply intertwined with government and academia, raising questions about its independence.
Recent surveys by the Australian Medical Professionals Society (AMPS) reveal that over 82% of healthcare professionals believe AHPRA lacks fairness and transparency. Investigations drag on for years, causing significant mental and financial strain on practitioners.
AHPRA’s actions during the COVID period, including prosecuting medical professionals for speaking out truthfully to their patients and the public, have eroded public trust and severely crippled our healthcare service.
It’s time for a thorough review and reform to restore confidence in our healthcare system.
Transcript
Hello, I’m Senator Malcolm Roberts, Senator for Queensland with One Nation.
Thank you for the work you’re doing at this conference.
AHPRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) was heavily criticised during the COVID period. And deservedly so. For those at home, I’ll give a quick background to AHPRA.
The national scheme for registration and regulation of medical practitioners that the Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Agency (AHPRA) administers, was implemented in 2010 under the Rudd-Gillard-Labour Government. The so called national law is not a Commonwealth law. Instead it is implemented by each state passing the same legislation, with Queensland acting as the host jurisdiction.
Any proposed amendment to the national law must be approved by the Council of Health Ministers, then passed by the Queensland Parliament, then other states. In 2010 the Federal Government legislated to recognise medical professionals licenced by AHPRA to prescribe under Medicare and the PBS.
AHPRA replaced state based powers with a national independent system of registration and standards for practitioners. AHPRA now hosts fifteen boards, each regulating one area of the medical profession.
AHPRA act as the independent administrator and the boards are the policy makers in their own area. Except that AHPRA is not independent.
AHPRA Chair – Miss Gill Callister – doubles as the Chief Executive Officer of Mind Australia, a commercial operation which provides mental health services, including under the bloated NDIS.
Mind Australia receives additional funding directly from state and federal governments. Board member – Miss Barbara Yo – doubles as Chief of Monash Health, a Victorian government department. In other words, a public servant.
Ari Freiberg is an Emeritus Professor of Law at Monash University, which receives half a billion dollars a year from the federal government. Linton Morris is on the board of Alfred Health, another public servant, as is Geoffrey Moffat, who’s on the board of WA Country Health. And so it goes on and on.
Everyone of the AHPRA board is an academic funded by the government, or is a bureaucrat funded by the government.
How can these people be considered independent? They are NOT independent.
As Kara Thomas pointed out in a January Quadrant article, the recent Bay versus Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency court judgement specifically noted that while the pandemic was “an extraordinary period of history,” it did not authorise AHPRA to “abrogate the right of persons to a hearing before an apparently unbiased tribunal.”
Or extend AHPRA’s role to “include protection of government and regulatory agencies from political criticism.”
That’s exactly what AHPRA did.
The spawn of the medical establishment rushed to defend the medical establishment at a terrible cost to the public’s confidence in the medical industry.
The Australian Medical Professional Society (AMPS) recent survey of medical practitioners found 82.6% of healthcare professionals believe AHPRA lacks fairness and transparency in handling complaints and 78.5 percent report unfair treatment.
Unfair treatment!
These numbers reveal and represent AHPRA damning failure. Unfair treatment includes investigations that last for years, career destroying delays and devastating financial and mental health impacts, including suicides.
Many health professionals contemplate leaving the profession entirely.
The acceptance of anonymous complaints and the punitive nature of investigations without proper vetting has created a culture of fear where doctors have said they now practise risk averse defensive medicine, which is not medicine.
This is not incompetent – it’s deliberate. The culture of fear has been created to rob medical professionals of their will to practise medicine in the best interests of the patient.
This is the opposite of care.
Instead, AHPRA has engineered a situation where doctors practise in the best interest of the pharmaceutical industry that AHPRA works for. One example of this is the way in which AHPRA looks the other way when 1500 Australians die every year from an overdose of a medication prescribed by one of Australia’s 88,000 prescribing medical professionals.
In the last 12 months AHPRA prosecuted 31 people. Only two of these relate to prescription drugs of any kind. And yet in Senate estimates, AHPRA advised me they had prosecuted 21 medical professionals for speaking the truth about COVID.
AHPRA prosecuted one practitioner in part for their anti trans position. AHPRA is fighting a rearguard action against the overwhelming shift in public attitude away from invasive medical procedures on children.
Why? Because this will be a billion dollar industry next financial year. If you want the best pronunciation of AHPRA, try this one: cha-ching, cha-ching, cha-ching – the cash registers tune.
During Senate estimates, I asked AHPRA about their cultural safety strategy, which requires all registered health practitioners to acknowledge colonialism and systemic racism.
This is politics, not medicine. Wherever power has been consolidated into a single body, their power has grown.
They become a beacon for every self interested pharmaceutical company, attracting staff prepared to behave in the most egregious way in return for power and a public service salary.
A Senate review in 2022 made fourteen recommendations, including an urgent, in depth review of their processes. That review has never happened. None of the recommendations have been actioned.
Kara Thomas’s article in Quadrant contained a set of sensible recommendations, including devolving these powers back to the States. One Nation supports each of her recommendations.
In short, AHPRA is a failed, corrupting and destructive experiment and must be shut down immediately.
I’ll give the last word to Ms Callister, AHPRA’s Chair, who reposted this tweet in 2018 – “Power comes at a price. Those in the top job have made many compromises to get there”.
Clearly those compromises include absence of professionalism, care, accountability, fairness, decency, transparency, honesty and independence.
During this session of Estimates, I asked questions on the COVID vaccine redress scheme. By the closing date, 4962 claims had been lodged, yet only 522 have been paid—amounting to $50.9 million. A large portion of applications were rejected, withdrawn, or remain under assessment, with 722 still in progress. I pressed for details on why so many were refused, and it was confirmed that hospitalisation was a key eligibility criteria, a policy set by the Department of Health.
I questioned why compensation offers under the COVID vaccine redress scheme are so small, given the evidence of significant harm suffered by claimants that included lifelong disability. Mr Turnbull responded that this question should be directed to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, as the compensation policy and parameters are set by them, not by Services Australia. While Services Australia administers the scheme, they advised that payout levels and eligibility rules are dictated by the Department.
Mr Turnbull stated that he did not have the average payout figure on hand and would take that question on notice. However, he explained that payouts are calculated based on various categories of loss, including specified out-of-pocket expenses, lost earnings, paid and gratuitous care, loss of capacity to provide domestic services, and pain and suffering. Additionally, lump-sum payments are available for claims involving death.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending tonight. How many applications for redress were received by the COVID vaccine redress scheme before the closing-down date?
Mr Turnbull: We received 4,962 claims by the closing date.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many were successful?
Mr Turnbull: To date, 522 claims have been paid, to the value of $50.9 million.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many applications were refused. Was that the rest of them, or were some partially paid?
Mr Turnbull: Of the remaining, 2,670 were not payable, 1,048 were withdrawn and there are 722 claims at different parts of the assessment process.
Senator ROBERTS: What was the most common reason for being refused?
Mr Turnbull: We assess each claim against the criteria—for example, the different vaccines that are eligible, the different conditions—
Senator ROBERTS: They’re all covered?
Mr Turnbull: Yes. I’d have to check what the most common reason is, but—
Senator ROBERTS: Can you take that on notice, please.
Mr Turnbull: Sure.
Senator ROBERTS: One of the criteria to be satisfied, apparently, is that the applicant needed to be hospitalised. Is that correct?
Mr Turnbull: I believe so, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Why is that?
Mr Turnbull: We don’t set the policy. If you’re asking about the particular policy parameters of the scheme, those questions are better directed to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing. They set the policy parameters, and they’ll have their rationale for that. Our role is to then administer the payment against the criteria that they set.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, this session is really just on the service delivery aspects.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. How many complaints have been made about claims being rejected—appeals, I guess.
Mr Turnbull: We would need to take that on notice. What I can tell you is that we do have a review process. For example, at the moment we have 144 claims that are undergoing a review of the decision. The agency has also finalised 161 review decisions. That gives an indication of the total number who, having received the assessment—
Senator ROBERTS: The agency has reviewed them? They’ve already reviewed them?
Mr Turnbull: There are 144 that are being reviewed. There are 161 where the review process has been finalised.
Senator ROBERTS: How many applications are still being processed?
Mr Turnbull: There are 722 applications still being processed. They’re at different stages of that assessment process. Of the 722, there are 221 with Services Australia at the moment for assessment, there are 344 claims where we are requesting further information from the applicant to support the claim, there are 103 claims with an expert panel—that’s either an expert medical panel or an expert legal panel—and there’s another group, which is 54 claims, where we’ve made an offer and the applicant has six months to decide whether or not to accept that offer. That’s the break-up of the 722 on hand.
CHAIR: I’ll get you to wrap up, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. What’s the average payout that has been made, and how are payouts calculated?
Mr Turnbull: I don’t have the average payout with me. We would need to take that on notice. Payouts are calculated based on a range of categories of loss—for example, specified out-of-pocket expenses, lost earnings, paid and gratuitous care, loss of capacity to provide domestic services, pain and suffering. There are also lumpsum payments for claims involving death.
Senator ROBERTS: Last question—very simple. Why are the offers of compensation so small, taking into account proof of the significant damage that complainants have suffered, including some being crippled for life— debilitated for life?
Mr Turnbull: I think that particular question is best directed to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing because it relates back to the policy.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/5DTGK-6VenM/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-11-03 08:21:292025-11-03 08:21:36COVID Vaccine Compensation: Why So Little for Lifelong Harm?
President Trump recently called on vaccine manufacturers to support their claims regarding the safety and efficacy of their products. It was these assurances that led him to launch Operation Warp Speed to develop the COVID vaccine and has defended the product in the years since.
It now appears President Trump is open to reconsidering his position on vaccine safety. I hope he does. A critical review of the claims made by vaccine manufacturers is likely to show a very high level of data tampering, misrepresentation, and outright lies.
This will mostly be around vaccine quality, not design. Many of our vaccines are produced as cheaply as possible and contain high levels of heavy metals, such as aluminium, which act as a preservative. These are causing harm to our children.
I hope the President reaches the same conclusion I have – that the mRNA platform is dangerous and should never have been used as the basis for the COVID vaccines developed under Operation Warp Speed.
Transcript
The significance of this is stunning. President Trump has been misled on the safety and efficacy of the COVID vaccines for a very long time. From this post it sounds like he has been kept in the dark and fed lies. I look forward to the president realising that and taking action to defend the health of all Americans by banning the mRNA vaccine platform.
In further developments last week Robert F Kennedy Jr, the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services, announced significant changes to the authorisation of mRNA COVID-19 so-called vaccines. It’s important to understand this was not a banning of mRNA—not yet anyway. It’s important to clarify the new measures. The Food and Drug Administration, the FDA, approved updated COVID-19 shots for the autumn season in America and imposed new restrictions, effectively ending their emergency-use authorisations. This is only a partial victory for mRNA critics such as me. The measures did terminate emergency-use authorisations that had allowed this dangerous, killer product to be given to anyone over six months of age.
What some claiming victory may have missed is that mRNA shots for COVID were given normal approval for a limited range of people. This includes anyone over 65 and anyone from five to 65 with an underlying medical condition. Moderna was approved for children over six months with an underlying medical condition. Is it a massive reduction in approval? Yes. Is it a ban? No. President Trump’s statement overnight suggests there are more developments to come.
Last week I spoke of many new peer reviewed studies which show how this harm is occurring right through the human body. Tonight I will talk about the data, which shows this harm is occurring. We have proof of the harm, and we have the science showing causality. The Defense Medical Epidemiology Database is part of the United States Defense Medical Surveillance System. It enables queries of de-identified medical data coded in the International Classification of Diseases classifications for active duty personnel, filtered on demographics and occupational categories. In 2021 whistleblowers reported significant increases in medical conditions compared to 2016 to 2020 baselines, prompting congressional scrutiny and resulting in a finding of data-handling errors. In 2023 outdated 2021 DMED data confirmed elevated diagnoses, including hypertensive disease up 23 per cent, ovarian disfunction up 35 per cent, pulmonary embolism up 44 per cent, Guillain Barre syndrome up 15 per cent, oesophagus cancer up 13 per cent and breast cancer up seven per cent. Myocarditis was up 151 per cent. Remember the sample set here is millions of people of the United States military. These are—or were—healthy, fit individuals and their families.
The harm is getting worse. Data for 2023 to 2025, using the same pre-COVID baseline, shows persistent elevations, terrifying elevations, over pre-COVID levels. Myocarditis is up 154 per cent; digestive organ cancer up 16 per cent in 2021 and up 43 per cent in 2024; brain cancer up 16 per cent in 2021 and 43 per cent in 2024; and blood coagulation defects up 25 per cent in 2021, 58 per cent in 2022 and then 32 per cent in 2023 as injection rates fell. That’s pretty damning. It shows that those who call this poison the clot shots are not entirely wrong. It gets worse, much worse. Conditions which may be potentially vaccine related and are certainly COVID-response related are up. Suicidal and homicidal ideation was up 46 per cent in 2021 and 86 per cent in 2024. Obesity was up 27 per cent in 2021, 69 per cent in 2022, 162 per cent in 2023 and 262 per cent in 2024. It’s okay though. Novo Nordisk has Ozempic on the market to fix that obesity problem. Who owns Novo Nordisk? Morgan Stanley, BlackRock, Vanguard and Norges. I call them ‘BlackRock Inc.’. This gaggle of rapacious wealth funds invest the wealth of the world’s predatory billionaires.
Who owns Pfizer, the cause of this obesity epidemic? You guessed it, BlackRock. They own the problem and the solution. Did someone say COVID was just a— (Time expired)
https://img.youtube.com/vi/hDtj01FBV-o/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-10-28 09:56:102025-10-28 09:56:18Is Trump Finally Seeing the Truth About mRNA Vaccines?
This exchange during Senate Estimates with the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) sums up just how bad Estimates has become under the Albanese Labor Government.
The TGA is well aware that Senators only have a few minutes to ask questions, and they understand that the more they can stall, the less likely it is they’ll have to say anything that could cause problems for their Minister—regardless of the truth. Because of this, the Minister will not require the “witness” to answer the question, nor will the Committee Chair—both of whom are Labor Senators.
My first question was a genuine attempt to clarify misinformation circulating online about aluminium intake. The answer was a simple “yes.” Keep that in mind when you watch the video. Instead of confirming the obvious and allowing us to move on to another question about aluminium in vaccines, the opportunity was taken to stall for time by debating whether the question should even be asked at all. Dr. Lawler, Deputy Secretary of the Health Products Regulation Group within the Department of Health, oversees the agencies and committees the Government uses to spread responsibility, avoiding accountability. He was exactly the right person to direct these questions to.
The data I presented was straightforward: the level of aluminium in vaccines is unsafe for infants by an order of magnitude. Yet the TGA spent a great deal of time on their pre-prepared responses insisting that vaccines are safe. They refuse to accept any data showing that this level of exposure is causing health issues in infants. I then asked whether our vaccines had been subject to gold standard testing—a term used on many occasions by “witnesses” attending Estimates to defend COVID vaccines – yet suddenly, the gold standard is no longer relevant to … vaccines! Suddenly, testing a product against a double-blind placebo (saline) is now considered “unsafe,” despite this being the standard for a century?
In reality, what Big Pharma has been doing for years—and what the TGA has allowed them to do in Australia—is to compare new vaccines (or medications for that matter) against existing ones, rather than saline. If the harm detected is the same as that already being caused by the “placebo” medication, it’s deemed safe. This is not how things should be.
I will continue this line of questioning until we get a proper inquiry into the level of heavy metal contamination in infant vaccines.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here again, especially Professor Lawler. Before I start, can we deal with a statement I hear on the internet all the time—that you get more aluminium in your food than you do in vaccines. Aluminium in food is ingested at 0.3 per cent. In vaccines, it’s ingested at 100 per cent. Individual results may vary. Is this a fair statement?
Prof. Lawler: I’m not sure where you’re seeing that. I don’t have the information you’re referencing in front of me.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking you whether it’s accurate.
Prof. Lawler: I’m not sure that is necessarily a question for the TGA to respond to. We can provide you with information on the process that we undertake in terms of the evaluation and authorisation of therapeutic goods, including vaccines. Is this a claim that the TGA has made?
Senator ROBERTS: No. That’s my understanding. What is the TGA’s recommended maximum daily intake of aluminium for a child aged six months, please?
Prof. Lawler: By mouth as a recommended daily intake?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Prof. Lawler: I don’t believe that the TGA sets a recommended daily ingestion of aluminium, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the daily maximum for a child of six months that can ingest aluminium in food?
Prof. Lawler: I would suggest that those are probably questions best posed to Food Standards Australia New Zealand, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: The US Food and Drug Administration recommends exposure of five micrograms per kilogram in infants. At six months, the average weight of an infant is seven kilograms, making the maximum daily exposure 35 micrograms. The Infanrix hexa vaccine contains 825 micrograms of aluminium per dose, which is 24 times its safe daily limit. Do you accept injecting children at 23 times the safe level? Do you accept that this unsafe aluminium exposure is a contributing factor to aluminium derived autism?
Prof. Lawler: I will throw to Dr Dascombe in a moment. I will answer a couple of the things there in reverse order, if I may. The first is that, in answer to your second question, no. I don’t believe that there is a recognised regulator—I’m happy to be corrected—that does.
Senator ROBERTS: Rather than relying on someone else, do you have any data or research?
Prof. Lawler: I’m just trying to answer your question. I don’t believe that there is another regulator. I’m just using that as back-up. We have seen no credible safety signal that aluminium load either in single or scheduled immunisation delivery is a contributor to autism. The second thing I would say is that I am not sure this is the forum, nor do we have the time, to clarify the distinction between injected and ingested aluminium. They are quite different biomechanical processes. I don’t think the two are comparable. I will ask Dr Dascombe to add to that answer.
Dr Dascombe: I echo the comments of Professor Lawler. Neither the TGA nor any international regulator has detected or confirmed any safety signals relating to any vaccine and autism. This is also supported by the weight of scientific evidence.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the TGA guidance for the injection of multiple vaccines into a six-month-old at the same time causing amplified aluminium? Each of those doses has aluminium adjuvant, a preservative, so each of them is 24 times the daily safe limit.
Prof. Lawler: My apologies for breaking in, Senator. There are a couple of points on that. It is not the practice or the role of the TGA to make recommendations on immunisation schedules. That sits within the province of ATAGI, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation. I would also highlight that we have frequently responded to questions around the aluminium load in the vaccination schedule and their consequences. Most recently, but perhaps more recently, is a Senate question on notice 24-003075. We have discussed it in this place a number of times.
Senator ROBERTS: You see the problem. Just one vaccine can be 24 times over the safe daily limit. You are recommending injecting multiple of them at the same time. These infants could be getting over 100 times the safe limit and you just keep on injecting them right in there and then claim aluminium poisoning isn’t the reason they come down with autism in some cases the very next day. How can you justify this?
Prof. Lawler: I will answer those questions in reverse order, if I may. I will answer the second. There is no indication that the vaccination schedule is linked to autism. Indeed, it has been highlighted not just today but previously. There’s no credible evidence that there is a linkage between vaccination and autism. As I just indicated in my previous answer, it is not the role of the TGA to recommend vaccinations. We assess them for safety, quality and efficacy. It’s the role of ATAGI to recommend the vaccination schedules.
Senator ROBERTS: Why don’t you tell the pharma companies to reduce the aluminium preservatives down to safe levels so you can get parents to trust your vaccine again and the parents can trust your advice again?
Prof. Lawler: There are a couple of elements in your question. We evaluate the submissions from sponsors and evaluate the process of manufacture and quality control to ensure that the balance of risk versus benefit is appropriate. That is a determination that we make not only in the authorisation but also in the post-market monitoring through our pharmacovigilance of any therapeutic good with the inclusion of vaccines. In terms of trust, we recognise that there is an active campaign to undermine the trust of regulators, the TGA particularly. We undertake to restore or bolster the trust of the public, which I have to say was during the pandemic and is still, despite some narratives, at a high level. We seek to do that through education and guidance. We do that through being very clear and transparent about what we do and by addressing dis- and misinformation when and if it occurs.
Senator ROBERTS: How many vaccines in the Australian schedule have been subject to a gold standard trial, meaning specifically a randomised double blind placebo control study where the placebo is saline and not another vaccine?
Prof. Lawler: I recognise that you weren’t here before lunch. We had a conversation with Senator Antic regarding the use of the term ‘gold standard’. We recognise that the use of a placebo control randomised double control trial—there are a number of different terminologies used—is of a very high standard and presents robust and dependable evidence. The challenge, of course, is whether something constitutes a gold standard in the way that you have used it. It actually very much depends on context. We use controlled or blinded trials or placebo trials when we are interested in determining the difference between a control arm and an intervention arm. This is really effective when we’re looking at incremental improvements in therapies or when we’re looking at the introduction of new therapies. The challenge we have, of course, is that when there is an established therapy that has been shown over decades using both documented and real-world evidence to be both safe and effective, it is ethically questionable—and, in some instances, ethically indefensible—to use a placebo in that non-intervention arm. I will give you two examples, if I may. We have vaccine preventable diseases, and we have a very clear demonstration of reduction in not only mortality but morbidity in those diseases. Let’s choose polio and small pox, diseases that have had a specific impact for many decades and have led to untold suffering. One of them has been eradicated by the use of vaccines and one of them has been virtually eradicated. If we were to introduce placebo controlled trials for those drugs, that would be horrendously unethical. We would be essentially and knowingly infecting children with a disease that could kill, paralyse or maim when we know that there is a way of preventing that. That’s not ethically defensible.
Senator ROBERTS: What you are saying is that there has been no double blind placebo control study where the placebo was saline and not another vaccine?
Prof. Lawler: No. What I am saying is that would not be an appropriate approach to be taking today with the vaccines we use.
Senator ROBERTS: Has it been taken in the past?
Prof. Lawler: I also would highlight that the introduction of vaccines occurred some time ago. And also—
Senator ROBERTS: So it has not been done?
Prof. Lawler: I will let you finish.
Senator ROBERTS: So it has not been done, then, the tests?
Prof. Lawler: Whether these—
Senator ROBERTS: A double blind trial?
Prof. Lawler: Well, we’ve actually already taken on notice to provide concrete evidence on which of those vaccines has been subjected previously to blinded control trials.
Senator ROBERTS: How many COVID vaccines have been destroyed because they aged out? What was the purchase cost for those products?
Prof. Lawler: Dr Anna Peatt from the national immunisation division will respond to that.
CHAIR: This is your last question, Senator Roberts.
Dr Peatt: Senator, could you please repeat the question? I didn’t quite hear it.
Senator ROBERTS: Certainly. How many COVID vaccines have been destroyed because they aged out? What was the purchase cost for those products?
Dr Peatt: Senator, I would have to take that question on notice. I don’t have that available with me today.
Senator ROBERTS: Was close to 35 per cent of the multibillion-dollar COVID vaccine supply binned or trashed?
Dr Peatt: I would have to take that question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: I am asking for you specifically to tell us whether or not it was 35 per cent.
Dr Peatt: I don’t have that figure in front of me.
Senator ROBERTS: I am asking for you to just say what the figures are. Can you confirm that is 35 per cent of what we bought?
https://img.youtube.com/vi/uj4SbhAiGMU/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-10-22 18:08:302025-10-22 18:08:37A Case Study in Avoidance
