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.
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
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.
They promised safe and effective. What they delivered was sudden and unexpected.
For years, I’ve defended the doctor-patient relationship against bureaucratic overreach and pharmaceutical influence. The COVID response exposed regulatory failure, destroyed trust, and harmed hundreds of thousands of Australians who trusted the medical establishment.
One Nation will shut down the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and its related crony committees, end the revolving door between regulators and industry, and demand a royal commission into the COVID response.
Australians deserve truth, justice, and a health system free from corporate control.
Transcript
‘They promised you safe and effective; instead, they delivered sudden and unexpected.’ So reads the billboard erected by NZDSOS—a group of 9,000 New Zealand doctors, health professionals and academics. There are 9,000 of them; courage is contagious. Their byline is, ‘It’s time to remove the government from the consultation room.’
For many years, I’ve spoken about the primacy of the doctor-patient relationship. I’ve spoken against the insidious influence of health bureaucrats creeping into that relationship—influence exerted to benefit the pharmaceutical industry over the interests of everyday Australian patients. I’ve spoken about the abuse of power and regulatory capture of Ahpra and health regulators. In recent months, I have joined the fight against the Queensland health department’s decision to destroy biological samples taken from 10,000 volunteers and used to test the safety and efficacy of COVID injectables. A bad decision that, I’m happy to say, has been overturned. Thank you, Premier Crisafulli from Queensland. I always say ‘injectables’ because these dangerous, killer products are not vaccines; they’re a biological experiment which failed. Tens of thousands of people died, and many more live with adverse reactions, which is bureaucrat-speak for them having their health and lives destroyed.
One Nation will close the Therapeutic Goods Administration and its related crony committees, filled as they are with personnel that pharmaceutical companies employed, funded, educated and now seek to regulate. Australians were healthier and safer when the health department made these decisions with the benefit of close parliamentary scrutiny. We must go back to that system. One Nation is preparing legislation to prevent the revolving door between parliament, the Public Service and private industry, so a person cannot go from regulating big pharma to working for big pharma. We continue to call for a royal commission into our COVID response. We must understand how the disproportionate, homicidal response to a bad flu killed many tens of thousands of people and maimed many more. Justice must be served or more people will die. (Time expired)
During my session with the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) at Senate Estimates in November, I questioned them about a number of concerns.
Does the TGA agree that spike protein is pathogenic in COVID-19 vaccines? Professor Langham clarified that the spike protein is not pathogenic and is designed to trigger an antigen recognition and antibody response.
Has the TGA observed or seen reports of any adverse events related to the spike protein? Professor Langham responded that no such events have been observed, as the spike protein is quickly degraded by the body once it’s introduced s part of the mRNA vaccine.
What analysis did the TGA conduct regarding the spike protein’s suitability before vaccine approval? Professor Lawler agreed to provide detailed information on notice.
It has been demonstrated that spike proteins exert an inhibitory effect on the function of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), leading to dysregulation of the renin-angiotensin system. Is the TGA aware of this effect of spike proteins on ACE2 and on the renin-angiotensin system? Professor Langham explained that while the spike protein attaches to receptors, it does not cause harm on its own.
Is ‘long COVID’ the result of spike protein in the body coming from the Wuhan and alpha versions of COVID itself or is it from the vaccine products containing spike proteins, which are injected repeatedly in Australians? Professor Lawler responded that there is no accepted evidence to confirm such a link.
Has the TGA received any applications for treatments to remove spike proteins from the body and has the TGA engaged with research institutions on this matter? Professor Lawler clarified that the TGA has not received such applications, does not commission research, and focuses on regulating therapeutic goods.
The TGA emphasised that the overall risk-benefit profile of COVID-19 vaccines remains positive.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Does the TGA agree that spike protein is pathogenic?
Prof. Langham: Thank you for your question. The spike protein is not pathogenic. It does not contain any of the other parts of the COVID-19 vaccine that brings about a pathogenetic state. The spike protein is really there to encourage an antigen recognition and an antibody response by the body.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’ll move on. Has the TGA observed or seen reports of any adverse effects of COVID vaccination that may be associated with the likely effects of spike protein?
Prof. Langham: As I said, the spike protein is not pathogenic. We’ve not seen any adverse events related to the spike protein, because—and we’ve discussed this previously—the spike protein is rapidly degraded by the body once it’s introduced as part of the mRNA vaccine.
Senator ROBERTS: Really? Okay. What analysis did the TGA conduct regarding the suitability of spike protein in the COVID vaccines prior to approval? Could you please provide me with that material on notice.
Prof. Lawler: I’m taking that question to be: what did the TGA know about spike proteins prior to approving the COVID vaccines? Is that a fair—
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know what analysis you did regarding the suitability of spike protein in the COVID vaccines prior to approval, and I’d like that material on notice.
Prof. Lawler: I’m happy to respond to that question on notice. We have responded to similar questions previously.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you tell me about the analysis?
Prof. Lawler: As I said, I’m happy to take that question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you know about the analysis now? The question on notice is only if you don’t know something now.
CHAIR: Senator, the official is well entitled to take a question on notice. It’s not about not answering the question; it’s about taking an answer on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, as I understand it, the guides to the witnesses include that if they want to take something on notice it’s only because they don’t know the answer now.
CHAIR: Yes, or they need to qualify or check the information or they don’t have the extent of the information.
Senator Gallagher: They don’t have the information with them to provide you a comprehensive answer, which is not unreasonable.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Have you received any reports, data or discussion from your pharmacovigilance system highlighting concerns about spike proteins following the introduction of the COVID vaccines? If so, could you please provide that information?
Prof. Langham: Again, I’m at a loss to understand the specifics of your question as to how our pharmacovigilance would relate to the specific aspect of the vaccine which is the spike protein. I think we can answer very clearly what our pharmacovigilance results have been for the vaccine itself. But as to the specific aspects of the spike protein, the reason the mRNA vaccines include the spike protein as the antigenic stimulus results from many years of research that had been undertaken in the US by the National Centre for Vaccines to develop mRNA vaccines.
Prof. Lawler: And I’d just add to Professor Langham’s answer that the purpose of our pharmacovigilance and the way in which it monitors for and identifies to enable us to respond to emerging safety signals and trends is that it’s based on adverse events.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s all it’s based on?
Prof. Lawler: These are clinical events. So, there’s an expectation—indeed, an encouragement—that adverse events are reported, and these are reported on the basis of clinical nature. We also, as I mentioned previously, work with international partners on a network of pharmacovigilance activities that Dr Larter might like to speak to.
Dr Larter: We continue to engage with our international regulatory counterparts to look at not only spontaneous adverse event reporting but also linked data, and many of the rich datasets that are available globally, to inform our safety monitoring. These processes enable us to identify emerging safety concerns well before we understand how they might be occurring, before the mechanisms of action are identified. That’s a strength. We don’t need to know exactly how they’re being caused to take regulatory action to ensure that the safety profile is up to date and available for treating health professionals.
Senator ROBERTS: There has been a multitude of papers about potential health impacts from spike protein on the renin-angiotensin system in the human body. It appears to be basic to human health—if not the key system then certainly one of the key systems to health. Is it your testimony today that the COVID vaccines containing spike proteins are still perfectly safe.
Prof. Lawler: We’re aware of the importance of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Professor Langham is a nephrologist. The reality is—I’m happy to come back if I’m wrong, but I don’t know whether we or any other regulator has ever said that a medication is perfectly safe. There are a number of processes that we follow in the assessment and market authorisation of a number of medicines. We have product information that clearly states the risks and potential adverse events—
Senator ROBERTS: Who is that from? Who is the product information from?
Prof. Lawler: The product information is produced—I guess, to the question, I’d like to say that we don’t maintain that the vaccine is perfectly safe. Every time we come here, we discuss with you the adverse events and the recognised and accepted potential adverse events. So, no, it’s not our position that the vaccine is perfectly safe. It is our clear position, and this is the clear scientific consensus, that the risk-benefit of COVID vaccines has been shown to be very safe and, in fact, the risk-benefit is significantly positive.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay; I won’t explore that any further. It has been demonstrated that spike proteins exert an inhibitory effect on the function of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, ACE2, leading to dysregulation of the renin-angiotensin system. Is the TGA aware of this effect of spike proteins on ACE2 and on the renin-angiotensin system?
Prof. Langham: It’s well known that the angiotensin receptor is important in how the virus exerts its effects on the body. As to what you are describing with the spike protein itself, on its own, it’s not able to cause any problems. It connects to the receptor, but there is nothing else there behind the spike protein. It’s the virus itself that does cause problems, and the receptor that that virus attaches to is absolutely the angiotensin receptor.
Senator ROBERTS: Was the potential impact of spike proteins on the ACE2 receptor and the renin-angiotensin system considered as part of the analysis of the vaccines? I’d also like to come back again and ask: on whose advice do you take the product safety?
Prof. Lawler: There are two questions there.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, there are.
Prof. Lawler: I’d like to answer them in turn. Which one?
Senator ROBERTS: The first one is: was the potential impact of spike proteins on the ACE2 receptor and the renin-angiotensin system considered as part of the analysis of the vaccines?
Prof. Lawler: The process of the market authorisation and evaluation of medicines, including vaccines, is a comprehensive process that is based upon a significant dossier of information that goes to the safety, quality and efficacy of that particular medicine. In terms of whether that was a specific issue, I’m very happy to have a look at that and come back to you on that.
Senator ROBERTS: On notice—are you taking it on notice?
Prof. Lawler: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Recently, German doctor Karla Lehmann, in her peer-reviewed scientific paper published in the journal of the European Society of Medicine commented that spike protein is ‘uniquely dangerous’ for use in vaccine platforms—and this woman is generally pro-vaccine—because of the effects of spike protein causing ACE2 inhibition, leading to excessive angiotensin 2 and harmful overactivation of AT1R, the angiotensin 2, type 1 receptor. This analysis is supported by other research providing clear evidence of the pathogenic nature of spike protein and its unsuitability for use in vaccine platforms. Is the TGA aware of this review and analysis conducted by Karla Lehmann and her damning conclusions about the dangers of spike protein based vaccines?
Prof. Lawler: I don’t have that article. It would be useful, obviously, to review that. I think it’s also worth noting that a lot of the theoretical conversations around spike protein are mechanistic in nature rather than supported by phenomenological or observational studies. So there are a lot of inferences drawn between a cellular mechanism and a clinical scenario that is very difficult to distinguish from the disease itself. Professor Langham, is there anything you would like to add?
Prof. Langham: I guess I would just support those comments that, when the vaccine with the spike protein as the antigenic stimulus is trialled in clinical trials, the sorts of physiological derangement of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system that might be described is not seen. So we do not see activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system with the clinical trials in terms of understanding the specific safety signals that have come from them. It has been quite widely demonstrated that the vaccines themselves are very well tolerated.
CHAIR: Senator, I’m due to rotate.
Senator ROBERTS: I just have two more questions on this thread.
CHAIR: Sure.
Senator ROBERTS: Is ‘long COVID’ the result of spike protein in the body coming from the Wuhan and alpha versions of COVID itself or is it from the vaccine products containing spike proteins, which are injected repeatedly in Australians?
Prof. Lawler: I don’t believe there’s accepted evidence to confirm that that’s the case.
Senator ROBERTS: Has the TGA received any applications for treatments or protocols to remove spike proteins from the human body? Have you asked the National Health and Medical Research Council to advertise a grant for this purpose? Are you working with any university around this topic—anything at all—either to cure spike protein damage for long COVID, if it exists, or for vaccine injury?
Prof. Lawler: The answer to the first question is not to my knowledge. The answer to the second question is that it’s not the role of the TGA to commission research from the National Health and Medical Research Council. And the answer to the third question is it is not the role of the TGA to generate knowledge; it is the role of the TGA to regulate therapeutic goods.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s the end of my questions on COVID spike protein. I have two more sets of questions.
CHAIR: Do you mean for the TGA?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, for the TGA but on other topics
The New South Wales government recently withdrew and intend to refund over 23,000 COVID fines, in addition to the 36,000 fines withdrawn in 2022. These fines were unlawful and should never have happened.
I criticise the Albanese Government’s whitewash COVID “review” for ignoring state government actions, including these unlawful “fines”. There is so much about the State and Federal Government actions during COVID that must be examined immediately by a Royal Commission. Only a Royal Commission has the power to subpoena documents and compel witnesses to appear and testify truthfully.
Senator Wong responded to my questions that the fines are a state matter and then defended the government’s approach, saying that they were focusing on learning from the pandemic rather than assigning blame.
I questioned the government’s commitment to transparency, pointing out the lack of a royal commission into COVID-19 despite a promise of transparency. Senator Wong reiterated the government’s focus on preparing for future pandemics rather than prosecuting past health policies.
There is a need for accountability and justice, especially for those affected by vaccine injuries, and I question why the government is reluctant to call a comprehensive COVID royal commission. What do they have to hide?
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My question is to minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The New South Wales government has just withdrawn and refunded more than 23,000 COVID fines for offences like walking outside in the sun. This is in addition to 36,000 fines withdrawn in 2022. People who chose to fight these had police charges hanging over their heads for years while the fines were illegal all along. Your voluntary COVID review didn’t say one word about these fines because it was specifically instructed by your government to turn a blind eye to everything state governments did. Why is the Prime Minister so scared of calling a royal commission with the power to take evidence on oath, subpoena documents and look at all aspects of state and federal government responses to COVID? Why won’t you commit to calling a royal commission now?
Senator WONG: Thank you, Senator, thank you for the question. While I do not agree with the view you take of these issues, I will say you are very consistent in the views that you put on these issues. I would make a few points. The first is that the offences or the fines that you refer to are under state jurisdiction, and I can’t comment on how the states are approaching the enforcement or non-enforcement of those penalties. That’s a matter for the relevant state authorities. I appreciate that you have been consistent in calling for a broader inquiry. I did take the time—and I’m sure you did too—to look at not every page but a fair bit of the inquiry that did come down. I thought it was a very thorough, very considered piece of work which focused much less on pointing the finger and allocating blame than on working out how Australia as a country, and particularly how the Commonwealth government, can learn from the experience of the pandemic. That is the approach that the government is taking to this. I appreciate you had a different view about the federal government’s response. There were certainly mistakes made. There were certainly things we could do better. We were very critical, for example, of the failure to assist stranded Australians after the borders were closed and so forth. But the focus of the report was very much on what we learned from something that we have not experienced in our lifetimes before and how, in an age of pandemics, we can ensure that we are better prepared for the next pandemic.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: Prime Minister Albanese was elected promising to govern with transparency. Within months of being elected the government called a royal commission into robodebt. It’s now 30 months after you were elected to government, and there is still no royal commission into COVID. Will you govern with transparency and call a COVID royal commission that goes way beyond what your inquiry did, or does your government’s transparency promise only apply when it’s politically convenient to you?
Senator WONG: I’d refer you to the answer to your primary question. We have taken the view that, rather than a process of allocating blame, the most important thing for us to do as a country was to be upfront and very honest about mistakes that were made or areas where we could have done better—state and federal—and focus on how we better prepare the country, in particular the Commonwealth government, for the risk of future pandemics. It is a very thorough report. It is a very thorough assessment of what we did well and what we didn’t do well. It makes, I think, very good recommendations, including near-term and medium-term priority areas where we need to strengthen our capacity and our capability. That is a good thing for us to do. It’s an important thing for us to do. Pandemics are likely to be, regrettably, more prevalent, so we need to be better prepared, and that’s what we’re focused on.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: We agree that accountability and justice are essential. We’re not interested in blame. That’s for future prevention. Throughout state and federal governments’ COVID response, endless things were labelled misinformation that turned out to be true. The tens of thousands of vaccine injured and bereaved are owed massive compensation. Those are just the things we found out without a royal commission. Why is the government so scared of calling a proper COVID royal commission that would answer once and for all whether it was really the government who put out misinformation?
Senator WONG: I think your last question really bells the cat, if I may say. This is not about engaging in an argument around vaccines and health information and the views that you and others have about what is correct and what is not. With respect, I know you have your views. They’re not shared by the government. I don’t think they were shared by the Morrison government, and they’re not shared by many people in the public health space. You’re entitled to those views, but we are not looking to have a royal commission which is about reprosecuting health policy and health facts. That is the subject of independent advice. What we are interested in is making sure that, in a pandemic where we saw so many people around the world die and which had such an effect on the global economy and on Australia’s economy, we improve our response to such pandemics. ( Time expired )
The government’s COVID inquiry: * No power to compel witnesses * No ability to take evidence under oath * No power to order documents * Only talked to people who volunteered for interviews
Australians deserve a full COVID Royal Commission with: * Power to compel testimony * Evidence under oath * Full document access * Complete transparency
Even Health Minister Butler admitted there was ‘lack of transparency’ and ‘lack of evidence-based policy.’ Australians deserve real answers and accountability, not a toothless inquiry.
It’s time for a proper COVID Royal Commission so that charges can be laid.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending today. Going to the government’s COVID-19 response inquiry, the panel only talked to people who volunteered to talk to it, didn’t they?
Ms Hefren-Webb: Senator, there was no compulsion. People weren’t compelled to talk.
Senator ROBERTS: You must be a mind reader; that was my next question. It was an inquiry that had no ability to compel witnesses, order documents or take evidence under oath—correct?
Ms Hefren-Webb: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: The then government put in place the largest economic response in history, dropping money from helicopters. We had some of the worst invasions of Australian civil liberties, between surveillance, vaccine mandates and lockdowns. The supposed health advice relied on to do this has still not been published, yet Australians are meant to just accept the results of an inquiry that can’t even take evidence under oath. Is that right?
Ms Hefren-Webb: The inquiry had excellent cooperation from a wide range of people. They spoke to nearly all the state premiers who were premiers at the time of COVID. They spoke to nearly all the chief health officers. They spoke to groups representing people impacted by the pandemic in particular ways—for example, aged-care groups, people with disability, CALD groups. They spoke to and received submissions from people who were not supportive of the use of vaccines et cetera. They received evidence from and spoke to a wide range of people, and their report reflects a broad set of views that were put to them. They have assessed those and made some recommendations in relation to them, and the government is now considering those recommendations.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I had the opportunity to listen to Minister Mark Butler, the health minister, discuss the report. He said there was a lack of transparency on rationale and evidence around decisions that have profound impacts on people’s lives and freedoms. He said that there was a lack of a shift from precautionary principle at the start of the response to the COVID virus—which we accept—and that there was a lack of a shift from precautionary to evidence based; it never occurred. There was no balancing of risks and benefits. There was no taking account of non-health impacts of decisions imposed on the community and in a non-proportionate way. He said this was compelling insight from this report. There was a lack of evidence based policy, yet we were told repeatedly at state and federal level, ‘This is all based on evidence.’ The evidence changed from day to day, week to week, within and between states. We were lied to, and there was a lack of transparency—as the minister admits. Then he said it’s driven a large decline in trust and that the measures are not likely to be accepted again. This is a serious problem. Health departments across the country are in tatters, yet there’s no recommendation in this report that says we should establish a royal commission; correct?
Ms Hefren-Webb: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: How are we going to restore accountability, Minister, and trust without holding people accountable for the tragic errors they made?
Senator Wong: This was a very comprehensive inquiry into the multifaceted aspects of Australia’s response. Whilst I’m not the minister responsible, it was something we considered. I think it is a very good piece of work that is very honest about the things that Australia did very well—and we did do some things extraordinarily well. We didn’t see the overwhelming of our hospital systems and the death tolls we saw in some other developed countries. There are also things which we didn’t do as well and things which we weren’t set up to do. Where we differ from you, in terms of the last part of your question, is that we want to be constructive about the failings as opposed to simply pursuing those who might have made the errors. The inquiry goes through, as you said, the precautionary response in a lot of detail. There is a question about whether some of the findings about what was evidence based or partially evidence based—that is perhaps not as black and white as your question suggests.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m paraphrasing the minister.
Senator Wong: Yes, but that’s a matter for discussion. I think it’s also true to say that you don’t get a global pandemic of that ilk very often in most people’s lifetimes, and so, understandably, you are going to make mistakes as a nation as well as do things right. That’s what the inquiry shows. The minister has been clear that we need to learn from this, and the Centre for Disease Control was one of the key recommendations which the government responded to.
Senator ROBERTS: I wrote to the then prime minister and the then premier of my state, Premier Palaszczuk, and said, ‘We’ll give you a fair go in the Senate.’ I said that with their response in March and their second response in April, for JobSafe and then JobKeeper—and I told them I would hold them accountable. I wrote letters to the Premier and the Prime Minister in May. I got no evidence back at all.
I wrote to them again in August and September, and, again, no evidence; I was seeking evidence. The Chief Medical Officer gave me evidence in March 2023 that the severity of COVID was low to moderate. When you figure in the overwhelming majority of people, it was very, very low when you removed the people who had high severity. We did this all for a low-severity virus. There was no pandemic of deaths. We’re expecting Australians who have lost trust in the health system and who see no accountability to just accept it. This is dancing away from responsibility and accountability in the health system.
Senator Wong: I think it’s a very accountable report, with respect. It’s many hundreds of pages, which go through in great detail a lot of the aspects of the nation’s response to the pandemic—Commonwealth, state, territory, the medical sector, how we handled borders, how we handled hospitals, the community. I think it is a very comprehensive report, so I don’t know that I agree with the assertion about the lack of accountability. I also would say to you, if you want to talk about evidence bases, that I don’t think the evidence supports the proposition that this was simply—I can’t recall the phrase you used.
Senator ROBERTS: Low-to-moderate severity.
Senator Wong: I don’t share the view of some who say that it was—
Senator ROBERTS: That was the Chief Medical Officer.
Senator Wong: I don’t share the view of some that look to what happened in the US, what happened in Italy and what happened in Spain in terms of what we saw there and the hospital systems and the consequent rates of death. I don’t dismiss those as made-up news. The fact that we averted that kind of scenario in Australia is something we should reflect upon.
Senator ROBERTS: I agree.
Senator Wong: You and I have different views on the vaccines. I’d say to you that there were mistakes made, yes, and people have to accept that and front up for that. But I hope we can use this to make sure we equip the country better because, given the more globalised world, we know from most of the experts—WHO and our own experts—that pandemics have become more likely.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go to New Zealand. We had a Senate inquiry as a result of a motion that I moved in the Senate that developed the terms of reference for a possible future royal commission. The terms of reference are wonderfully comprehensive. Nothing has been done. The Prime Minister won’t even share them with the people.
The terms of reference were so comprehensive that they were adopted, largely, by the New Zealand royal commission. The New Zealand royal commission that was underway thanks to Jacinda Ardern was a sham. It had one commissioner and very limited terms of reference. The terms of reference developed by the Senate committee in this country have now been adopted by the New Zealand royal commission. They have expanded it to three commissioners. That came about because Winston Peters—who initially was in a coalition with the Labour Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern—went and listened to the people in Wellington at a large protest, and he realised that so many people had died due to the vaccines and so many people were crippled due to vaccines. He also realised that so many people were gaslit, saying, ‘It’s not a vaccine injury; it’s just a mental health issue.’ He then formed a coalition with the current National Party government, and the condition was that they have a proper, fair dinkum royal commission. The terms of reference have been expanded, broadened, extended and detailed; they’ve now brought vaccines and vaccine injuries into that. Isn’t that the least that we can do for the people who’ve been injured? Tens of thousands have died as a result of the vaccines; we know that from the statistics and the correlation. We also know that hundreds of thousands have been seriously injured, and they’re being laughed at. No health department in this country—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts—
Senator ROBERTS: Why can’t we get justice for those people?
CHAIR: I don’t think that’s a question.
Senator ROBERTS: I just asked a question.
Senator Wong: If you want details about vaccines, Health would probably be the place to go in terms of the estimates process.
Senator ROBERTS: We’re going there, Minister!
Senator Wong: I’m sure you will; I think you regularly do! I’d make this observation: I know you don’t accept the medical evidence, but that is the medical evidence both governments have received—
Senator ROBERTS: On the contrary, I do accept the medical evidence.
Senator Wong: Well, I don’t think you accept the weight of the medical evidence. The second observation is that I am concerned—I think the inquiry might have gone to this. We’ve had a pretty good history in this country of vaccination across measles, whooping cough et cetera, and the concern about vaccines means that we are dropping below herd immunity for diseases which we had largely won the battle against. I don’t think that is a responsible thing to do.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s another matter altogether.
Senator Wong: I would say we have a responsibility in this place to understand where our words land, and I don’t think it’s a good thing if we’re not vaccinated against whooping cough or measles—
CHAIR: Or HPV.
Senator Wong: or, frankly, COVID.
Senator ROBERTS: The fact is that people were vaccinating their children for whooping cough and so on. The fact is that so many people have lost complete trust in the health system; they’re saying, ‘Stick your vaccines.’ That’s why it’s so important. How will you restore accountability?
Senator Wong: How will you? If you said to them, ‘You should get your kids vaccinated for whooping cough’, that might actually cut through.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve done some research on that.
Senator Wong: You don’t want them vaccinated?
Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t say that. It should be the parents’ choice.
Senator Wong: I disagree with you. I think parents always choose medical treatment for their children, but I disagree with you that people can choose their facts. The facts are—
Senator ROBERTS: I think it’s fundamental.
Senator Wong: that we know what whooping cough does, and what it does to kids.
Senator ROBERTS: I think it’s fundamental—
Senator Wong: Alright. We’re not going to agree.
Senator ROBERTS: that parents have responsibility for the health of their children.
Senator Wong: Fair enough, okay. We’re going to disagree on the issue of vaccinations.
Senator ROBERTS: The Australian people deserve transparency and answers. They deserve a COVID royal commission now, and some people deserve to be in jail for the overreach and damage inflicted on Australians. How is your government going to restore trust without accountability?
Senator Wong: I think we’ve just been discussing this, haven’t we?
Senator ROBERTS: I raised it earlier on, but you didn’t answer the question.
Senator Wong: Which bit do you want? We don’t think we need a royal commission because we’ve had a—
Senator ROBERTS: How can you restore trust without accountability?
Senator Wong: I’m inviting you to help us restore trust, but you don’t agree with many of the vaccinations. My point is—
Senator ROBERTS: No, I didn’t say that.
Senator Wong: That is what you said. You had your own views on whooping cough.
Senator ROBERTS: I said parents have the right to choose what to do. Parents are responsible for their children. That’s fundamental.
Senator Wong: Yes, that is true, but what I meant was that parents should not be given incorrect facts by people in a position of authority.
Senator ROBERTS: I agree entirely.
Senator Wong: I’m saying to you that I think it is not responsible to be telling people that they shouldn’t have their children vaccinated for whooping cough.
Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t say that; I said that it’s the parents’ choice. I recommend a book, Fooling Ourselves, written by a statistician in Queensland. That’s evidence. I give that to parents and say, ‘Decide for yourself.’
Senator Wong: So you don’t think the medical evidence and—
Three years ago, I promised to hound down those who perpetrated the greatest crime in Australian history — COVID — and I will continue to do so.
I have addressed the Senate five times now to explain the latest data that shows the harm being caused to everyday Australians from our COVID response, including the mRNA injections.
This is my sixth update on COVID science, using new, peer-reviewed published papers, referenced by the lead author. (References detailed on my website).
The shocking data shows that COVID mRNA injections have negative efficacy and harms more people than they protect. Even more concerning, the latest report shows that children who were injected with mRNA “vaccines” not only all contracted COVID but are now more likely to develop cancer over their lifetimes.
It’s time to call for a Royal Commission!
I will return to this crime of the century in December during my third COVID inquiry, titled “COVID on Trial”, featuring leading Australian and international doctors and lawyers, and presented before cross-party Members of Parliament.
Transcript
Three years ago I promised to hound those who perpetrated the greatest crime in Australian history, and I will continue to do so. Here’s the latest evidence of COVID-19 being the crime of the century, taken from new, peer-reviewed, published papers referenced to the lead author. In the Polish Annals of Medicine publication, FIRN conducts a limited literature review of the progression and reporting of COVID-19 vaccine severe adverse events, or SAE, in scientific journals, finding: ‘The literature has gone from claiming there are absolutely no SAEs from mRNA based vaccines in 2021 to an acknowledgement of a significant number of various SAEs by 2024. These adverse events include neurological complications, myocarditis, pericarditis and thrombosis.’ FIRN said, ‘This warns that science should be completely objective when evaluating health risk, because social and economic considerations often influence.’
Why has it taken three years for the medical community to find its voice? Firstly, it takes time to do the work to produce a peer-reviewed study, especially one critical of its pharmaceutical industry masters. Secondly, money talks. All the big pharma research money, grants, fake conferences and lavish destinations are a hard influence to overcome. Big pharma money is now going in so many different directions. Like the proverbial boy with his finger in the dyke, cracks are finally appearing. That’s why the misinformation and disinformation bill has been advanced: to get rid of these embarrassing truths in time for the next pharmaceutical industry fundraiser.
Only in the last year have scientists been able to publish articles that acknowledge a high number of serious adverse events, or SAEs, linked to the mRNA based vaccines. There’s so much in recent published science that most people are unaware of because of pharmaceutical industry control. Here are the recent top 10 reasons to lock the bastards up. There is the Thacker study. Speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety, finding FISA falsified and misrepresented data. There is the Facsova study. A study of 99 million doses found clear proof of myocarditis, pericarditis and cerebral thrombosis, and the study extend only for 42 days after each dose, yet we know people are dropping dead suddenly years after they took one in the arm for big pharma. The Fraiman study found the excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest was higher than the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalisation relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials, yet they never said more people would get seriously ill from the injections. The Benn study found no statistically significant decrease in COVID-19 deaths in the mRNA vaccine trials, while there was actually a small increase in total deaths. Doshi and Lataster’s study highlighted counting window failures—that is, how long after injection before an adverse event was counted. Pfizer and their cronies did not count adverse events in the first week after injection, which is when many occurred, and stopped counting after six weeks. This likely led to exaggerated effectiveness and misleading safety pronouncements, including serious adverse events being apportioned to unvaccinated people. The Raethke study noted a rate of serious adverse vaccine reactions of approximately one per 400 people—astonishing!
Mostert’s study drew attention to the baffling problem of people dying suddenly years after injection, suggesting it may be the thing they were injected with that caused it. Lataster’s study from the University of Sydney, who provided input to this speech, demonstrated there are correlations between COVID-19 vaccination and European excess deaths and found that COVID injections increased the chance of COVID-19 infection and even the chance of COVID-19 death. The Furst study provided evidence that a healthy vaccine participant bias is at play. They only studied healthy people. That further implies that the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines is being exaggerated, beyond the effects of counting window issues and other data manipulations.
This brings us to the latest peer reviewed and published paper from Robin Kobbe and others. It studied children five to 11 years old one year after they had taken Pfizer mRNA vaccines, showing an elevated risk of developing cancer during their entire lives. Published on 30 July 2024 in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, this report studied German children who had two Pfizer injections. This was a longitudinal study following healthy kids through two doses of vaccinations, with the resulting damage clearly attributed to the mRNA injections.
I’ll return to this crime of the century in December when I conduct by third COVID inquiry called ‘COVID under trial’ with leading Australian and international doctors, lawyers and politicians, which will be held before cross-party members of parliament. I promise to hound down this crime’s perpetrators, and I will do exactly that.
Labor is still running a COVID cover-up. Australians deserve a Royal Commission and true accountability for the wrongs committed over COVID, not this delayed whitewash review.
Transcript
Chris Smith: Labor has delayed the public release of its Covid 19 review. What is the government afraid of to show, do you think?
Senator ROBERTS: Review? You’d hardly call it a review, Chris. I think you’re being very, very kind. Look, the panelists were biased – they were lock-down supporters. They’re not allowed to look at the state responses. They’ve got no investigating powers – investigative powers. They’ve got no power to compel evidence, compel documents, compel witnesses. This is just a sham. It is to get at Morrison and Morrison should be got at. He deserves to be really hammered on this, but he’s no more guilty than, well he’s just as guilty rather as the state premiers who were mostly Labor. This is a protection racket for the Labor premiers and the Labor bureaucrats. We need a royal commission now!
Chris Smith: You see, I would have thought the Royal Commission needs to look at two things that that so-called review is not even touching. The states, as you mentioned and their role when it came to lock-downs and all kinds of freebies that were handed out to the public. But also on top of that, the deals that were done with big Pharma over those damn vaccines that have proved to be a con themselves.
Senator ROBERTS: I agree with you entirely. There are, in fact, there are many, many areas that need to be looked at Chris. I moved a motion to get one of the committees, in the Senate, to investigate and developa draft terms of reference for a possible royal commission, and that was passed through the Senate, that the committee did it. And I want to commend former barrister Julian Gillespie. He pulled an enormous team together and developed a phenomenal submission, 180 pages I think it was, 46,000 signatures. It was the people’s submission. And it covered – it turned it into a de facto inquiry into Covid and it covers everything. And the royal, the chair – Paul Scarr, I must say and the committee did a phenomenal job, along with the Secretariat, of pulling that into something that’s very, very workable. There is a draft terms of reference ready to go. And they’re completely comprehensive, cover every topic imaginable.
