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