Posts

COVID Lessons Learned?

, ,

The final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons Learned was handed down last week. Although the report included substantial criticism of New Zealand’s mistakes in its response, it did not give them prominence. Instead, the report focused only on process errors—specifically process, rather than medical, errors—especially advice failing to reach decision-makers and the repeated failure of politicians to follow the advice they did receive. It turns out they were not following the science after all.

Specific criticisms of the response included youth vaccine mandates for 12- to 17-year-olds. On 9 December 2021, the COVID-19 vaccine technical advisory group gave clear advice to the government that the risks of COVID-19 transmission among under-18s were “insufficient to justify mandating a two-dose schedule” and that it may “add unnecessary risk of myocarditis.” The politicians did it anyway.

The bureaucrats who gave this advice kept their mouths shut. The former Director-General of Health, Ashley Bloomfield, was subsequently knighted and is now at the World Health Organisation running the International Health Regulations. The knighthood was obviously not for services to honesty and transparency.

Furthermore, Auckland was kept under Alert Level 4 for 32 days longer than the Director-General of Health advised. These 32 days were over the Christmas period, causing massive social harm during a Christian holiday. The commission notes that this contributed to unnecessary social and economic disruption for businesses and families, which is a huge understatement. Jacinda Ardern clearly shares Prime Minister Albanese’s desire to break the bonds of family, community, and Christianity.

Finally, there was a failure to clearly communicate the risks surrounding COVID injection harms—especially myocarditis in young people—which eroded trust in both the government and the medical profession. No kidding!

The evidence continues to pile up. Last week, Dr. Helmut Sterz, Pfizer’s former European chief toxicologist, testified before Germany’s Bundestag coronavirus inquiry commission. He stated that the carcinogenicity and mutagenicity tests for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine were never conducted, and that reproductive toxicity tests were defective. This violated standard protocols and enabled an untested mass rollout, yet billions of dollars in sales rolled in anyway.

One Nation will not stop until we get a Royal Commission into Australia’s response to COVID.

Transcript

The final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons Learned was handed down last week. The royal commission that New Zealand’s prime minister during COVID, Jacinda Ardern, started was a cover-up until the new government made it slightly more fair dinkum. The report was framed politically, praising all involved as running one of the world’s best COVID responses. To say they didn’t harm people as badly as most other countries is not a compliment, and even that’s unsupportable, based on testimony to the commission. One Nation is not letting go of this issue, because there is another pandemic on the way, just as soon as the gain-of-function research is completed and the inevitable lab leaks occur. Australia is running gain-of-function research at the CSIRO facility in Geelong, including on new strains of Ebola—insane. 

The report did include substantial criticism of New Zealand’s mistakes in their response, although the report did not give it prominence. The report focused only on process errors—not medical but process errors—especially advice not reaching decision-makers and the repeated failure of politicians to follow the advice they did get. It turns out they were not following the science after all. The commission examined so-called vaccines, lockdowns, testing and economic responses from February 2021 to October 2022 to assess decisions taken on the basis of information available at the time. Many decisions that we know today were wrong were not investigated, because that information was not available at the time, nor did the commission hold politicians accountable for making decisions which clearly flew in the face of decency and common sense. 

And the royal commission failed to address the COVID injection’s long-term medical outcomes. Massive increases in cancer rates, myocarditis, brain function, permanently elevated mortality levels, harm to children’s emotional education and development—none were subject to rigorous inquiry. Nothing in this report would stop a future government from repeating key steps of their failed response, because the true extent of the harm was not subject to detailed longitudinal medical study during the inquiry. 

Here are the main findings and the main failings in the government response that the commission did find: Firstly—youth vaccine mandates for 12- to 17-year-olds. On 9 December 2021, the COVID-19 vaccine technical advisory group gave clear advice to the government that the risks of COVID-19 transmission amongst under-18s were ‘insufficient to justify mandating a two-dose schedule’ and that they may ‘add unnecessary risk of myocarditis’. This specific advice never made it to the right people. As a result, the injection mandates for education workers and children over 12 remained in place, wrongly. The commission called this a significant failing yet did not require those who received the guidance to explain why they chose to ignore it, nor why the advisory body that made the guidance chose to keep their mouths shut. The former director-general of health, Ashley Bloomfield, was knighted and is now at the World Health Organization running the International Health Regulations. How come? In the public service, silence is a golden ticket. 

Secondly—the Auckland lockdown extension in late 2021. Auckland was kept under alert level 4 for 32 days longer than the director-general of health advised. These 32 days were over Christmas, causing massive social harm during a Christian holiday. The commission notes that this contributed to unnecessary social and economic disruption for businesses and families. That’s a huge understatement. Jacinda Ardern clearly shares Prime Minister Albanese’s desire to break the bonds of family, community and Christianity in order to usher in their communist utopia of scarcity, censorship and control. 

Thirdly—communication of risks. The failure to clearly communicate risks around COVID injection harms, especially myocarditis in young people, eroded trust in the government and in medical professions. This is why the Albanese government is rigging the mis- and disinformation inquiry now underway—to prove the need for mis- and disinformation censorship laws, to ensure the government is the only source of information during the next emergency. 

Fourthly—vaccine mandates. The commission found that there was ‘insufficient monitoring’ of impacts around job losses and exemptions, although the commission did not scrutinise adverse effects from the deadly COVID shots. Their process was to accept the health department’s explanation of the adverse events documented on the New Zealand version of the Database of Adverse Event Notifications. The commission found that decisions to continue or remove mandates were ‘not well-informed by data’. No bloody kidding! Just not informed! 

And Australia has committed this grave mistake. Perhaps we did it even worse in this country. 

Tonight, I’m sharing with the Senate new evidence, published last week, using Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration’s own documentation, which suggests that the TGA may have committed malfeasance in office. Last week, Paul Rekaris presented this evidence, published on SSRN, the world’s largest social science research network, based on his four years of freedom of information requests and investigations, using the TGA’s own data. I’ll say it again: ‘using the TGA’s own data’. Titled Documentation gap analysis: independent audit of TGA COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring plan, the paper used thousands of pages of data, covering 68.4 million injection doses, and audit standards from the Australian National Audit Office and the international standard for auditing, ISO 19011. 

Here’s some background. The Commonwealth signed formal bilateral agreements with Australian states and territories that established governance frameworks requiring systematic reporting of vaccine safety and surveillance data, including adverse event monitoring via the TGA. These agreements implemented the Australian COVID-19 Vaccination Policy, which National Cabinet endorsed in November 2020, and gave operational effect through the TGA’s February 2021 ‘COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring plan’. Remember that title. The states relied on that plan. The public relied on that plan. Yet the TGA did not properly implement that plan. They weren’t even close. 

This is at the heart of the cover-up of COVID injection harm. The monitoring, called pharmacovigilance, had to be done according to the plan. Monitoring was not done—and people died. 

The ministers are culpable. Under the Cabinet Handbook, 15th edition, paragraph 25, ministers must carry out policies that cabinet has determined, and, as recorded in cabinet minutes, portfolio agencies must act on cabinet decisions. This binds the TGA, as a portfolio agency under the Department of Health and Aged Care, to implement the enhanced monitoring commitments. 

This is a brief outline now of the evidence of their failure. Firstly, in September 2024, when the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner directed the TGA, the TGA identified no implementation records for the vaccine safety monitoring plan—a position the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner confirmed in Decision 2025 AICmr 54. Secondly, vaccine safety monitoring was managed through routine ‘day-to-day processes’, contradicting the enhanced monitoring requirement attached to provisional vaccine approval. Thirdly, of 19 audited plan outputs, only three have complete implementation documentation, 10 are partially documented and six have no documentation at all—only one-sixth compliance. Fourthly, the TGA investigated 148 safety signals, called adverse events, and took 57 regulatory actions. They have published no documentation linking specific signals to specific actions or explaining why they took or did not take action—none. Fifthly, ISO 19011 conformity assessment revealed systematic implementation failure by the TGA. Objective 2 was signal detection—the thing they were supposed to be monitoring closely. Across eight outputs, they achieved zero per cent full implementation, and, across two outputs in governance, achieved zero per cent. 

The evidence continues to pile up. Last week, Dr Helmut Sterz, former Pfizer Europe chief toxicologist, testified before Germany’s Bundestag coronavirus inquiry commission, saying that the Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine carcinogenicity and mutagenicity tests were not done. Reproductive toxicity tests were defective. This violated standard protocols and enabled untested mass rollout. Yet billions of dollars in sales rolled in. Essential toxicity studies were sacrificed to speed, with no acceptable reasons, with the result that the approval led to prohibited human trials. Sterz cited post-marketing data showing over 2,133 German deaths in the first two months, estimating up to 60,000 German deaths after adjusting for underreporting, while noting that increased age-adjusted mortality from 2021 onwards contradicted claims of a positive benefit-risk ratio. 

It was wrong to inject people with these things. Pfizer’s management’s confession is damning. How much more evidence do you need? Call a royal commission now. Finally, I appreciate that some citizens want COVID as an issue put behind us. We can’t do that, because big pharma and their TGA will do it all again. We must hound down those responsible and hold them accountable. 

/0 Comments/by

The TGA’s Rubber Stamp

,

I asked the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) about the way they test the vaccines they market as “safe and effective” and mandate for children. I already knew the answer – I was just trying to get a clear statement so the public could understand just how much of a farce the “testing” process truly is.

The representatives danced around the questions, trying to be as confusing as possible.

The TGA does not actually test vaccines. Instead, they rely on safety and efficacy data provided by the manufacturer. This data is based on the company’s own testing of its own product. If the manufacturer (drug company) says it’s safe, the TGA gives it a stamp of approval.

Furthermore, we know that drug companies are not using the correct process for testing new vaccines or drugs. The standard should be to test the new product against an inert saline placebo. Instead, they use an existing vaccine or drug as the control.

This means our vaccines have been tested against products already known to have side effects – and approved as long as the side effects of the new drug are no worse than those of the old one. This is criminal behaviour.

Peer-reviewed papers have shown that the testing on the COVID-19 vaccines was fraudulent. It’s not good enough for the TGA to claim they review documentation carefully; the Pfizer testing scandal proves they do nothing of the sort.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  Question on notice 3215, I asked about a report from the American Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, which stated perfectly clearly that there were 10 paediatric deaths were linked to the COVID jabs. I asked if you had supporting data in Australia. Your reply referenced reported paediatric deaths after COVID jabs and found:  

… causality has not been established for those in children.  

How hard did you look? Were there autopsies, an independent medical board reviewing the medical file for each, deciding that, no, the jab did not cause the death? What was the process you engaged?  

Prof. Lawler: Thanks for that question. I will ask Dr Dascombe to comment on the process that we’ve explained previously around our pharmacovigilance that is designed and delivers on our analysis of adverse events, including deaths that occurred temporally following vaccination. I would just highlight as well that, as previously stated regarding the identified paediatric deaths following vaccines, I mentioned that we’d not been provided with information regarding those deaths. I believe that still to be the case. The claim that there had been these deaths that had been causally linked to vaccination has not, to my knowledge, been substantiated. But, again, if that is not the case, I’d be very prepared to correct the record. Dr Dascombe can comment on the work that we undertake to respond to reported adverse events.  

Dr Dascombe: Every death that’s reported to the TGA following any vaccination is reviewed to determine whether a regulatory response is necessary based on the weight of available evidence. It’s important to note the TGA does not determine causes of death. This is determined by coroners and treating doctors, as we’ve explained before, and the TGA has no role in overruling causes of death that are included on a person’s death certificate. The causality assessment that’s done by the TGA is primarily concerned with the relationship between the vaccine and the adverse event, rather than the outcome itself, and it’s undertaken as a regulatory process with the intention of appraising risk-benefit balance at a population level for that specific vaccine under Australia’s regulatory framework.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you do autopsies?  

Dr Dascombe: As I just said, the TGA has no role in the determination of cause of death for individuals.  

Senator ROBERTS: That was my understanding too. In 2026, the United States’ Department of Health and Human Services removed rotavirus, COVID-19, influenza, meningococcal disease, hepatitis A and hepatitis B from the schedule. Australia still requires rotavirus, hepatitis-B and meningococcal ACWY. Is the United States’ FDA wrong, or are you wrong on the risk-benefit of those vaccines?  

Dr Peatt: I can’t comment on the US, but, as outlined by my colleagues Professor Lawler and Associate Professor Katherine Gibney, the four vaccines to be made available on the National Immunisation Program requires a very high bar. It includes TGA assessment of the safety and efficacy of the vaccine but also undergoes ATAGI assessment for the clinical effectiveness. It then goes through Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee assessment and then needs to be approved by government for funding. There’s also ongoing monitoring by ATAGI and TGA, who constantly assess whether those vaccines are appropriate for the Australian community.  

Prof. Lawler: If I may very quickly add—I think it’s really important to note that one of the great strengths of Australia’s regulatory system and, indeed, of ATAGI is that we do make decisions based upon the nature of disease patterns in Australia. Every country will take its own approach to immunisation schedules. They rely on the evidence and rely on the demography and the epidemiology in their own areas. If we were simply to make decisions based upon what other regulators say, then I can almost guarantee that I’d be back at the next estimates answering questions around why we weren’t making our own sovereign decisions. So I think it’s important to note that the vaccination schedule is appropriate to the Australian context because of the evidence upon which it relies.  

/2 Comments/by

Restoring Trust or Reinforcing Control?

,

Australia has now established a Centre for Disease Control (CDC) with a substantial budget, however the enabling legislation failed to outline a clear set of guardrails for this organisation.

The legislation states that the CDC will serve as the “source of scientific truth” on pandemic-related matters, which is concerning.

During COVID-19, the Government required health authorities to lie consistently to promote a medical response that we are now seeing was deadly and damaging to Australians.

With the credibility of our health professionals in tatters, the government has created a new body to serve as the “one source of truth.”

I asked several questions to understand the scope of this new body and the process by which they will establish this “one truth,” yet I remain none the wiser.

As you watch this video, ask yourself: is the attitude of these senior public servants acceptable for a Senate Estimates hearing?

Transcript

CHAIR: I also need to move the call. Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: I need to ask some questions about the recent enabling legislation for the CDC. I note the enabling legislation for the CDC received royal assent three weeks ago, so I am surprised to see you here so
quickly.

Ms Wood: Is that a question?

Senator ROBERTS: How long had preparations for the CDC been going on?

Ms Wood: The commitment by the government to create an Australian Centre for Disease Control was made in the election before the one last held.

Senator ROBERTS: In 2022?

Mr Comley: Yes, 2022.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that. How much was spent preparing for an Australian CDC prior to the legislation passing parliament?

Ms Wood: The preparation activity for the CDC is one of the activities undertaken in the interim CDC group, so there are a lot of different activities. We can probably give a funding amount for one of the divisions which is largely responsible for the establishment activities: the policy development, the drafting of the legislation and the staffing considerations associated with setting up a new agency. We could probably take that on notice but it’s not a figure I have.

Senator ROBERTS: You could take it on notice to find out how much was spent in a parallel agency or department?

Ms Wood: The interim CDC is part of the department at the moment. We can take you through the high-level budget descriptions for that group and the activities, inclusive of which is establishment activities for the statutory agency.

Senator ROBERTS: This may be a guess—was it around $250 million? Can you take it on notice?

Mr Comley: There were actually three tranches of funding that came through budget and MYEFO measures. I think that number is broadly correct.

Senator ROBERTS: $250 million is broadly correct?

Ms Wood: That’s correct.

Mr Comley: Over four years, not up to the year.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s a lot of money. It’s not really enabling legislation.

Mr Comley: Let’s go back a step—

Senator ROBERTS: A lot of money spent on it.

Mr Comley: There are functions and then there’s legislation. The CDC was an election commitment by the government in 2022. Work immediately commenced on what it would look like. There was already a public
health group within the department that did the sum of this work, some of which had been built up through COVID and the pandemic response. Some of those functions continued, but some money has also been appropriated to build up new functions of the CDC, such as data integration and surveillance systems, which will prepare Australia better for a pandemic. The legislation has the effect, though, of creating an independent body. So there are probably two different things here: one is the functions of the CDC, much of which transfer from the existing department; and the second is the legislative basis on which it operates, particularly the Director-General of the CDC, independent of government when providing advice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That was an excellent summary. Who’s the director? Is there an interim director?

Mr Comley: At the moment, Ms Wood is the head of the interim CDC. There has been a selection process that I’ve been undertaking for the new director-general—no decision has been made yet as to who that is—bearing in mind that the CDC commences on 1 January next year.

Senator ROBERTS: What is your intent to fund, commission, conduct or cooperate with others on virus research, including what is commonly called gain-of-function research?

Ms Wood: As the secretary has indicated, there will be a commission appointed by the minister for the CDC once it’s a statutory agency. They’ll obviously have responsibility to determine the work program in detail. We can take you through the research as a concept under the legislation, if that assists.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, please. What about gain-of-function research?

Ms Wood: The CDC won’t be—I think this was indicated earlier—conducting research on matters that are in the remit of other organisations. The CDC is a complement to the Commonwealth public health capability. It will not be taking over or otherwise leaning in on research conducted by any other Commonwealth entities, whether that’s NHMRC or the Gene Technology Standing Committee.

Senator ROBERTS: We know that the CSIRO has admitted to conducting gain-of-function research, both here and in China. Will you assume responsibility for any aspect of the CSIRO’s Australian Centre for Disease
Preparedness in Geelong?

Ms Wood: The CSIRO is obviously a different organisation. The CDC will work with it, but the CDC is not inheriting or having functions transferred to it from the CSIRO, if that’s the question.

Senator ROBERTS: That is the question.

Prof. Kidd: If I can insert, the oversight of gain-of-function research is the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s been bandied around. It’s sometimes in his purview; and sometimes it’s not in his purview. So it’s in his purview?

Prof. Kidd: Responsibility for the oversight of proposed gain-of-function research is.

Senator ROBERTS: CSIRO has a substantial live animal experimentation agenda, although the animals aren’t alive for long. Will you sanction live animal experimentation as part of your new role?

Prof. Kidd: Do we have the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator in this section, Secretary?

Mr Comley: I don’t think so, but I think the senator’s question goes to a different question, which is more about research methodology. The other thing I’d comment—and Ms Wood or the others at the table can expand
on it—is that it’s not envisaged that the CDC would undertake research itself. That’s not the primary role of the CDC. I don’t think it needs to turn its policy mind to that question of animal research.

Senator ROBERTS: Chair, I’ll finish early, with the mind to get back on the treadmill with the TGA.

CHAIR: You’re getting better and better, Senator Roberts. I’m very impressed. Senator Liddle?

/5 Comments/by

Mandates Must Go for Defence Service

,

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. 

/2 Comments/by

Questions CASA Won’t Answer

,

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.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you. 

/by

COVID Testing: The Truth They Tried to Hide

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://senroberts.com/4oSwb3D

/4 Comments/by

Breaking the Silence: AHPRA’s Grip on Healthcare

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.

/1 Comment/by

When Trust is Betrayed

, ,

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) 

/1 Comment/by

TGA Defends COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Amid Spike Protein Concerns

,

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

/8 Comments/by

Illegal COVID Fines: Royal Commission NOW!

,

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 )

/2 Comments/by