Posts

Ex Qantas Captain, Graham Hood’s Powerful Witness Statement

Thank you Hoody for your courage in speaking the truth at the second public hearing to set the Terms of Reference for a future Royal Commission into COVID.

“I urge this Senate and I urge this government with these words: Government you must listen. This country is in dire straits. The spirit of this country has been systematically destroyed and I’ve witnessed it firsthand. I’ve done what many of you don’t have the time to do. I’ve been face to face with people who’ve lost loved ones that they know were from vaccine injury. And I don’t know whether these excess deaths are being caused by vaccines or ‘long COVID,’ or whatever else it might be. It could be an additive in food. I don’t know, but nobody else seems to know either and that’s why we must stop. We must investigate. We must do a proper debriefing. We must apply proper human factors. And we must bring the people that I mentioned that have been locked away with censorship, back out of the dark with their data so that we can start healing the people of this country. And if we don’t do that we have neglected an opportunity that will go down in history as one of the greatest human factor failures in the world.”

/16 Comments/by

What COVID ‘Vaccine’ Mandates?

,

We’re told in the media that ‘vaccine’ mandates are over, yet my office hears from many Australians who are refused employment or threatened with being sacked from their jobs unless they take two, sometimes three jabs. What is the current guidance on mandates in the health sector? Department of Health has no particular view and says it can be the employer’s individual decision — there is no national policy or vaccine mandate in place. The Minister has not heard of anyone, including nurses, being sacked recently.

The terms of reference inquiry for a potential COVID Royal Commission involved witnesses who gave this testimony. Despite an alarming shortage of nurses and other healthcare workers, skilled and willing staff are being rejected for their decision based on informed consent. We hear from many healthcare workers and others from across Australia who are still faced with the ‘no jab, no job’ discrimination to this day.

This looks very much like the rule of “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil” is being applied by the Minister and the health department. Until they take responsibility and offer a position around employers’ choices over applying mandates there will continue to be a ‘free for all’ on the use of coercion and discrimination to the detriment of individuals and our health care services.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Turning to vaccine mandates—COVID injections—while the media are being fed a line that vaccine mandates are over, my electorate office is getting reports from health workers who are being refused re-employment for not having two COVID injections. What is the health department’s current guidance on vaccine mandates for employment in the health sector?

Prof. Singer : Apologies, Senator. Could you—

Senator ROBERTS: Do you want me to repeat the question?

Prof. Singer : Yes, please.

Senator ROBERTS: While the media are being fed a line that vaccine mandates are over, my electorate office is getting reports from health workers who are being refused re-employment—some have even been sacked in the last two weeks—for not having two COVID injections. What’s the health department’s current guidance on vaccine mandates for employment in the health sector?

Prof. Singer : I’ll just need to look that up. I believe that there may be some in relation to aged care, but we don’t have any particular view on mandates generally. Obviously, they are individual agreements between employers and employees. There is no national mandate as such, to my knowledge.

Senator ROBERTS: Does it bother you, Minister, that there are some state health departments, including Queensland, where nurses are being sacked for not having their two injections and for choosing to go on their informed consent?

Senator McCarthy: I’m unaware of that. Of course, it would be a concern that they can raise in each jurisdiction. But, as the Acting Chief Medical Officer has said, there is no national policy in place on that.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move to good manufacturing practice. I have just two questions left. At the last estimates, I tried to get to the bottom of whether every batch of Pfizer COVID injections was made using good manufacturing processes. If they were not, that may explain the huge variance in adverse events between batches. If they were made with good manufacturing processes, there is another cause we really need to understand for the huge number of excess deaths. In your answer on notice, you did not answer the question, but you gave me a list of entries in your manufacturing information database. This is a little confusing, because your answer does not allow me to check good manufacturing process certificates off against batch numbers. What your data tells me is that all of these good manufacturing process certificates were issued as a result of a desktop audit rather than an in-person inspection, which means you took the manufacturers’ word for it based on whatever it was they sent you. Is that correct?

Prof. Lawler : Thank you for the question. I would just highlight that we’ve received these questions regarding the batch testing of vaccines and the associated release a number of times before, and we’ve answered these questions—most recently, I think, SQ23-002145. Those answers are clearly on the record.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s not the one I have. Secondly, there are 44 good manufacturing process certificates for all COVID vaccines, yet there are 410 batches listed in your COVID vaccine batch release assessment. Some of those are duplications and some, admittedly, are for AstraZeneca, but the number seems off. Can you please give me on notice a full list of Pfizer batch numbers and the corresponding good manufacturing process—or is it true that good manufacturing process was only used from the bivalent vaccines onwards?

Prof. Lawler : Thank you for the question. I’m happy to either take that on notice or to return to that under outcome 1.8 when my—

Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps you could take it on notice.

Prof. Lawler : Absolutely.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/by

PRESS RELEASE: UNIVERSAL SUPPORT FOR COVID ROYAL COMMISSION AT FIRST INQUIRY HEARING

, ,

Key stakeholders have universally supported establishing a COVID Royal Commission while many slam the Prime Minister’s COVID review panel as a toothless tiger. 

Doctors, unions, human rights lawyers, vaccine injured and Royal Commission experts were among the witnesses to give evidence at a Senate inquiry tasked with proposing terms of reference for a future COVID Royal Commission as pressure mounts on the Albanese Government. 

In a rarity for parliamentary inquiries, every single witness was united in their support for an expansive, fully empowered Royal Commission into the Federal and State Governments’ response to COVID. 

Senator Malcolm Roberts who established the Senate inquiry said the evidence heard on Thursday meant it was only a matter of time before the Prime Minister’s hand was forced. 

“The largest government economic and health response in the wake of COVID deserves a fully empowered Royal Commission. 

“Nearly four years on from the start of COVID-19 Australians still don’t have answers about why Government took some of the most draconian measures in Australian history. 

“Anthony Albanese’s COVID review panel is made up of insiders who vocally supported the harshest lockdowns in the world. It’s a toothless tiger made to whitewash everything the Federal government did while turning a blind eye to anything State governments did. 

“The Albanese Government took less than three months to call its first Royal Commission. With the Government’s second anniversary approaching without a COVID Royal Commission Australians are asking the Prime Minister, what have you got to hide? 

“Only a Royal Commission can answer why government had vaccine mandates for a vaccine that didn’t stop transmission, secret health advice that was never published, established plans for pandemic response that were ignored and the longest lockdowns in the world called over a virus as severe as some flus. 

“We cannot afford to make the same mistakes again. Anthony Albanese must call this Royal Commission so we can get to the bottom of it all. 

ENDS 

A recording of the public hearing is available below:

Senate Inquiry to Draft Terms of Reference for a Future COVID Royal Commission
/20 Comments/by

Make Your Voice Heard on the COVID Royal Commission Terms of Reference

With the origin of COVID now known to be the result of gain-of-function research, funded by the United States through Anthony Fauci’s NIH and conducted in Wuhan China to escape regulatory barriers, it’s even more important that Australians have input into the Terms of Reference for a COVID Royal Commission.

If any member of the public, medical profession, whistle-blower or other interested party wishes to make a submission I urge them to have their say to the committee via this link:

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/COVID19RC47

With Moderna setting up mRNA vaccine production in Australia, it is concerning that both the Morrison and Albanese governments have provided 16 vaccine indemnities since the COVID outbreak. That means the bill to compensate those who are harmed by these products falls on taxpayers, not the pharmaceutical industry that rolled out their products with indecent speed.

There are 400 new mRNA vaccines under development to replace the off-patent conventional vaccines. Responsibility for harm from these products must rest with the makers, not the public.

The emerging pattern of adverse events and deaths correlating with the COVID injections is overwhelming. It must be objectively examined and not simply dismissed. There is no reason why these COVID injections should not be given proper scrutiny in the same way we scrutinize health effects from lockdowns, economic hardship, inadequate healthcare provision or even inappropriate treatments for the virus. Is there? What is in the Pfizer contracts that we should know about?

Transcript

As a servant to the many and varied people who make up our one Queensland community, I would like to update my constituents on the committee inquiry One Nation secured looking into terms of reference for a royal commission into SARS COVID-19. The committee has set 12 January 2024 as the deadline for submissions. If any member of the public, medical profession, commercial entity or interested party wishes to, they can make a submission. It can be confidential if you want. I’ll post a link on my social media and on my website, and I urge whistleblowers, senior medical practitioners and academics to have their say. I’ve received many suggestions for terms of reference and, firstly, can I say: please tell the committee. That’s the process. 

Let me talk about the terms of reference. Firstly, the origin of COVID. An article in today’s Australian by Sharri Markson sets out proof—and I do mean proof—that COVID was engineered as a result of gain-of-function research funded through America’s National Institutes of Health and its former director Anthony Fauci. The research was conducted in China because it was out of reach of America’s regulations, and it was cheaper. Gain-of-function research is supposedly so that health authorities can create new viruses and then an antidote or a vaccine so that if nature supposedly produces that virus, there will be a vaccine ready to go. 

Secondly, vaccine indemnity. I spoke this week about a little-known fact: Australia has provided 16 vaccine indemnities in recent years. Now, an indemnity doesn’t prevent a person who has been harmed from suing, it just means any damages are paid with taxpayer money and not big pharma money. Pharmaceutical companies keep the profits and taxpayers pay for the damages. Even more troubling, the Albanese Labor government has provided Moderna with a blanket immunity for every vaccine they make in the new Australian factory. There are 400 mRNA vaccines under development. Not all will be made in this plant, yet many will be. The Morrison and Albanese governments are normalising vaccine indemnity. I want to know why. The terms of our contract with Pfizer must be examined, as we were still signing hidden purchase contracts as recently as last month. 

Surely this pattern of adverse events and deaths tracking injections upward and downward proves causation of vaccine deaths by their tens of thousands. The science is now overwhelming. This can’t be ignored and must be investigated. (Time expired) 

/21 Comments/by

The Aussie Wire | Promises and Disappointments

,

I joined Topher Field of The Aussie Wire to discuss my disappointment in the “toothless” COVID inquiry Anthony Albanese announced recently.

Transcript

Topher Field: Cast your mind back to before the last federal election. If you can remember that long ago, and you may recall that promises were made. Specifically, Anthony Albanese promised that if he were to win election, he would hold a Royal Commission into COVID, looking into all the various aspects of the COVID response. That was quite some time ago, and the Royal Commission has not been forthcoming, but good news, we’ve just had the announcement of an inquiry. Surely that means that Anthony Albanese is making good on his word, and we will have a full and thorough inquiry into all aspects of the COVID response so that lessons can be learned and we can get it right next time. My next guest isn’t quite convinced and has released a press release to that effect. It is Senator Malcolm Roberts from the Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party. You’re a senator for Queensland, and I’m very, very grateful for you coming on The Aussie Wire.

Malcolm Roberts: Thank you very much for the invitation, Topher. It’s always a pleasure to have a chat with you.

Topher Field: Now your press release caught my eye, but honestly, there has been quite a lot of commentary on this already. This is something that a lot of people are very quick to point out. The terms of reference are a concern, are they not? Can you take us through your concerns and why you felt the need to release that press release?

Malcolm Roberts: Certainly, I do share huge concerns. I’ll make a quote from Dan Andrews. He says, “Any inquiry into COVID-19 should be forward-focused and not centre on the actions of government during the pandemic.” The premiers have rolled the Prime Minister because the premiers have done the dirty work for Scott Morrison, and the media release, as I pointed out, this is toothless. There’s no power to compel witnesses. It’s compromised because there’s a limited scope. It’s federal only. It’s a whitewash to protect labour premises, as I’ve said. For example, they raised the topic of international border closures in the terms of reference but not state. So it’s strictly federal.

He’s running from a Royal Commission, yet the same man, Albanese Anthony Albanese, had a Robodebt Royal Commission, which was far smaller. Robodebt was far smaller in cost impact. So he has broken his promise regarding a Royal Commission on the COVID tragedy, mismanagement, deceit. This COVID, what would you call it? COVID mismanagement was the most invasive and expensive responses in Australia’s history. We’re still suffering from it. We’ve got a high inflation. We’ve got excess of 40,000 excess deaths due to the COVID injections. We’ve got lingering injuries. This morning I am at a small business conference back in your old town of Melbourne,-

Topher Field: My hometown, yes.

Malcolm Roberts: … and I went to print out my speech just for practising it, and a lovely lady printed it out for me at the help desk, and I saw that she was walking very awkwardly. Sure enough, and this is months and months after her third injection, but there’s no doubt. I’ve got people, friends at home, who’ve been paralysed. They literally woke up in the morning, and they’re paralysed from the neck down. The three people they’ve appointed to be their reviewers for this panel, it’s not an investigation, it’s not an inquiry, it’s a review, the three insiders appear to be compromised. They appear to be former public servants, and one or two of them look as though they’ve had lots of grants in the past, and this will be a ticket for lots more grants in the future. So what I’m going to do, Topher, is, before the end of the year, as I said in my media release, I’m going to ask the Senate for an inquiry to recommend the Royal Commission in terms of reference because we’re going to have one.

Topher Field: Look, we need to. With the powers that were seized by governments, state and federal, and the sorts of things that they did, it’s quite extraordinary to think that we’re going to have an inquiry. But that inquiry in the terms of reference, correct me if I’ve misunderstood, explicitly excludes unilateral actions taken by a state, and yet during the pandemic we had now admittedly a different political party. The liberal party Prime Minister at the time, Scott Morrison, was sitting there saying, “Oh, the federal government can’t do so many different things. It’s up to the states.” And now that we’re having an inquiry, we’re excluding the decisions made by the states. Isn’t that where the response was, according to the federal government of the time?

Malcolm Roberts: I happen to think that the key response was in Scott Morrison, but the implementation was in the premier. So the premiers hold the can. They did it. They did it. So I agree with you entirely. We’ve had media criticising, we’ve had opposition, which you’d expect to criticise. We’ve had doctors criticise, I think, the front page headlines on the Australian newspaper today this evening, words to the effect that the medical practitioners have come out against it. So we’ve got, as you said, the terms of reference include the following areas, are not in scope for the inquiry.

Topher Field: Yeah.

Malcolm Roberts:Actions taken unilaterally by state and territory governments and international programmes and activities assisting foreign countries are not in it. That’s pretty much everything they did.

Topher Field: Yeah.

Malcolm Roberts: Then you get infectious disease expert Peter Collignon today, and I’m reading from these notes I made for you. He told the Australian, “A Royal Commission should examine measures taken to curb COVID infections, including those taken by states as their utility will not be probed during an inquiry.” He said, “Were lockdowns beneficial? Were border closures beneficial? This is an infectious diseases doctor stopping people going outside for more than an hour. That is what affected people personally the most.” He said, and the people that’ve got on this review, they’re not the sort of people who understand what everyday people suffered. They won’t understand what you suffered at the hands of that tyrant, Dan Andrews. This is ridiculous. It’s just a whitewash to protect Dan Andrews, Annastacia, Palaszczuk and the other labour premiers. McGowan was the other one, wasn’t he?

Topher Field: Yeah. Some people could be forgiven for asking the question. Senator Malcolm Robertson, yourself, and if I can mention a few names, we’ve had some wonderful work from senators Alex Antic, Gerard Rennick, Matt Canavan. Ralph Babet is a recent edition, but he’s really making a name for himself and getting stuck in. We’ve got a handful of really fantastic people who are getting stuck in on this issue. There are other great politicians who are getting stuck in on other issues as well, but just singling it down to this issue. We’re seeing a handful standing up, but we’re not seeing a lot of results.

Some people get very disillusioned. They say, “You’re a politician. Fix this. Why can’t you fix this for us?” We’re in a situation now where yourself and a handful of others are saying, “We need a Royal Commission.” The government is saying, “You’re not going to get one. All you’re going to get is this incredibly prejudiced whitewash inquiry.” What’s to be done from this point forward? You’re saying you’re going to be calling for a Royal Commission. You’re going to hold a Senate inquiry. What are the mechanisms at your disposal? How do we move forward from here towards what we all want to see?

Malcolm Roberts: I’ll be asking for the Senate to prove an inquiry to develop the terms of reference. The Senate will give me permission or not give us permission for that inquiry, just as the Senate does in every other request. So that’s one thing I’ll be doing some work. We’re lining that up at the moment, but doing an inquiry of our own, much the same as we did in March and August of 2021, I think, I can’t remember, 2022, where we had a multi-party, cross-party inquiry. But this one we’ll probably do in-house because it’s going to take a lot of getting top experts from around the world, particularly from Australia, and a whole variety of people, not just experts but also vaccine injection-injured people.

So we’re working on those kinds of things. But you might notice that every week in the Senate, I give an update. Two of my staff team are just wonderful on this issue, and we give an update every week in the Senate. We didn’t do it last week because we were flat out, but we give an update on the latest things unearthed around the world, and it is startling what’s coming out. It is absolutely beyond my most wonderful expectations. So we’re really getting there, and we’ll put a lot of pressure on these people to come clean, Topher, so we’ll just keep the pressure up. We will continue this forever until we get the Royal Commission, until we get the truth out, and until the guilty are punished.

Topher Field: The future is written by those who show up, and Senator Malcolm Roberts, I’m grateful that you just keep showing up every day, every week in that Senate, despite overwhelming odds against you at times. Like I said, there are some other wonderful people in there, but you continue to show up, you continue to persevere, and you continue to chip away. I tend to share your optimism. I look at what’s happening around the world. I do think we are making progress. Sometimes it doesn’t look that way, but I do think we are. The narrative has shifted, and the sins of the past are coming home to roost on those who committed them, and it can’t come soon enough as far as I’m concerned. Senator Malcolm Roberts, thank you for your press release today. Thank you for continuing to try and hold the federal government accountable, and he’s hoping we will see that Royal Commission someday. Thank you for coming on The Aussie Wire.

Malcolm Roberts: You’re welcome, Topher. Keep going with what you’re doing. Aussie Wire needs success. For Australia’s sake, we need success of the independent new media. Thank you very much for doing what you’re doing.

/1 Comment/by

Spike Protein Scandal Should be Referred to Senate Select Inquiry

We know COVID injections contain spike proteins that instruct human cells to make spike proteins for extended periods of time.

I asked these questions in the Senate:

  • What is the biological function of the COVID spike protein?
  • Are COVID injections fundamentally safe?
  • Could the COVID injections be instructing human bodies to make a substance which is making them sicker not healthier?

Moderna has told us that spike proteins are the same whether derived from COVID or the injections. Spike proteins fuse cells together.

Big pharma tried and failed for 20 years to use spike proteins as an antigen so they’re nothing new. COVID was just an excuse to finally use them without the usual safety net of robust regulations and trial data, and make obscene profits.

The spike protein has an unknown impact on the body’s complex mechanisms involving laminin. These large cross-shaped proteins are often called the ‘god molecule’ for their shape. They are part of the body’s healing processes.

Another problem with the spike protein in these injections is that the virus mutates rapidly, making the injection lose any effectiveness very quickly. This is why the so-called ‘vaccine’ was not an immunisation and did not stop infection or transmission.

The COVID injections did not offer protection against new strains. There was no valid independent science to support that statement. That was a lie. The TGA would normally prosecute any pharma company making such claims, and yet it was the TGA itself making that statement!

Spike proteins are also able to trigger cell fusion in brain tissue, possibly causing brain dysfunction and damage leading to ‘long COVID’. As Moderna has revealed, there is no difference between spike proteins from COVID or the COVID injection.

The West has spent the past three years injecting people with the very thing that causes long COVID. Spike proteins.

How this has happened is the scandal that must be investigated immediately.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I ask a question tonight: what is the biological function of the COVID spike protein? This question asks whether COVID injections are fundamentally safe, because we know that COVID injections contain spike protein that embed into our system a genetic instruction for human cells to make spike proteins for extended periods of time. Could COVID injections be instructing human bodies to make a substance that’s making bodies sicker not healthier? Let’s review the latest data.

First point: spike protein may replace a protein molecule called laminin. Laminin is found in the extracellular matrix, the sheets of protein that form the substrate of all internal organs. Laminin is critical to how our cells hold together. Interfering with laminin can cause our organs to fail. Laminin is shaped like a crucifix and is widely known as the ‘God molecule’. When I met with Moderna in my office a few months ago, they were happy to admit that their spike protein was identical to the spike protein molecule in COVID. So, when studying spike protein, it does not matter what the source is. What matters is that, with the new study on the effects of that spike protein on the body, COVID injections are instructing body cells to produce spike proteins.

What we do know is that the spike protein is fusogenic, meaning its job is to bind cells together—think velcro. It does the same job that laminin does. Big pharma has tried to use spike proteins as an antigen for 20 years, and for 20 years they failed. The COVID injections were not a sudden success. Pharma simply lied and cheated on the clinical trials to use this thing they had spent billions on in an injection arranged to be rushed through approvals, and they made obscene profits in the process.

Now we’re seeing symptoms that can be explained with the discovery that the spike protein replaces laminin in the extracellular matrix. Does the spike protein interfere with laminin? The answer is: we do not know. This is what happens when we do not know yet insist on playing God. The reason using spike proteins as an antigen has failed is because the spike protein mutates in the wild every few weeks. A COVID injection loses any claim to effectiveness very quickly and needs to be updated. This is why the COVID injections are being retired and new ones are being released continually.

Do you remember when we were told that the vaccines offered protection against new strains and to keep taking them? That was a lie—a bloody lie. There was no valid independent science to support that statement. The Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA, would normally prosecute a drug maker making misleading comments about their product without proof of the claim. In this case, though, it was the TGA making the misleading claims, so it’s the TGA who should be held to account.

COVID injection effectiveness was knowingly misrepresented, and here’s why. There’s no pathway for an antibody and a serum—blood—to get into the lung. While we can deliver a drug to the lungs and it will get into the serum, it can’t go back the other way, from serum to the lungs. The problem is that, in order to stop infection and transmission, the injections had to get into the lungs and the nose. The COVID injections simply never made it there. People who took the injection had levels of IgG antibody in the nose and lungs that were 1,000 times less than the levels in their blood. This is why the injections did not stop infection or transmission and never could have. The TGA knew, or should have known. This was the science, and they bloody well ignored it to promote injections that failed miserably and killed tens of thousands of people, melting down and exploding the database of adverse events.

Second point: spike proteins cause brain damage, leading to long COVID. Scientists at Macquarie University and the University of Queensland used mini brains infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus to discover that the spike protein could trigger fusion in cells in both mouse and human brain tissue. The host brain cells are fused, possibly causing brain dysfunction, said Professor Lars Ittner, director of the Dementia Research Centre at Macquarie University. The discovery could explain chronic neurological symptoms such as headaches, brain fog, exhaustion and loss of taste or smell—even long after the initial infection.

Of course, spike protein from the injection was not included in the study, and yet, as Moderna themselves say, there’s no bloody difference. The West has spent three years injecting people with the very thing that’s most likely causing long COVID. Big pharma never researched the effect of their spike protein on the human body yet received approval for their sickening products anyway. How this happened is a scandal that must be referred to a Senate select inquiry immediately.

/by

Did the Medical Countermeasures Consortium run COVID?

The Australian, American, British & Canadian military forces formed this consortium to dominate COVID response.

Australia joined the consortium in 2012 under the Labor-Gillard government.

A military-pharmaceutical apparatus linking the USA, Australia, Canada and the UK.

Operation Warp Speed: The US Department of Defense signed the first contract between the US government and Pfizer for the purchase of US$11 billion dollars worth of vaccines.

We know our Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) did not review stage 2/3 trial data and instead relied on the US FDA, which took Pfizer’s word for how the trials went!

Pfizer committed systemic fraud during its trials, which has come out now through whistle-blowers’ testimony and in the release of Pfizer’s own data.

Pfizer, it seems, gave the US government the vaccine they asked for. It was developed using gain of function research in conjunction with Wuhan in China and, of course, Anthony Fauci. The military-pharmaceutical in action.

These are matters to be dealt with in a Royal Commission. The Royal Commission that was promised by the Albanese government.

Call a Royal Commission into COVID now!

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, tonight I speak to an aspect of COVID-19 I haven’t raised before. Information now in the public domain indicates the COVID response was not initiated through commercial interests but, rather, through an organisation called the Medical Countermeasures Consortium that Australia joined in 2012. According to Australia’s defence.gov.au website, the Medical Countermeasures Consortium is a four-nation partnership involving the defence and health departments of Australia, Canada, United Kingdom and the United States. ‘The consortium seeks to develop medical countermeasures to assist with … chemical and radiological threats affecting civilian and military populations and on emerging infectious diseases and pandemics.’ It includes drugs and diagnostics. Who knew we had a military pharmaceutical apparatus linking the United States, Australia, Canada and the UK, in place since the Gillard Labor government—an AUKUS for pandemics?

The consortium maintains a compensation scheme for people injured as a result of taking a countermeasure. Compensation claims were accepted for the 2009 H1N1 vaccine, the anthrax vaccine and flu vaccines. The medical countermeasures unit within the United States Department of Defense has been in the vaccine business for many years and has been injuring people for many years—and getting away with it. So it should come as no surprise that the American Department of Defense signed the first contract between the United States government and Pfizer for the purchase of $11 billion worth of vaccines. President Trump gave the order to the Department of Defense to commence vaccine development and even gave it a cool name: Operation Warp Speed.

President Trump reacted, as we in this place reacted, with the best of intentions and the worst of data. Intelligence was used that our security apparatus knew or should have known was wrong. Videos from China of people dropping dead have proven to be fakes produced with the assistance of Chinese intelligence, and they may not have acted alone. These videos should not have made it to the decision-making process in the West. How that happened—how so much fraudulent information was offered to elected members—is a matter for a royal commission. The United States has already started multiple congressional hearings and court cases that will eventually yield the truth. Australia must play its part in this process—our part, for we are truly all in this together to the very end. There are doors to be kicked down, and this time it will not be the doors of everyday Australians, guilty of no crime, who merely spoke the truth on social media.

The United States response to COVID brought the Medical Countermeasures Consortium into the process at a very, very early stage. Australia’s military were involved early, providing assistance including crowd control, border quarantine, contact tracing and medical personnel—things one would expect the military to help with.

Former Prime Minister and profligate officeholder Scott Morrison shuttered the COAG system because it was open and transparent—COAG being the Council of Australian Governments. COAG was not just a single meeting; COAG was a secretariat with committees, including a health committee, liaising across local councils and state and federal government. Although not a constitutional instrument, this COAG structure was very well positioned to administer our COVID response. Why was it abolished and replaced with a military pharmaceutical apparatus? I hope the royal commission asks that question. In place of COAG, Mr Morrison created a secretive so-called National Cabinet, consisting of only the state premiers and territory chief ministers. What was the secret so important that a well-functioning apparatus like COAG had to be demolished and the truth gagged for 30 years?

Mr Morrison then appointed a serving military officer, Lieutenant General Frewen, to run Australia’s vaccine rollout, rebranded as—wait for it—Operation COVID Shield. The United Kingdom responded to COVID in March 2020 with a massive military operation called Operation Rescript. This moved 23,000 military personnel into a new unit called the COVID support operation, under British powers known as military aid to civilian authorities, MACA. Command of this large military force remained with the military. And Canada—what of Canada? Canada called in the Canadian Armed Forces with ‘unprecedented measures’—their words, not mine—under operations LASER and VECTOR.

It’s clear the Medical Countermeasures Consortium agreement, which the Gillard Labor government signed in 2012, was designed to make pandemic response a military operation, not a civilian health operation. This should have been clear in July 2021, when General Frewen took to the microphone in full military uniform. Australia saw military checkpoints at borders, military guarding medical facilities, military in their hardware on the streets of Sydney and Melbourne locking people in their homes. All of this created a climate of fear and intimidation that facilitated acceptance of the COVID injection. Was this the plan? Has the pharmaceutical industry now donned fatigues?

Did our civilian health authorities stand up for established medical principles, based on the Hippocratic oath to prescribe only beneficial treatment? No, they did not. We know our Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA, did not review the Pfizer stage II and III clinical trial data and instead relied on the American FDA’s paperwork. We know the FDA didn’t review the data and instead took Pfizer’s word for how the trials went. Surely the TGA knew this. If it did, the TGA’s complicit. If it didn’t know, the TGA is hopelessly or wilfully negligent. It’s misfeasance.

Pfizer committed systemic fraud during their clinical trials, with whistleblowers revealing only healthy adult participants were recruited for a stage II/III clinical trial of a vaccine that was intended for the sick and elderly; trial duration was grossly insufficient to capture medium-term and long-term side effects like myocarditis; to drown out the number of adverse events being recorded among real participants, fake participants were created who recorded zero side effects; patients who suffered serious side effects were removed from the study and never existed in the paperwork; and the COVID injection was not tested on pregnant women, and women who fell pregnant were removed from the study before childbirth. The COVID injection was then recommended for pregnant women. How could any human do this? This is inhuman, and it’s monsters that did it. Why did Pfizer think they could get away with the most crooked clinical trial in history? Could an answer to this question be found in testimony of a Pfizer executive to US Congress? They made a comment that Pfizer gave the US government the vaccine the government asked for and so claimed Pfizer is not liable for the adverse events.

The military appears to have been involved in the cover-up of COVID’s origins. It’s now clear that COVID was developed during gain-of-function research in China’s Wuhan Institute for Virology, connected with the Chinese military. Who funded this research in China? The United States National Institutes of Health, under Anthony Fauci. Canada and Australia were involved in this research. In 2020, the CSIRO put out a press release not only admitting their gain-of-function research but defending it. I’ve spoken on that previously. After a series of lab escapes involving pathogens at the headquarters of America’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—the CDC—in Georgia, President Obama in 2014 suspended gain-of-function research. Anthony Fauci ignored the president’s order and moved the research offshore to Wuhan, China.

Gain-of-function research is countermeasure research. It’s the same process of finding and manipulating pathogens to produce a new virus—a Frankenstein virus. Once the virus is deadly enough, a vaccine is prepared, and then the whole thing is put on shelf in case an enemy or nature deploys that virus. Once the virus appears in the population, vaccines can be deployed, at a price, of course, because after all this is the corporate United States, racked with parasitic globalist predators.

In the early stages of COVID development and escape, did our medical countermeasure apparatus act independently of government? This is a question for a royal commission. Did anyone in this country accept orders from the United States military to do or not do a thing that may have interfered with this military pharmaceutical plan? That’s another question for a royal commission. Let me be clear: Australia has a long and enviable history of using our military to assist in civilian disasters to the benefit of all. If the need arises again, we should not hesitate to allow our military to help out again. The military should not be used against law-abiding civilians or against healthy civilians for the purposes of forced injections to transfer wealth to big pharma. What we saw was forced injection of people after succumbing to the threat of deprivation of their family’s livelihood and their ability to feed children. Fear, intimidation, blackmail and threats of loss of income and home are elements of force—inhuman force.

I have repeatedly said that COVID-19 was severely mismanaged, because it was never about health. It was about control of people and wealth transfer using deceit—deceit that’s inhuman, monstrously inhuman. We must know whether our TGA, in waving through a vaccine countermeasure that would not have been approved under normal circumstances, bowed to higher powers. Was this a military pharmaceutical operation or a civilian health operation? These are matters ordinarily dealt with in a royal commission. The Albanese Labor government broke its pre-election promise to have a royal commission. If it continues to break its promise, it will be complicit in hiding truth from the people, truth that is slowly yet relentlessly and inevitably coming out. Call the bloody royal commission now.

/12 Comments/by

How bad is my batch just morphed into how bad is my Minister for Health!

Minister Gallagher seemed to misunderstand the last question on both opportunities to answer it. She did not answer what happens with other medicines. She and others present around her made faces and lipreading Minister Wong would be interesting.

Minister Gallagher’s unguarded expressions give viewers the impression that she felt the question was inappropriate. She only wanted to talk about COVID emergency and repeat the tired pharma marketing messages.

Who does the batch testing? Not the safety testing which is part of vaccine approval.

Who is responsible for testing batches of medicines for quality when they are imported into Australia?

These are questions the Australian public are entitled to know the answers to because our lives depend on it. They are not impositions on ministers. They are part of the job of serving the best interests of the people.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: My question is to the Minister representing the minister for health, Senator Gallagher. Minister, the COVID batch release assessment for each COVID vaccine batch is produced after testing each batch. Who performed the test?

Senator Gallagher: This would have been work led by the TGA, but I will see if I can find further information about whether or not they were assisted by other laboratories. I imagine they were, as part of that work, but I will check and see if there’s anything further I can provide to Senator Roberts.

The President: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary?

Senator Roberts: If an Australian laboratory acting on behalf of the Australian government has not tested the COVID vaccines, we could be buying adulterated product, mislabelled product or
saline. How do the people and how does the Senate know what’s in the vaccines?

Senator Gallagher: It’s because it will go through the TGA’s established processes—that’s why. There would be significant checking of those arrangements with laboratories doing that work. This isn’t something that would be just left to a laboratory saying, ‘I’ve done it,’ and it being ticked off. The quality and safety measures that would be put in place by the TGA in getting those approvals are thorough. As we have seen through the rollout of the vaccine, the vaccine is safe and effective. We’ve seen that over the last three years after it was rolled out and millions and millions of vaccines have been provided through the vaccine rollout program, including the fact that we are now seeing significantly less severe disease or loss of life from— (Time expired)

The President: Senator Roberts, a second supplementary?

Senator Roberts: How many other vaccines or schedule 4 drugs are being imported into Australia in a situation where the safety testing was on the honour system, allowing the drug company or
manufacturer to provide their own safety testing?

Senator Gallagher: For a start, I don’t accept that it was done on an honour system. I do accept that in relation to the COVID vaccine process it was a shortened process because of the urgency and the crisis that the world was in, as the pandemic rolled through. It required the vaccine being created, and then—

The President: Senator Roberts, a point of order?

Senator Roberts: Thank you, President. My question was about other vaccines or schedule 4 drugs, not the COVID vaccines.

The President: I think the minister went to that, but I will remind her of that part of your question.

Senator Gallagher: I guess the point I’m making, Senator Roberts, is it was a highly unusual situation to be in. I think everyone’s acknowledged that the process around the approvals for the COVID vaccine were different and had been shortened, when compared to the approvals for other drugs. That is reflective of the fact that we were in a global pandemic and millions of people were dying from the effects of COVID and that we needed a vaccine in place to protect the community, and that’s actually what happened through the TGA’s approval processes.

/by

1984: The Department of Home Affairs COVID Censorship team

,

I asked Home Affairs why they’ve asked social media to censor more than 4,000 posts related to COVID.

We must protect people from being labelled or categorized based on their beliefs, and Home Affairs has no place policing COVID given the amount of “misinformation” that turned out to be true.

Is Home Affairs merely providing a conduit between the dictators in the Department of Health and the social media platforms? #COVID19 #HomeAffairs #SenatorRoberts

Click here for Transcript

Senator Roberts: Thank you, Chair. And thank you for appearing today. Just to clarify, I looked up the

definition of regime, and it includes the government of the day, so, Senator Watt, you are a part of the Albanese regime.

Chair: Have you got questions?

Senator Roberts: Yes, I have, I just wanted to clarify that. Mr Pezzullo, counterterrorism is important; I want to say that up-front. Extremists can pose a threat; I want to say the up-front. But labelling and categorising people, anti-vax etcetera—that is not okay. What has been the arrangement between Home Affairs and social media platforms to intervene or censor or block posts related to COVID-19 that were or are contrary to government policy? Was it purely being the conduit from the department of health to the media platforms?

Mr Pezzullo: And also making judgements against the platforms’ own policies, but to answer the senator’s question, I said earlier that we’re not the arbiters of health science. Can you describe what might have triggered action on the part of our staff to start a to draft up a referral, for instance? Ms Hawkins?

Ms Hawkins: Senator in terms of the way I was answering the previous senator’s question, I would say to you that the government was concerned about instances of harmful mis- and disinformation in relation to COVID.  This line of effort was set up in 2020 and, as the secretary has said, it came out of the fact that we had been doing referrals in relation to terrorist and violent extremist content. As I understand the secretary’s evidence in terms of having conversations with the department of health early in the piece about the fact that we could use that same kind of mechanism to provide referrals about harmful mis- and disinformation in relation to COVID, we could use a similar technique that we had been using in the context of terrorist and violent extremist content, and we could use that same kind of technique in relation to harmful mis- and disinformation in the context of COVID.

For example, in relation to Facebook’s policies on mis- and disinformation, we scanned the environment, we identified where there were harmful instances of mis- and disinformation in relation to COVID, and then we provided those referrals to platforms, such as Facebook, for them to determine against their own policy about not allowing COVID mis- and disinformation on their platforms. So, in relation to their own policy, we then made referrals to say, ‘You might want to look at these posts, in the context of your own policy, about not having COVID mis- and disinformation on your platform.’ That’s what we have been doing since 2020, and, as the secretary said earlier, we will finish doing that on 30 June this year.

Senator Roberts: Mr Pezzullo, your department has been a conduit between the department of health and Meta and other platforms, and those platforms have been funded by big pharma to shut down posts that raise any questions about the COVID-19 injections. So you’re actually aiding and abetting censorship of relevant and scientifically correct information. As Senator Antic pointed out, much of what was labelled misinformation by people like Meta is now found to be correct and true. So, you aided and abetted in the injection of Australians that led to 30,000 excess deaths in 2022.

Chair: Senator Roberts, do you have a question?

Senator Roberts: Yes, I did.

Chair: The officials are here to answer your questions.

Senator Roberts: You were a conduit from the department of health to Meta and other platforms. Are you a conduit for any other departments? Do you follow their instructions just like you followed the department of health’s?

Mr Pezzullo: On the question of health, ‘conduit’ may not be the right phrase, because that would imply that an action was initiated in the Department of Health, sent to us as, if you like, a clearing house and then forwarded on. I think the evidence you’ve heard is that, in order to relieve the Department of Health at the time when we were dealing with the front end of a public health crisis, we stepped into that breach to say: ‘We’ve got the capability. As long as we can understand from ATAGI and others what the broad parameters are of health information the public should be advised of versus harmful misinformation, we’ll run with that’. And we put in place a program that allowed us to do that. As to your characterisation of the COVID-19 response and the efficacy of vaccines—you made reference to Australians being injected—I ask you to direct those questions to the department of health.

Senator Roberts: I will be.

Mr Pezzullo: I’m sure you will be. They’re better qualified to give you a better view, certainly, than I can, about the efficacy of that advice. We’re not a health department. We don’t have an independent way of saying to the—

Senator Roberts: So, you’re a conduit.

Mr Pezzullo: Well, ‘conduit’—again, I’ll just repeat what I said.

Senator Roberts: You take orders from the department of health.

Mr Pezzullo: A conduit implies that an action is initiated in one department, it comes through a middle broker, such as ourselves, and ends up in Facebook. Other than the policy settings being made known to us by the department of health, this was an area of action, like so many other things in the early days of COVID, where we didn’t need any instructions; we were just told to get on with a function, which we performed. Occasionally there would be engagement with Health, to make sure that we weren’t operating off obsolete information.

Senator Roberts: So you were just told to do it. Who was the service provider advising you on what was or wasn’t misinformation?

Mr Pezzullo: We use the service provider to do the scanning, do we not?

Ms Hawkins: That’s right. The service provider that we have used is M&C Saatchi.

Mr Pezzullo: Who do the scanning.

Ms Hawkins: Who do the scanning. They—

Mr Pezzullo: They’re not scientific advisors, as such.

Ms Hawkins: Exactly. They’re scanning the platforms and then providing us with proposed referrals that they consider are in breach of the platform’s own policy on misinformation and disinformation in relation to COVID.  Then there would be staff in my team who would consider that, and, after considering Saatchi’s proposed referrals, we would decide whether or not to pass it on to the platform.

Senator Roberts: Is it not true that it was said in past Senate estimates that Home Affairs considers that a significant threat to Australia is that of domestic terrorism?

Mr Pezzullo: I’m sorry?

Senator Roberts: Isn’t it true that in past Senate estimates Home Affairs has said that it considers a

significant threat to Australia is that of domestic terrorism?

Mr Pezzullo: Most certainly.

Senator Roberts: I was hoping you’d say that.

Mr Pezzullo: It’s one of the key risks that we seek to manage.

Senator Roberts: Do you consider that those who would challenge the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccinations are domestic terrorists—if they challenge government policy?

Mr Pezzullo: Not if it wasn’t associated with any extremism, politically motivated violence or planning to attack institutions of society, no.

Senator Roberts: Do you consider that those senators who have posted comments opposed to the COVID-19 mandated vaccines—injections—are domestic terrorists?

Mr Pezzullo: Senators?

Senator Roberts: Yes.

Mr Pezzullo: You can post whatever you like, Senator. You have the privilege of being a senator.

Senator Roberts: I’m pleased that you just said I can post whatever I like, but Meta will not let people like Senator Antic and myself, and Senator—

Mr Pezzullo: If they, with their own service conditions, take your post down, then you can you deal with them as an elected representative. If you want to contest their takedown, then feel free.

Senator Roberts: Are you aware of any social media posts by elected members of this Senate that have been secretly censored through this arrangement?

Mr Pezzullo: I have no advice or information on that.

Senator Roberts: Interfered with in any way?

Mr Pezzullo: I don’t know.

Senator Roberts: Limited in reach? Not just censored, but limited in reach, so we can get to fewer people?

Mr Pezzullo: A posting by a member of the House or the Senate? I don’t know. I will check. When we come back to Senator Antic, will I be surprised to learn that there were any referrals that related to a member of parliament?

Ms Hawkins: I hope not.

Mr Pezzullo: I’ll check, but I’m rather thinking I won’t be surprised.

Senator Roberts: Are you aware of any posts by members of parliament that were taken down as a result of your actions?

Mr Pezzullo: That was a side discussion I just had. I don’t even know that we made any referrals that related to parliamentarians.

Ms Hawkins: I would have to take it on notice, Senator.

Mr Pezzullo: I would be surprised and verging on disappointed if we had.

Senator Roberts: Could you find out in particular if Home Affairs has been involved with or responsible for any of the posts that have been taken down from my media pages and also restricted in any way.

Mr Pezzullo: That, in effect, is a subset of the question asked by Senator Antic, but we’ll make a particular effort to check. I’m interested as well. There are questions of privilege that I would be much more respectful of than Facebook might be. It might well be, if we have made such a referral, that it’s something that I’ll need to reflect on. But I will check. In fact, why don’t I come back to you directly in relation to your own personal circumstances, on notice?

Senator Roberts: Thank you. Several MPs, in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, have

been heavily censored for posting material that was classified by social media platforms as misinformation and has now been found to be true.

Mr Pezzullo: Regarding the latter part of your assertion—in what might have been a question; I’m not quite sure—I don’t have any basis for thinking that something that was considered to be misinformation at the time under social media policies is now, through some kind of scientific evolution, considered to be true. I just don’t know.

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, would you mind clarifying who it is that you say has found these comments to be true?

Senator Roberts: The government itself. Pfizer itself has admitted itself that the COVID-19 injections are not safe and effective. Yet the government, the previous regime, under Morrison, said that they were safe and effective. They’re neither effective nor safe. They have negative efficacy. That’s proven.

Senator Watt: That’s always been your opinion. I’m wondering which authority you’re pointing to that has deemed—

Senator Roberts: Pfizer vice-presidents.

Senator Paterson: A point of order. It’s not appropriate for a minister to ask a senator a question.

Senator Watt: One of your senators was asking about this as well.

Senator Paterson: No. A minister is directing questions to a senator. I don’t think that’s the usual order of—

Senator Watt: Well, when an assertion is made that things are true—

Senator Roberts: Mr Pezzullo, are you aware that—

Chair: Senators! I think the minister is actually trying to assist Senator Roberts, as I think most of us do.

Senator Roberts: if—

Senator Watt: If an assertion is going to be made that something is untrue, I think someone—

Chair: Minister! I’m speaking. Thank you. Senator, you have one last question.

Senator Roberts: How many other senators have had their media posts censored through these

arrangements? Could you get back to me on that one as well, please.

Mr Pezzullo: I will, as a further subset of the question taken on notice from Senator Antic, make a particular point of checking whether any referrals related to members of the House or the Senate—inclusive of you, but others as well.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. Minister, if senators have had their media posts censored by Home Affairs being a conduit to Meta and other platforms, then I call for a full royal commission to get to the bottom of this gross breach of freedom of speech at the highest level. The Labor Party itself—

Mr Pezzullo: I’m so sorry, Senator, I missed the first part of your question.

Chair: I don’t think it was a question.

Senator Roberts: The Labor Party has already said—Anthony Albanese said, before the election, that he committed to a royal commission. Will we now have a Labor Party royal commission?

Senator Watt: The whole thing is based on a hypothetical about whether senators or MPs have had their social media interfered with. Let’s wait and see what the answer to that question is. Let’s continue the questioning with Senator ‘Professor’ Rennick.

Member of the committee interjecting—

Senator Watt: I don’t spread COVID misinformation.

Senator Rennick: We’re not the ones spreading misinformation, Murray.

Click here for Transcript

Senator Roberts: Just a few questions for clarification, Mr Pezzullo. I will read from your website: Home Affairs brings together migration, cyber and infrastructure security, national security and resilience, and border-related functions, working together to keep Australia safe. You’ve been credited, justifiably, I would say, with the success in closing our borders after your appointment to Immigration in 2014. You have also been the inaugural and only secretary of the Department of Home Affairs, which is seen as crucial in that role. Is that correct?

Mr Pezzullo: Well—

Senator Scarr: He’s too humble to say!

Senator Roberts: I didn’t mean about the praise; I meant about the roles.

Mr Pezzullo: I have occupied the office for the time period you have spoken about. As to whether I have achieved any success in the role—

Senator Roberts: You have been widely credited with a lot of success, so we appreciate that.

Mr Pezzullo: That’s for others to determine. I’ve certainly been the occupant of two secretaryships over a decade, yes.

Senator Roberts: And key in security. Do you consider that elected representatives who challenge government policy are domestic terrorists?

Mr Pezzullo: I just go back to my earlier evidence. Terrorism has got a particular definition under our Criminal Code. Under the heads of security power set out in the ASIO Act, if any person, elected or otherwise, is acting in contravention of the criminal law, acting as terrorists—they are of course subject to a judicial process finding them so. Your question relates to elected members, I think you said, challenging government policy. All other things being equal, that’s just called democracy; that’s not called terrorism, no.

Senator Roberts: Do you consider it legitimate to deliberately or inadvertently censor elected senators who are duly elected representatives of the people, if their social media statements differ from government policy?

Mr Pezzullo: I took on notice, both at a general aggregated level from Senator Antic and from you specifically in relation to your own personal circumstances, whether we had—I think you might be going to COVID here, but I just want to be clear about what you’re asking about. I took on notice earlier that we would look at the COVID related referrals, the so-called takedown referrals, the 4,000 and some other number associated, and check that there were no members of the House nor members of the Senate included in that list. If the answer is no, zero, then the question, in a sense, becomes void because we haven’t done anything. If, frankly, regrettably, we’ve accidently, without identifying the person’s name—I don’t know if you self-identify as a government senator, but if we have taken a view of Malcolm Roberts—

Senator Roberts: Not a government senator but as a senator.

Mr Pezzullo: Sorry, as a member of the Senate, I should say. I do apologise.

Senator Watt: We’ve got some standards.

Mr Pezzullo: If we’ve inadvertently—and it would be inadvertent—made a referral of a sitting member or a senator, then I would find that regrettable because, in a sense, you’re held to account by your peers and by your electors; it’s not my job to hold you to account. There is a grey area. If you, whether you’re a senator or otherwise—and I couldn’t imagine for a moment that you would do this, Senator, or that any other senator would do it—inadvertently disseminated terrorist or violent extremist material, notwithstanding the privilege of a senator, my staff would take the view that there’s a referral here. On matters of COVID, which related to a public health emergency that was catalysed as a direction to us about three years ago by the then Morrison government, if one of your tweets or postings has been inadvertently swept up in our referral process, we’ll get to the bottom of

that on notice and get back to you through the notice process.

Senator Roberts: So I’m assured that if I were a terrorist or engaging in terrorist activities or promoting terrorism, you would treat me no different from a terrorist.

Mr Pezzullo: Your status as a senator in those circumstances would provide no protection at all.

Senator Roberts: That’s very reassuring. Thank you. It’s also reassuring that if you inadvertently caused me to be censored in any way, you would also protect my rights to free speech.

Mr Pezzullo: I’m distinguishing here between the service that we were providing in support of the health department on a public health emergency—which is really not about terrorism; it is about public health advisories. I’ll examine the data when Ms Hawkins and her people assemble it for me. I would take the view that we should not be doing referrals of sitting members or senators on public health issues. Terrorism? Acts of incitement to violence? Then we are in an area where the privilege that you have as a senator might well be thwarted by the criminal law, let’s say. But I can’t imagine that that circumstance would arise in relation to COVID.

Senator Roberts: I’m reassured, because privileges do come with responsibilities. I’m reassured by what you’re saying.

Mr Pezzullo: Thank you.

Senator Roberts: So do you not believe that Australian people have the same right to freedom of expression as I have?

Mr Pezzullo: I thought I’d answered this before, but let’s just recap. Even on the internet, which is considered to be untrammelled and unfiltered and uncensored, there is no accepted absolute freedom of expression, because you’ve got laws—for instance, you cannot stream the abhorrent abuse of a child.

Senator Roberts: Accepted.

Mr Pezzullo: But once you accept that there is some constraint at the outer edges—self-evident cases of child abuse, a terrorist’s live streaming of an abhorrent act—

Senator Roberts: But questioning government policy? That’s okay.

Mr Pezzullo: I was going to get to that, Senator. But then you start to get into distinctions and lines of definition. We’re not arguing the principle anymore about censorship because, even on the internet, which is thought to be this untrammelled, utopian public square of enlightened discourse and conversation, it’s been many years, if not several decades, since that view went out the window, because there have been laws, there are treaties, there are international understandings that say, no, there is certain content that is so vile and so unacceptable that it will be taken down by those providers who are acting responsibly. Now, you can’t get to every app and every dark website and every provider, particularly on the dark web, and they do peddle abhorrent material, so you’re not going to regulate that world; you’ve just got to go hunting and take other actions in relation to, if you like, what’s under the clear web.

Senator Roberts: I understand that there’s a lot of grey area there. But what you’re saying is that I have a right to speak but everyday Australians do not on COVID matters.

Mr Pezzullo: I’m struggling to understand how you’ve jumped to that conclusion.

Senator Roberts: Let’s go to two more points of clarification. In Australia in 2022 we had more than 30,000 excess deaths. That’s the equivalent of two Dreamliners crashing with total fatalities every week. Would you inquire into the crashing of two Dreamliner aircraft every week for 52 weeks?

Mr Pezzullo: My remit in that instance would be related to terrorism or related acts of violence or sabotage that caused those aircraft to go down, so of course I would get involved. I know it’s a hypothetical question that you’re putting to me but, as a matter of principle, that would fall under our remit of aviation security as well as counterterrorism. If you’re putting to me, by way of analogy, some kind of quantitative analogy that says this many people died who otherwise would not have died because of the advent of COVID vaccinations—you used the term ‘injection’—I would really urge you to direct that question to the secretary of Health and his officers, because (a) it’s not my responsibility to give you advice or evidence on public health issues; it’s—

Senator Roberts: No, I accept that. What I’m getting at is: would it be part of your remit to at least question what was going on with 30,000 deaths? That’s more than 10 times—

Mr Pezzullo: Sorry, is that 30,000 deaths in relation to COVID or in relation to airline crashes?

Senator Roberts: COVID injections.

Senator Watt: Again, that’s an assertion from you, Senator Roberts.

Senator Roberts: That’s 10 times the level of deaths from the Twin Towers World Trade Center collapse.

Mr Pezzullo: If there’s a question of an abnormal rate of premature death, which is to say death beyond normal morbidity statistics—and I don’t know what the science or the evidence is; I don’t know what data you’re pointing to—

Senator Roberts: Would it raise questions in your mind?

Mr Pezzullo: It might raise questions for the secretary of Health, so I’m suggesting that that’s appropriately directed to him.

Senator Roberts: He’ll be getting it. I take my responsibility to serve the people because they pay my salary. Taxpayers pay your salary as a public servant. Just as a final point of clarification, do you work for the government or for the taxpayers?

Mr Pezzullo: Well, I’m a public servant employed under the Public Service Act, so ultimately I work for the public. In fact, as a matter of law, I’m required to be impartial, I’m required to be apolitical and I’m required to serve the government of the day responsively—because that’s in law—but also in a way which is apolitical. For instance, if issues arose as to the records of former governments or if issues arose in relation to the observation of the caretaker conventions, I would stand my ground and, potentially, provide difficult advice or decisions to the government of the day. Generally speaking, by law, we are required to be responsive to the government of the day. That’s in the Public Service Act. On those rare occasions—and in my experience it doesn’t happen very frequently—that a government of the day might do something inadvertently that relates, for instance, to the records of decisions of previous governments or to the application of the caretaker conventions, I’ve got a duty not simply to say, ‘Well, I work for you, so we’ll just do whatever you say,’ but to say, ‘Hang on—that is unlawful,’ or, ‘That is contrary to Westminster conventions.’

Senator Roberts: Final question: would you fully cooperate with the royal commission which Mr Albanese promised before he was elected if it were tasked with examining these take-down notices around COVID?

Mr Pezzullo: I would cooperate with any commission of inquiry, royal or otherwise, commissioned by the government and instituted pursuant to letters patent. It wouldn’t matter what the topic was. We would always engage dutifully and conscientiously with any commission of inquiry.

Senator Roberts: Thank you very much, Mr Pezzullo.

/17 Comments/by

Cancel HECS debt for students cancelled by Vaccine Mandates

Halfway through long and expensive degrees, universities implemented vaccine mandates on students. Those students who stuck to their principles and didn’t take the vaccine had to quit their degree yet still carry the HECS debt for that degree.

Taking an experimental vaccine wasn’t a requirement when they signed up to the degree and debt, the rules were changed on them. That HECS debt should be cancelled.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: The Greens want to talk about cancelling HECS debt. Well, let’s talk about the HECS debt of students who started their degrees and then were forced to abandon them because of COVID-19 vaccine mandates. Any student who started studying their degree at university before COVID-19 arrived and subsequently was forced to abandon their studies because of an inhumane COVID-19 injection mandate, whether the mandate was at the university or at a placement that they were required to undertake as part of their degree, should have that HECS debt immediately cancelled. When they signed up to their multi-year degrees, there was no requirement for them to take an untested, experimental, gene therapy based injection.

The President: Senator Roberts, if you could resume your seat for a moment. The substance of your response needs to focus on the motion put forward by Senator Faruqi, which is to suspend business to debate the bill the Greens want to put forward, so you do need to respond to why you agree or disagree or make other comments around the urgency of that suspension motion.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. I’m getting to that point right now. Halfway through their degrees, that rule was changed on them, and they had no say over it. Their debt should be cancelled immediately.

That’s why One Nation will be opposing this motion to suspend standing orders: we want a proper debate. We want a royal commission. We want it dealt with properly so that students who have been kicked out of university, stopped their studies or stopped their placement get a fair say and have their HECS debt cancelled.

/8 Comments/by