Posts

The Hidden COVID Reality

, ,

Newly declassified US evidence and Dr. Anthony Fauci’s released records show COVID-19 was a man-made, lab-engineered virus from Wuhan. Alternative treatments (like Ivermectin) were suppressed to force uptake of rushed mRNA vaccines, which financially benefited NIAID through patent royalties.

Citing data from the McCullough Foundation and epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher, mRNA injections cause “turbo-cancer” (aggressive cancer), which did not exist before COVID. 35 distinct cancer-promoting mechanisms have been identified in peer reviewed papers. These key mechanisms include DNA repair impairment, chronic inflammation from lipid nanoparticles and immune suppression.

Published clinical literature includes 333 documented turbo-cancer cases across 27 countries, involving lymphomas, leukaemia, melanoma, breast cancer, lung cancer, glioblastoma, sarcomas and pancreatic cancers. 86% of these cases occurred following vaccination, while 14% were following SARS CoV-2 infection. Preventions appear worse than the disease!

On population evidence, USA cancer deaths since the injections in 2021 is between 153,000 and 197,000 people. Early onset cancer incidence surged 6.4% in just two years, from 2021 to 2023, alongside sharp increases in brain and nervous system tumours, which are up 19.5%. Colorectal cancer is up 19.4%, small intestine cancer is up 15.5%, ovarian cancer is up 12.8%, stomach cancer is up 7.3%, and female breast cancer is up 3.6%. In South Korea, a nationwide cohort of 8.4 million people found vaccinated individuals had an increased one-year cancer risk across six cancer types: thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, breast and prostate cancer. In Italy, vaccinated residents had a 23% higher risk of cancer hospitalisation.

I would love to provide the latest data on cancer rates in Australia – however there is none. They don’t even bother. The official data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare stops at 2022. We don’t need to know the outcome of the disease or hospitalisation rates. We only need to know diagnosis. After four years, why is that simple data not available? Perhaps because they don’t want you to know!

Our health authorities accepted data from Pfizer and Moderna on their COVID products after only a few months of so-called testing — substandard testing. They promised to provide the data after they finished the trial, yet they never did.

COVID-19 vaccines received expedited testing compared to standard multi-year clinical trials – while the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) “allegedly” persecuted truth-telling doctors and medical professionals.

One Nation again calls for a comprehensive royal commission to investigate COVID-19 origins, mandates, vaccine safety and regulatory actions.

Transcript

Last Senate session, I presented the Senate with the latest evidence from the United States on the COVID scandal—the crimes and homicides and, in particular, the role of the former director of America’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIAID, Dr Anthony Fauci. This was evidence declassified through the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Murphy, who at the time was the inspector general of the US Department of Defense. This information was corroborated using Fauci’s own diaries and phone released under freedom of information just a few weeks ago. The unavoidable conclusion is that the world was brought to its knees using a man-made engineered virus developed through gain-of-function research to create a weaponised virus candidate which then escaped from a research lab in Wuhan, China, and infected the world. 

What followed was a cover-up on the origin and suppression of effective early interventions to make the impact worse. Why? To sell vaccines—injections—that were rushed through and are now killing and maiming people. Who benefits from that? Well, Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIAID. NIAID under Fauci had a direct, well-documented institutional role in vaccine research, patenting of key technologies, licensing to companies and receiving of royalties. NIAID conducted the foundational work in the development of the mRNA platform and held patents on stabilised prefusion spike proteins—yes, those spike proteins. This means that the organisation that owned the patent related to spike proteins acted to ban alternative therapies such as Ivermectin, which was proven, and Fenbendazole, which is proven, so the world had no choice and was forced to use the COVID shots, which contain spike proteins, which then earned NIAID half a billion Australian dollars in royalties. All this was at the same time—as records show—that they knew the injections caused myocarditis and were next to useless. This is in their own words in their own diary, text messages and emails. All of this is public record, even if you have not heard about it. My other speeches on this subject are available on my website. 

Tonight, I’ll expand on my comments that the injections are now killing and maiming people. As always, I use peer reviewed science, facts and data. I thank epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher and the McCullough Foundation for the work I’m referencing tonight. The link between mRNA vaccines, injections and cancer is mechanistic, clinical and evident in population studies—scientific studies. 

To the mechanistic evidence—35 distinct cancer-promoting mechanisms have been identified in peer reviewed papers. I will post a link to the literature review on my website. Key mechanisms include impaired DNA repair allowing damaged cells to become cancerous; presence of SV40 cell division enhancer that enhances cancer growth—that one was criminal; LINE-1 reverse transcription, DNA segments left over from the growing medium incorporating into a person’s DNA; frameshifting leading to cell damage and random mutations; chronic inflammation due to the lipid nanoparticles holding the messenger RNA strands; immune suppression through the ACE2 receptor, amongst others; and cancer stem cell expansion. The McCullough Foundation proposes a concurrent hit model. These processes do not necessarily operate independently or sequentially. Multiple cancer-promoting hits overlap in the same susceptible host person, compressing the time required for dormant, indolent or microscopic disease to become clinically aggressive. This is commonly referred to as ‘turbocancer’, which is just a layman’s term for an aggressive cancer, which did exist before COVID. 

On clinical evidence, the published clinical literature includes 333 documented turbocancer cases across 27 countries involving lymphomas, leukaemia, melanoma, breast cancer, lung cancer, glioblastoma, sarcomas and pancreatic cancers. Eighty-six per cent of these cases occurred following COVID-19 injections, and just 14 per cent were following SARS CoV-2 infection. This is because 14 per cent of cases are from COVID; the rest are from the COVID injections. Was the prevention worse than the disease? That’s a matter for a royal commission. Most likely the answer is yes. 

Across these cases, recurring patterns include rapid cancer progression, short latency recurrence, reactivation of previously controlled disease and tumours involving the injection site or nearby lymph nodes. The platform can distribute systemically, forcing vulnerable tissues, including the heart and brain, to express mutated tumour proteins. This raises the risk of off-target immune attack, cardiac injury and neurological damage. As I pointed out previously, health authorities in the USA knew the risk of myocarditis as early as March 2021 and covered it up. The information in this study puts the science behind the clinical observations of increased myocarditis, pericarditis and Alzheimer’s adjacent diseases. 

Even more concerning, the liquid lipid nanoparticle delivery vehicle itself promoted metastatic growth in mice even without mRNA cargo. This suggests that some oncologic liabilities reside in the platform itself not only the encoded antigen. This confirms emerging research showing that the more COVID boosters, the more lipid nanoparticle and the more spike protein, the greater your risk. 

On population evidence, there have been excess USA cancer deaths since 2021 injections of between 153,000 and 197,000 people. Early onset cancer incidence surged 6.4 per cent in just two years, from 2021 to 2023, alongside sharp increases in brain and nervous system tumours, which are up 19.5 per cent. Colorectal cancer is up 19.4 per cent. Small intestine cancer is up 15.5 per cent. Ovarian cancer is up 12.8 per cent. Stomach cancer is up 7.3 per cent, and female breast cancer is up 3.6 per cent. In South Korea, a nationwide cohort of 8.4 million people found vaccinated individuals had an increased one-year cancer risk across six cancer types: thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, breast and prostate cancer. In Italy, vaccinated residents had a 23 per cent higher risk of cancer hospitalisation. We have the mechanism, we have the science, and we have the data.  

I would love to provide the latest data on cancer rates in Australia. There is none. Data showing cancer rates moderating through 2023-25 are actually projections—not real data—made in 2022. Some graphs show the dotted lines to indicate projection; others don’t. They don’t even bother. The official data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare stops at 2022. This is not acceptable. We don’t need to know the outcome of the disease or hospitalisation rates. We only need to know diagnosis, and that can be marked provisional until normal processes are followed through. After four years, why is that simple data not available? It’s because they don’t want you to know. 

This is not a history lesson. The first randomised test of mRNA as monotherapy in residual cancer commenced in 2021 and is still underway, with the result expected in 2030. While Moderna advise wonderful outcomes, their data has not been made public nor shared with researchers, so I guess we’ll have to wait until 2030 to find out the truth. The point here is simple: this is a properly conducted mRNA trial, and it’s taking nine years. Our health authorities accepted data from Pfizer and Moderna on their COVID products after only a few months of so-called testing—substandard testing. They promised to provide the data after they finished the trial, yet they never did. The question for a royal commission is this: why was next to no safety testing—two months instead of nine years—accepted for a substance which was then injected into hundreds of millions or even billions of people? Surely the larger the cohort, the more care that was needed, not the reverse. As I showed last sitting, the American CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, knew almost straightaway the injection was only slightly more effective than natural immunity, so urgency was not the reason. 

Those following this scandal will find much of tonight’s information is familiar. Papers have been available for years on some of these pathways. I referenced some as far back as in 2022. It turns out those qualified epidemiologists and public health luminaries who opposed the official story were right. Many have paid dearly for their principled stand. Some doctors here in Australia are still debarred as a result of showing character when so many displayed cowardice and silence. The pharmaphiles at AHPRA still insist on persecuting the truth-tellers, the doctors of courage and principle, to send a message to the industry that truth will not be tolerated and that acting in the best interests of the patient will not be tolerated. 

Because we did not intervene as strongly as needed back then, AHPRA are doing it again—this time with transgenderism and doctors opposing medicalisation of a psychological condition, a mental health condition. According to AHPRA, the job of a doctor is to keep the pharmaceuticals flowing. If this sounds extreme, you haven’t read the amount I have read on our COVID scandal and you haven’t spoken with the famous medical names from around the world who have given me advice from mid-2020 which has turned out to be accurate. To ensure this never happens again, tonight I repeat One Nation’s call for a royal commission into the COVID scandal, the COVID crimes and the COVID injection homicides. (Time expired) 

/0 Comments/by

Veterans: 1, Labor: 0

,

Labor tried to cap veterans’ healthcare at an arbitrary $5,000 limit. We fought back and we’re winning.

I stood with veterans, serving ADF members, Senator Lambie and colleagues across the Senate to oppose Labor’s healthcare caps. Veterans should never have to fight bereaucracy for treatment they need and deserve.

This bill puts veterans first by removing unfair barriers to healthcare and ensuring treatment decisions are made by clinicians, not Canberra bean counters.

Our veterans served us. Now it’s our turn to serve them.

Transcript

Senator Roberts This bill will ensure that eligible veterans can access treatment for accepted service related injuries and conditions based on their clinical needs rather than on the arbitrary monetary or numerical limits that this uncaring Labor government was trying to introduce. The Senate amended the government’s statute update bill last week, yet, in the House, the government deferred it. That was a big middle finger to vets, to serving ADF and to all Australians, in fact. 

The budget cuts that drove this were short-term budget cuts because of Labor’s waste. They cut veterans services and other services around the country, and they increased tax, because Labor’s waste is driving high expenditure, high spending. The people pay—always the people pay—directly or indirectly. As other senators have mentioned this morning, we are winning. The vets are winning. Thank you for your strong advocacy to the veterans. I also thank Senator Lambie for this bill and thank all senators who support it and who are supporting this campaign from the vets. Thank you. As Senator Pocock said, it is amazing what can be done when we take a united stand. 

The Labor policy driving this unfortunate situation arose out of the recent Labor budget designed to steal from and punish Australians. This bill establishes that an entitlement to treatment must not be subject to a predetermined and arbitrary limit on the cost of treatment, pitched at $5,000, being the total amount that may be spent during a particular period, or the number of times a treatment may be accessed. In David Farley’s seat, where he is representing the seat of Farrer in southern New South Wales, and across Queensland—we have some very large electorates. Vets have to travel for treatment, and the travel eats up this $5,000 limit. 

Early in my listening to serving and retired Australian Defence Force personnel and veterans during the last 10 years, I became deeply concerned about veterans not being adequately cared for under the previous government and under this government. I raised my concerns with the proposed cap at Senate estimates hearings, where it became apparent that Labor’s proposition was not thought through and had raised the levels of anxiety of returned veterans or the already vulnerable to those thoughtless threats to their receipt of treatment. 

Veterans already have a very high suicide rate that should not be exacerbated under threats of withdrawal of support. I was told that the bureaucrats in the Department of Veterans’ Affairs had developed no objective criteria to determine if funding beyond the proposed cap might be approved—none—nor had they determined what processes may be required to extend the cap nor had they developed what evidence they may need to establish a case for increased funding. No appeals processes had been created—none. That’s why there was a limit. It’s just an arbitrary slashing of care. It was not clear why this attack on veterans was devised, and I believe penny pinching was a contributing factor. It is, seemingly, the major driver.  

If issues of fraud or financial abuse are of concern, there already exist measures that can be taken to address these problems. I was told that, historically, approximately 10 per cent of veterans entitled to treatment have needed allied health care that would cost more than the $5,000 limit. This is thousands of veterans. Why punish these vets, making them jump through hoops in order to receive the care that they genuinely need and that their practitioners tell them they genuinely need? How disgusting it is to try to treat vets on the cheap with such disrespect.  

Many very distraught veterans and representative groups have approached me directly, seeking support to oppose the proposed cuts in support. I do support this bill, and I am pleased to see that the crossbench is pulling together on this worthy remedial exercise. How the Labor government could even come up with this punitive idea in the face of the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide is beyond comprehension.  

Our veterans represent the best of our Australian community. The vast and overwhelming majority of veterans are honest Aussies who have genuine need for clinically identified health problems. The government is happy to send them off to fight for our freedoms, yet treats them so poorly and with disrespect—sometimes with disdain and neglect—on their return. Many of these veterans come home vulnerable and in need of nurturing care and support. They do not need to face barriers and hurdles, nor should they have to fight to receive the necessary support and treatment. This does not need to be done on the cheap or, worse, with deceit. Many of our vets have given their all and deserve to be treated well, not in a system based on minimum or even token support, with massive red tape which they have to cut, hack and slash their way through.  

This bill removes potential barriers, financial and administrative, to veterans’ access to allied health care, supporting improved health and wellbeing of our veterans, and I must say it’s well written. I call on my colleagues in the Senate and those members in the other house to support this bill as a matter of respect for those veterans deserving of the support this bill will ensure. Veterans and ADF members have served 28 million Australians and have provided us with security. We need to thank veterans with sincere care.

/by

Feeding the Illicit Trade

,

Cheap illicit tobacco keeps smoking rates alive – and the Health Department confirmed it.

They admitted that illicit cigarettes are cheaper because they avoid excise, and that cheap cigarettes encourage people to smoke.

When criminals flood the market with excise-free cigarettes, people keep smoking. It’s that simple.

Yet the government refuses to reduce the tobacco excise, clinging to the claim that high prices are the key to lowering smoking rates.

Make that make sense.

Transcript

CHAIR: Thank you very much. Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. We are all agreed that smoking is very, very harmful to human health. Let’s put that aside. We are not agreed that the low price that people face when it comes to buying tobacco illicitly is overwhelmingly attractive to people. We know of policemen and policewomen and public servants who are buying illicit tobacco. The barriers to entry are very small. How much do you allocate to the quit smoking campaign? Isn’t it true that in recent years the decline in smoking rates has stopped and it’s been flat in Australia? It’s continuing to decline in other countries but it is flat in Australia.  

Ms Clancy: Thank you for your question, Senator. I will take the second part first, if I may, and then come back to the first part. Smoking prevalence has trended downwards over three decades, with some occasional flattening or plateaus as we go. Recent studies have shown that this decline continues. Our highest quality data is brought out every three years. At the moment, our most recent is 2022 data. One in 10 adults, 10.6 per cent, were current daily smokers. That is a steady decline from 22.4 per cent in 2001. More recent national representative estimates support this trend. In 2022-23, 8.3 per cent of people aged 14 and over smoked daily. In 2023, approximately one in 10, 10.8 per cent of representative adults, were current daily smokers in the HILDA study, which is a slightly different cut or set of data. The next high-quality data release will be at the end of this year, which will look at 2025 rates. We are very much anticipating those rates and will use those to tweak our policy settings as necessary. There are also a number of other data sources we use in the intervening years that tend to show that we’re still on a downward trajectory, although we are concerned. Our job is to be concerned about smoking rates.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I agree with you that the data shows that, over decades, smoking rates did decline. But the data I’ve seen shows a graph that clearly shows that in the last few years it has been flat, whereas in other countries it has continued declining. How much is budgeted for the quit smoking campaign? How much has been paid?  

Ms Brown: I don’t have the expenditure amounts here. The government has committed, since 2023-24, $78.7 million over a four-year period. That’s invested in the Give up for Good smoking, vaping and tobacco public health campaigns. That’s at the Commonwealth level. As I mentioned in relation to other measures, there are also campaigns implemented through the states and territories to varying levels.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is the total spending around about half a billion dollars over four years, the total projected spending? 

Ms Brown: On the campaign, no, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: On all the campaigns.  

Ms Brown: I am not sure that the Commonwealth has the total figure of investment in all campaigns across all states and territories. The federal government has committed $78.7 million over four years, since 2023-24.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you agree that the low price of cigarettes through the illicit tobacco industry makes it attractive to smoke?  

Ms Clancy: We know that price is a determinant of whether people smoke and how much they smoke.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is the driver of the cheap price of illicit tobacco the fact that it is illicit tobacco and is not paying excess?  

Ms Clancy: Sorry; can you repeat the question?  

Senator ROBERTS: Is the driver of low priced illicit tobacco the fact that it is escaping paying any excise, so we have very low priced cigarettes illicitly?  

Ms Clancy: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  

Ms Clancy: Criminals are bringing tobacco into the country without paying the excise they should pay and therefore their products are cheaper.  

Senator ROBERTS: We have got, as Senator Colbeck tried to establish, a low-price cigarette/tobacco industry; it’s illicit but it’s still there.  

Ms Clancy: Yes, illicit tobacco is available and it is evading the excise.  

Senator ROBERTS: It makes it very attractive to smoke because the price is low. This is an issue for the department of health in terms of preventing people smoking, because it is encouraging people to smoke because of illicit tobacco.  

Ms Clancy: Cheap cigarettes do encourage people to smoke. We, along with all of our partner agencies in the Commonwealth and the states and territories, are looking at a range of measures—some of which you’ve heard about this morning and in previous hearings—to tackle the illicit market and reduce their ability to sell in this country.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. These questions are for the ATO. The revenue decrease has been around about three-quarters of the revenue it was a few years ago, which is a big impact on the ATO revenue and a big impact on the people. Could you walk us all through the process of how the excise rate is set and particularly what is the minister’s role? Do you consult the department of health?  

Ms Hawkins: Thank you for the question. As I mentioned earlier, the excise rate is legislated through government. A change would be a policy issue for Treasury. That is set and then the ATO’s role is to administer it. It’s important to recognise, though, that it’s been illegal to grow or manufacture tobacco in Australia without a licence. There are no current licences. What that means is that all tobacco sold in Australia that’s legal is imported. As such, there is actually no excise collected on domestic tobacco. The Department of Home Affairs is responsible for the administration of the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff Act, from which customs duty is applied to imported tobacco at rates which are equivalent to excise duty. It is a policy issue. It is legislated through government and it is not a rate that is determined by the ATO.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that clarification. That’s understood. Could you tell me what consultation is asked of the ATO? Do you provide advice in that process? What is your role in the process of developing the excise rate? You don’t have responsibility for it. I accept that’s the government and the Treasury. But how do you get involved in that? Do you get involved in it? Are you concerned about losing $12 billion in tax revenue?  

Ms Hawkins: The ATO are involved in that discussion, when it comes to Treasury, in providing any input that they seek from us, but we do not have direct control over what that rate is set at. We are always open to providing information, as requested, and being part of discussions where we can provide intelligence or information that would be useful in the process.  

Senator ROBERTS: What advice have you given over the last four years?  

Ms Hawkins: There was a question which I took on notice previously which was asking about whether the ATO was in direct discussions with regard to where the excise rate landed. I said I would take that on notice because I am not privy to, at that point in time, exactly what discussion we would have contributed to. I am more than happy to take that on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Could you specifically mention in the answer on notice the advice that the ATO has given to the government. I understand that the government sets the excise rate. Could you give us the advice you’ve given to the government?  

Ms Hawkins: I am happy to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/by

The Broken Aged Care Complaint System

,

I questioned the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission on the severe problems within the aged Home Care Package system, highlighting the specific case of the Smith family (with their permission).

The Smiths had $3,000 taken from their package and paid to a contractor for incomplete tree trimming. The Commission dismissed their complaint without explanation, leaving them out of pocket, which severely impacted their health and forced them to cancel necessary medical appointments.

Despite assurances from the minister’s staff that the issue would be resolved and funds reimbursed within five months, no contact was made with the family. Minister Chisholm and departmental officials agreed to follow up and contact my office regarding this breakdown.

I raised concerns that upcoming co-payment policies, with service costs potentially exceeding $100 an hour, would make essential care unaffordable for aged pensioners.

Departmental representatives responded that co-contributions will be a small percentage for pensioners (5% to 17.5% depending on the service category), and that the government is cracking down on unreasonable pricing while funding major care shifts.

The problem appears to be finally resolving but only after repeated interventions from my officers. This is not how it should work for the thousands of recipients being ripped off.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. It’s good to see you, Mr Comley. My questions are for the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission on problems with the aged Home Care Package, please. Late last year in Senate estimates, before this committee, I raised the case of the Smith family. Under their package, they’re entitled to some assistance in minor property maintenance. They needed some minor trimming of half a tree and a few branches of another on their property, which was not completed, yet they found that $3,000 had been taken out of their package and given to the contractor without discussion between the Smiths and the service administrator of the package. The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission closed off their complaint and refused to even discuss it with the Smiths, with no explanation given. Isn’t this elder abuse by a government agency that is supposed to help older Australians, not abuse them? What’s the cover up, and why was $3,000 paid for next to nothing?  

ACTING CHAIR: I’m not sure about the appropriateness of responding to individual complaints or issues. I think characterising them is one thing, but referring to individual cases is quite different.  

Senator ROBERTS: We have permission from the Smiths.  

ACTING CHAIR: We don’t have that, and the department don’t have that.  

Senator ROBERTS: How typical is this?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: Let me try and respond to you. Sometimes these cases are very complex. There is often miscommunication. There are different versions of events from providers versus older people. I appreciate—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m sure you’re right.  

Ms Hefren-Webb: Sorry? What did you say?  

ACTING CHAIR: Let the official speak.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m just backing her up. I’m sure you’re right; it would be complex.  

Ms Hefren-Webb: And so we do our best to understand the circumstances—what’s happened, what’s gone wrong—and look at what we can do to restore people to make up for what’s happened to them and find an equitable solution. We do our best efforts. Obviously, I won’t speak about the individual case, because I don’t have permission from those people to speak. But cases like this, where people are quoted different amounts for different pieces of work and then may misapprehend what was going to be done, what’s happened with their package et cetera, are not unusual cases. And we do try and reach a sensible resolution. All our complaints are subject to review and appeal, so if people aren’t happy with where we’ve resolved a matter, they do have an opportunity to first ask for an internal review and to then seek external review if they’re still not comfortable.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. And I’m not pretending some of these cases are simple, but it’s badly affected the health of the two innocent senior citizens, who deserve an answer and for money to be put back into their package. A staff member of the minister contacted my office and assured us that the issue would be resolved and that money would be reimbursed quickly. The result, though, was that nothing happened, not even contact with the family. Five months have passed since the promise was made. Because of the depleted funds, the Smiths had to cancel some medical appointments that they could no longer afford.  

ACTING CHAIR: Again, Senator Roberts, the department is not going to be able to respond to this individual case in this setting.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, if I’m told by the minister’s staff that they’ve contacted the Smiths and they haven’t—  

Ms Hefren-Webb: I’m not aware of what the minister’s staff may have said, but I’m happy to go away and provide you with what advice I can about what engagement there has been in this particular case.  

Senator Chisholm: Just to add to that, we don’t want to be dismissive of the issue, and I’m happy to follow up with the minister’s office to see what’s gone on there. But I think we’re just uncomfortable responding to a couple’s circumstance in this forum. But I assure you that we’ll do what we can to follow up appropriately and ensure that we can do what we can, where possible, to resolve it. But that’s knowing that some of these cases can be difficult.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’d be great, Minister. Thank you. Could you contact my office?  

Senator Chisholm: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: The concept of co-payments is to be instituted into the aged-care packages. That will mean the cancellation of many services needed by package holders, because they’ll become unaffordable. The proposal is that many services will need to be paid for at more than $100 an hour—often more than twice the market labour rate. An aged pensioner cannot afford that. What are you doing about this situation?  

Ms Hefren-Webb: The department might wish to speak about the policy on contributions. But we are undertaking extensive work around unreasonable pricing. We’ve been in contact with a number of providers where we have concerns that their pricing is unreasonable and we’ve asked them to provide us with an explanation for how they’ve reached their prices. In some cases, they’ve agreed to adjust their price and have even provided refunds. So, certainly, we’re dealing with those cases on an individual basis, but the question of contributions is a policy question, so I don’t know—  

Ms Stewart: I’m happy to start. Thank you, Ms Hefren-Webb. In terms of the policy on co-contribution, that was a recommendation that was made by a taskforce to set co-contribution rates at a level where people who could afford to contribute would contribute to their aged care. We work very closely with Ms Hefren-Webb, and under the new legislation providers are required to be transparent in their prices, as well as reasonable. Older people can go and compare prices, and when they feel that they are not reasonable they can come to us. The last thing I’ll say before handing to my other colleagues is that the government has recently made an announcement for about $1 billion of funding to enable a change in the policy settings so that government will now pay for a category of service, which includes showering and assistance with dressing and continence. That’s been a significant announcement. I’ll hand over to Ms Trainor to talk in more detail. 

Ms Trainor: The other observation there is that there is a difference between the service price—so when you talked about the $100 per hour—and the co-contribution, which is the proportion of that service price that the participant rather than the government pays. So, when you talk about a pensioner, for a full-rate pensioner, those rates are five per cent of services that are in the independence service list category, and then 17.5 per cent of everyday living, which are our cleaning- and gardening-type services. So whilst you may have a service price of $100 an hour what a person pays out of pocket is a very small share of that actual amount.  

Senator ROBERTS: I get that. Thank you for your patience. I look forward to you calling our office. 

/by

Empowering Terminal Patients

When someone is facing a life-threatening illness and all standard treatments have been exhausted, waiting shouldn’t be a barrier to hope.

That’s why One Nation will be introducing legislation for the “Right to Try.”

If a patient’s condition is terminal and existing measures have failed, they can request, or a doctor can suggest, an alternative therapy or unlisted drug.

Patients enter voluntarily, creating a safe pathway that expands the market for pharmaceuticals, drives down drug prices and ultimately saves lives.

With nothing to lose and everything to gain, it’s time to give patients and doctors the freedom to choose.

Transcript

One Nation will introduce legislation in the next parliament for the right to try. This means that, if a person is being treated for an illness the outcome of which could be death and all existing measures have failed, the patient has a right to request from their doctor, or a doctor has a right to suggest, a drug not listed for that condition. It may be an alternative therapy or an unlisted drug. To put this simply, the patient has nothing to lose and everything to gain. This may expand the market for existing pharmaceutical products—who knows? That’s the point. It’s a free clinical trial that a patient has voluntarily entered into, reducing drug prices and saving lives.

/by

Infected Blood Scandal Inquiry – CONFIRMED

One Nation’s motion to seek justice for the victims of the Infected Blood Scandal has been passed

Good news! The Senate has passed One Nation’s motion to hold a Senate Inquiry into Australia’s Infected Blood Scandal.

During the 70s, 80s and 90s, up to 20,000 people were caught up in a scandal that resulted in serious injury and death.

Hundreds of people died.

Others have endured life-long severe illness.

This terrible chapter in Australia’s medical history is attributed to the Australian Red Cross blood banks and the CSL.

Blood contaminated with Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, and HIV was collected and then knowingly and recklessly given to healthy individuals via blood transfusions and blood products.

Those who received tainted blood, and contracted these diseases as a result, have been seeking compensation for decades.

And been ignored.

Similar situations in Canada and the United Kingdom have led to official investigations and appropriate compensation.

Commonwealth bodies have been avoiding responsibility for too long.

One Nation has been pursuing justice for the victims of Australia’s infected blood scandal for many years, and last week, we have finally unlocked the opportunity to put right this horrific chapter.

Our motion was passed on the voices, with support from the Liberals and Greens.

What will happen next?

This issue has gone to the Community Affairs Committee. They will start the process of opening up submissions. When this closes, public hearings will be organised and individuals will be called to give their testimony.

/2 Comments/by

Restoring the NDIS to Its Core Purpose

,

During Estimates in June I questioned the government on its proposed $38 billion cuts to the NDIS.

Officials admitted the savings come from tightening eligibility, slashing participant budgets, and reducing key supports like community participation by 50% and capacity-building activities by 10%. They also confirmed a new “objective test” that will narrow who can access the scheme in the first place.

Minister McAllister clarified that disrupting fraud does not translate into government savings because recovered funds are returned to participants’ plans to secure legitimate services. She noted that while tackling fraud is a key priority, reducing total expenditure requires separate structural measures.

Department officials outlined the specific areas targeting budget reductions:

✅ Cutting social, community, and civic participation budgets by 50%, and capacity-building daily activity budgets by 10% ($13.2 billion).

✅ Replacing general disability-type lists with an objective test for “substantially reduced functional capacity” to restrict who enters the scheme ($9.3 billion).

✅ Restricting unscheduled reassessment requests and stopping plan roll-overs ($3.1 billion).

✅ Applying stricter guidelines on the level of support granted to existing participants ($2.9 billion).

✅ Commissioning changes to plan management and support coordination ($1.4 billion).

✅ Requiring registration for providers of high-risk supports such as intimate personal care or respite settings ($200 million).

The government’s target of slowing NDIS growth to roughly 5% annually relies on tightening eligibility thresholds, restricting core participant budgets, and narrowing the scope of “reasonable and necessary” supports.

Although it’s good to hear that steps are being taken to keep the NDIS sustainable, it’s vital that the priority remains stopping fraud, not cutting legitimate services.

Transcript

ACTING CHAIR: Welcome back, everybody. We are on outcome 4, and we will start our questioning with Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. What is the amount forecast to be saved by the proposed cuts to the NDIS program?  

Mr Comley: The number in the budget is $37.8 billion over the forward estimates.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is that for four years?  

Mr Comley: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Shouldn’t the priority be to stop wasting money and stop the criminals defrauding the service?  

Senator McAllister: We had quite a long conversation about this earlier in the day. To put it briefly, our priority is to stop the criminals defrauding the NDIS. The budget contains very significant investments in the capability of the agency to disrupt fraud, including continuing funding for the Fraud Fusion Taskforce that we’ve spoken about before. The point I was making earlier is that we see some savings to government when we disrupt fraud, but, historically, we’ve seen the vast majority of the money that we identify as going to bad actors returned to people with disability. So, yes, our priority, absolutely, is intervening to stop fraud—non-compliant claiming and other integrity leakage—but whether that is a source of savings to government is a different question.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is the answer to that one?  

Senator McAllister: The answer is that historically, when we have disrupted providers who are defrauding the NDIS, they are taking money from disabled people. We disrupt it. The money goes back to that person who acquires the services that they need from a legitimate provider. So it’s not a source of savings to government, but it does improve the functioning of the scheme. I’ve said it on many occasions: this scheme has to operate with integrity. Over the period that we have been in government, we have made very substantial investments to lift the capacity of the NDIA and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission to make sure that that is so. There is still more to do, and it’s why there is significant investment—further investment in the budget—that we’ve just brought through.  

Senator ROBERTS: So rather than cutting services, you’re cutting fraud?  

Senator McAllister: The reform package as a whole seeks to make sure that the scheme is sustainable. Minister Butler has talked about stopping runaway cost growth. He has talked about tackling fraud. He’s talking about reshaping markets so that they deliver good value services and quality services to people with disability. The whole package is about making the NDIS stronger and better so it is here for the long term. It’s not a choice between dealing with runaway cost growth or tackling fraud. We actually have to do both.  

Senator ROBERTS: Who are the people whose services will be cut then, if it’s not just fraud?  

Senator McAllister: I’ll ask officials to talk you through some of our expectations in terms of the approach that we are taking.  

Mr Comley: Perhaps the easiest place to draw from is the public disclosure of information and the lines there where it runs through the composition of the reductions across the forward estimates. I also note in reply to your earlier comment, Senator, that that production of documents includes—as does the budget—the savings measure on both a fiscal balance and underlying cash balance basis. I gave you the underlying cash balance. The equivalent number on fiscal balance is $38.1 billion, so they’re both around $38 billion. There are 10 aspects outlined in that production of documents.  

Ms Long: That’s correct.  

Mr Comley: I’ll hand over to Ms Long.  

Ms Long: The reforms cover a range of areas. That includes addressing fraud, compliance and integrity, but it also includes measures around eligibility and participants’ budgets. Would you like me to go across—  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, please.  

Ms Long: As Secretary Comley said, the total impact of the reforms is $38.1 billion over the forward estimates. That can be broken down into a number of components. The first component is around strengthening guidance on what is reasonable and necessary, and that has an impact of $2.9 billion over the forward estimates.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is that tightening up on who should get it? I’m using that word ‘tightening’ constructively.  

Ms Long: It’s around what is considered reasonable and necessary and how that is applied in terms of the determination of budgets.  

Mr Comley: To be clear, that measure is for people that are in the scheme, once they’re in the scheme, on what is considered the right level of support. There are other measures Ms Long will come to that go to the question of who should be in the scheme in the first place.  

Ms Long: There’s another element around resetting social, community and civic participation and capacity building budgets, which has an impact of $13.2 billion over the forward estimates.  

Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by that?  

Ms Long: There are two particular budget categories. The first one is the social, community and civic participation budget. That’s a type of support that is provided. Another type of support is capacity-building daily activities. Those two types of supports, through a ministerial determination, will have budgets reduced. The social and community budgets will be reduced by 50 per cent. The capacity-building daily activity budgets will be reduced by 10 per cent.  

Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by community activity? What is the scope of that?  

Ms Long: It’s quite a broad support category. It provides supports to participants to go out and engage in the community. It might involve having a support worker take them out to engage in some form of community activity, for example.  

Mr Comley: It could be as simple as going to a park, maybe having a walk around or feeding the ducks, or it could be a sporting event. It could be a whole range of things. That’s community participation.  

Ms Long: Another element of the reforms is around commissioning plan management and support coordination, which would deliver an improvement of around $1.4 billion over the forward estimates. Also, there has been quite a lot of plan inflation that has been observed, so there are a series of reforms that are aimed at addressing that plan inflation. That includes tightening the criteria around unscheduled reassessment requests and ending plans rolling over and funds being rolled over alongside. The total impact of those reforms is $3.1 billion over the forward estimates. There are also a range of access changes, as Secretary Comley referred to. In particular, in introducing an objective test of substantially reduced functional capacity, that would look to tighten eligibility for the scheme in order to focus that back on significant and permanent disability but also to have a focus on substantially reduced functional capacity rather than disability type. That change would have an impact of $9.3 billion over the forward estimates.  

Senator ROBERTS: So it’s going to tighten and be more specific?  

Ms Long: That’s correct. There will need to be a range of consultation and engagement on how that’s applied in terms of the threshold, the definition and how that’s done in practice, but, yes, the intent is to focus in eligibility on significantly reduced functional capacity. To date, access to the scheme has commonly been done through access lists that relate to your disability type. This would mean that we would no longer need to use those access lists and instead eligibility would be focused on a substantial reduction in functional capacity. If you’d like, I could keep going through a number of the other elements of the reform package, if that’s helpful.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many more are there?  

Ms Long: There are probably a couple more that I could mention if you like. Another one that might be worth highlighting is there’s a measure for mandatory registration for high-risk providers, which is around, obviously, having registration. That would deliver savings of $0.2 billion over the forward estimates.  

Senator ROBERTS: High-risk providers?  

Ms Long: That’s correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: How do you identify high risk?  

Ms Long: I might need one of my colleagues to talk to the detail of how that will be applied.  

Ms Alisa Chambers: High-risk supports as imagined through the budget is an extension of mandatory registration that we’re moving through at the moment with supported independent living and platform providers, in the new category of advanced registration. Those high-risk supports relate to daily activities—things like catheter care or really intimate personal care—and closed settings, like respite settings, where we see really significant risk to people with disability, particularly people with significant support needs.  

Ms Long: Overall, as a result of the reforms, it’s projected that average growth in the NDIS will be 1.7 per cent over the forward estimates and five per cent over the medium term. Five per cent per annum growth for the NDIS is broadly in line with Medicare and aged-care growth rates. It also means that the scheme will remain steady at around 1.6 per cent of GDP over the medium term on the current projections that we have.  

Senator ROBERTS: I had a question about how those people whose services will be cut will be identified. It’s basically through tightening up the eligibility criteria, which is something that we’ve been talking about for a while. That’s good to see, Minister.  

ACTING CHAIR: You’ve got about another two minutes, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got questions for quality and safeguards. We’ve identified several fraudsters who need to be investigated and moneys chased down. Is this where most effort should be used to seek restitution?  

Mr Comley: I think the Quality and Safeguards Commission is dealing more with participant safety. The NDIA and Mr Dardo’s area are more in the area of fraud and misuse of funds. Mr Dardo might want to comment.  

Mr Dardo: Overwhelmingly, our focus is on preventing the money going out in the first place so we can prevent the money leaving the system when it shouldn’t be. The beauty of that is you’re not trying to chase a debt. You’re not trying to chase the money after it’s gone. That’s our overwhelming focus, and we’ve done a really, really good job in identifying problematic providers and stopping the funds leaving before they should. When the money has gone, there are different ways that we might recover it. Raising a debt might be one way. Asking the courts for reparation, like an order to repay, might be another. Another way that we’ve done it is we’ve worked with state or federal policing authorities to seize assets or freeze assets. In one recent case, we froze $5 million in assets and had them confiscated by the Commonwealth. In another case, we’ve frozen $40 million in assets. In a recent case, we’ve frozen another $4½ million to $5 million. It’s really important that we send the message that, even if the money has gone and somebody thinks they’ve gotten away with it, we will actually pursue the assets. There is another avenue that we’ve been using, which is to get the tax office to go after them from a tax perspective and raise taxes and attack the problem from that direction. Overwhelmingly, designing a system to stop the money going out in the first place is our mission, but we do have avenues to try to recover money when it gets to the serious end of fraud.  

Ms Wade: Secretary Comley mentioned that the commission’s focus with respect to fraud is firmly on the behaviour of providers in the market. In addressing that, in addition to penalty frameworks for providers, we have the registration scheme, and we’ve strengthened our approach to the registration scheme to ensure that it detects fraud in more sophisticated ways through recent reforms. As those registration groups grow, which we just spoke about, that strengthened response for fraud detection continues to be enhanced as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s multipronged.  

Ms Wade: Yes, absolutely.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll ask my last question for this bracket. I’ve still got more when we come back. How many cases of fraud are being reported? You said that, if you took them all to court, they’d be clogged.  

Mr Dardo: The way we look at it is that it’s about stopping the integrity leakage whether it’s accidental, it’s sharp, it’s malicious or it’s organised crime. We’ve got to stop it all because any one of those vulnerabilities that are open allows money to leak out of the scheme. We get a significant number of tip-offs every year. We get 29,000 tip-offs every year. They are not all fraud. We’ve got to be really careful in assuming. They’re not all fraud. As you go up the spectrum, there are several thousand ABNs that we’ve already got some controls on through manual payment reviews, and we have been building more systems in the last few weeks that are now turning on. We will put a couple thousand more ABNs into those reviews in the next few weeks. Then you go up the spectrum a bit more, where we’ve got Fraud Fusion Taskforce investigations. There are about 660 investigations, but 400 of those related to the NDIS are either with the commission or with us—or both. Then you get to the ones that are in the prosecution phase. There are a few dozen in the prosecution phase, so they’re in front of the courts or we’ve got briefs of evidence with the CDPP to prepare them for the courts. That’s the spectrum. And it’s really important to note that there is no regulatory system in the world that thinks that every single non-compliant thing is going to end up as a prosecution. That is not the way the world works.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many convictions have there been?  

Mr Dardo: There have been 25 convictions since the Fraud Fusion Taskforce started, and those sentences have resulted, in some cases, in custodial sentences up to six years. There are more cases where there has been a guilty outcome—either pled guilty or found guilty—but they’re awaiting sentencing. We don’t control the dates of the court, so some of those have been sitting there awaiting sentencing for six months or a year. There are cases that are currently scheduled for sentencing in July. They may happen in July; they may happen in December—we don’t know. But there are more cases sitting there right now where they’ve been found guilty awaiting sentencing. 

/1 Comment/by

Responsible Oversight, Not Cuts to the PBS

,

The New England Times published a hit piece falsely claiming One Nation plans to remove medications from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). This is an outright lie. One Nation will defend the PBS, just as we defend Medicare.

Here is the truth.

Our 2025 policy promises a sensible review of medications fast-tracked during COVID to ensure safety and efficacy. We are looking specifically at just three drugs — Paxlovid, Remdesivir and Molnupiravir — to examine safer, cost-effective alternatives.

No Australian will be left without medication. We are not changing PBS charges, altering existing government payments, or tearing up legally binding contracts.

Society benefits when the sick are healed quickly and cared for with dignity.

Financial barriers shouldn’t stand in the way of care and One Nation will protect the 40-year legacy of the PBS against Labor and Big Pharma’s attempt to spin sensible scrutiny into fearmongering.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Tonight I discuss the heart of Australia’s future: whether our higher education system is identifying and supporting excellence or whether elites have captured education to reward size, history and established reputation. How many Australians know that some of the highest rated higher education institutions in our country, in terms of student satisfaction, are not the sandstone Group of Eight universities or any public universities? They’re smaller, independent universities, one of which, Alphacrucis University College, records student satisfaction rates of 90 per cent for overall educational experience when the national average sits in the mid-70s. The national regulator recognises Alphacrucis as delivering superior quality education and granted it unlimited self-accrediting authority, in part because students studying a postgraduate teaching degree at Alphacrucis graduated with a job 100 per cent of the time. Until recently, I didn’t know that tertiary education institutions with this level of success existed. Australians need to know there are exemplary institutions leading our country, yet we’ve never heard of them. 

We need to reassess how our tertiary institutions are supported, because, if we don’t, we’re reinforcing the status quo, and that’s not working. Our universities have governance issues, financial issues, confidence issues and efficiency issues, yet there are higher education providers achieving excellent outcomes for students without the hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars in funding that our public universities receive, including grants and commercial activity. If institutions like Alphacrucis do not become well known, students who might have thrived in such a place will miss the opportunity. Students will be less satisfied with their education than they might otherwise have been. Students might be less likely to graduate into employment and less likely to leave their mark and their legacy on our society. Philanthropic foundations need to know that outside of the G8 there’s great teaching and research, and it’s worthy of support. Foundations need to be looking for opportunities to fund teaching and research institutions like Alphacrucis, because that’s where our future may well be. 

Government has set lofty aspirational targets for tertiary attainment through the Australian Universities Accord and has already acknowledged that public universities alone cannot achieve these targets. The system needs provider diversity and rewards for excellence. Our tertiary funding must move to a level playing field. We must allocate funds on actual performance, not past reputation. The government makes much noise of diversity, yet where’s the funding for real diversity in higher education? The G8 sandstone universities would benefit from increased competition. We must do all that we can to remove barriers from lesser known institutions to enable them to compete. Part of that is to raise their profile, and part of that is to shift funds from the sandstone G8s to institutions already delivering. 

One Nation is committed to greater scrutiny of tertiary institution funding and wants to know why funding favours established universities over new entries. I’m focusing on Alphacrucis, yet the issue is larger than one university college. It’s about whether Australia rewards performance or prestige. These are not the same thing. Reward is about working for today’s students. Prestige is about what’s been done for students in days past. It’s about whether new institutions with fresh ideas are given the opportunity to compete or whether the system remains tilted towards those who have always held advantage. 

Alphacrucis University College is a test case, an institution achieving outstanding student satisfaction, national recognition for quality and a growing reputation for excellence, yet most Australians have never heard of it. If we’re serious about innovation, competition and value for taxpayers, then institutions should be judged on what they actually deliver, not on how old they are, how large they are or how well connected they are. Australia’s future depends upon identifying excellence wherever it’s found and giving it the opportunity to flourish. The Australian people deserve a higher education system that rewards achievement, encourages competition and invests in results. That’s beneficial for students, for taxpayers and for Australia’s future. 

Tonight I address media misrepresentation of One Nation’s policy to review some drugs on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the PBS. The New England Times newspaper flagrantly lied to readers in a story just published last Saturday, giving the false impression that One Nation will be removing medications from the PBS. Author RK Crosby’s hit piece was titled ‘Concern brewing as buried Hanson policy threatens affordable medicines’. Only last week, I included the PBS in a list of social welfare institutions that One Nation would defend in government—not tolerate or be afraid to touch but defend. This pathetic piece of journalism shows the lack of research the New England Times conducted for its story. I understand that, like many regional newspapers, the New England Times is short of staff. This leads them to accept a hit piece that Better Access Australia most likely prepared. It’s quoted extensively, and its mission statement is to transfer as much taxpayer money as it can into big pharma’s pockets. 

One phone call would have cleared this up. The story stems from a two-line election policy promise in 2025 which said One Nation will review all medications fast-tracked during COVID to ensure safety and efficacy have been proven. It’s perfectly sensible and responsible. In fact, most of the drugs that were given emergency use authorisation, officially known as the provisional use pathway, have already been withdrawn or had their use reduced to insignificance. Only three remain of interest to One Nation, and these are the drugs we will review: Paxlovid; remdesivir, or ‘Run—death is near’; and molnupiravir. With each of these, there are alternatives which anecdotally carry a lower cost and better safety and efficacy outcomes. No Australian will be left without medication—not one Australian. This is actually a small promise that the pharmaceutical lobby has deliberately taken out of context. During COVID, big pharma benefited to the tune of billions of dollars and is terrified of any scrutiny. 

To open their story, RK Crosby offered a vignette suggesting One Nation will remove asthma medication from the PBS—an outright lie; a fabrication, pure and simple. One Nation threatening affordable medicines is an outright lie. One Nation will not change PBS charges nor change the amounts government pays under the existing arrangements. Contracts signed will be honoured. If we start tearing up legally-binding contracts, confidence in government will never recover. We’re not going to tear up contracts. Negotiate? Yes. Tear up? No. For clarity, no PBS contracts are in our sights. 

The COVID vaccines will be looked at in our terms of reference for a royal commission, although these were not supplied through the PBS. Perhaps the pharmaceutical industry didn’t want to mention their COVID products and instead chose to lie about our PBS policy. For the record, here’s the philosophy behind our policy. As I said last week in the Senate, One Nation supports the PBS for the same reason we support Medicare. Society benefits when our sick are healed quickly and returned to looking after themselves. For those with permanent conditions, the basic laws of humanity require society to care for those people with love and respect. The financial cost of medication and related devices should not detract from this care. 

Last week, Minister Butler made similar comments. On this, we’re in alignment. Over the last 40 years, the PBS has balanced prices paid to pharmaceutical companies against product benefits. Sometimes negotiation has delayed drugs, and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee displayed a sensible balance, making our PBS the envy of the world. We will defend the process of negotiating drug prices to ensure no compromise on the principles that have informed the PBS for 40 years. 

I’ll discuss two more policies. One Nation will introduce legislation in the next parliament for the right to try. This means that, if a person is being treated for an illness the outcome of which could be death and all existing measures have failed, the patient has a right to request from their doctor, or a doctor has a right to suggest, a drug not listed for that condition. It may be an alternative therapy or an unlisted drug. To put this simply, the patient has nothing to lose and everything to gain. This may expand the market for existing pharmaceutical products—who knows? That’s the point. It’s a free clinical trial that a patient has voluntarily entered into, reducing drug prices and saving lives. 

The other policy is to introduce an eight-year wait for new arrivals to access the PBS, unless you’re a citizen or a permanent resident. Under One Nation, there’ll be an eight-year wait for citizenship and for permanent residence. This will not be backdated. You can’t be unmade as citizen. This will not deny medical care for new arrivals, who will pay for that care themselves. Anyone on prescription medication can vote One Nation without fear of losing access to or paying more for their medication. I trust that’s clear.

/1 Comment/by

Stopping the Latest “Mediscare” Lies

,

One Nation supports the sensible reforms to let trained registered nurses prescribe common PBS medications — a practical step that will ease pressure on doctors, strengthen rural healthcare and improve access for everyday Australians.

This isn’t a thought bubble; it’s the result of decades of professional evolution in nursing.

I also put an end to the latest round of “Mediscare” nonsense. One Nation will defend Medicare and the PBS — full stop. We’ll crack down on the $3 billion in fraud the government refuses to confront, protect patients from bureaucratic roadblocks, and ensure no Australian pays more for a prescription under a One Nation government.

Our healthcare system must serve patients, not criminals, not fraudsters and not political spin.

One Nation will keep Medicare strong, keep the PBS fair and keep pressure on a government too timid to clean up its own mess.

Transcript

One Nation will support the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025. It amends the National Health Act and the Health Insurance Act 1973 to enable approved registered nurses to prescribe certain pharmaceutical benefits under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the PBS. Australia’s health system is experiencing increasing demand due to an ageing population and rising prevalence of chronic disease, something we do need to better understand. Improving access to safe and effective medications is essential to meeting the health needs of everyday Australians. 

Registered nurses comprise around half the Australian health workforce and are the most geographically distributed health profession. They’re the best placed to prescribe certain common medications, taking the pressure off doctors while reducing travel and inconvenience to patients. This will support rural pharmacies. Registered nurses must complete a three-year bachelor’s degree in nursing. Nurse practitioners must hold a master’s degree in nursing and complete 5,000 hours of advanced clinical practice. 

The history of the idea of allowing nurses, suitably trained, to write prescriptions is quite long. It began with a trial in New South Wales between 1991 and 2000—a generation ago. This went national in 2001 with the advent of the national Nursing and Midwifery Board, designed to bring regulation of nurses closer to the system used for doctors. It was at this time that the pathway to nurse practitioner was introduced. In 2010, nurse practitioners were approved to write prescriptions under the PBS, although only while working in collaboration with a registered medical prescriber. Then, in 2024, the government removed the need for collaboration with a registered prescriber, allowing nurse practitioners to prescribe most medications under their own Medicare Benefits Schedule prescriber number. Finally, in 2025, the government introduced the ability of registered nurses to prescribe. There are suitable checks and balances. Nurses must meet specified qualifications, complete the course and maintain endorsement. The first cohort were enrolled and have now completed their training. 

This legislation will enable these health professionals to prescribe certain medications. Perhaps this could have been done the other way around, with the heads of power to allow registered nurses to prescribe written into law before we started training them, disrupting their careers and offering them a career path which didn’t yet exist. Maybe that’s just a sensible One Nation thing. 

This legislation is being supported across the chamber and could have been supported a year ago. The point of this history lesson is clear. The move to allow registered nurses to prescribe is not a thought bubble. It’s the result of a generation of evolution in the education and professional certification of and skill base within the nursing profession. 

The system they’ve put in place appears fit for purpose. Not all drugs can be prescribed by registered nurses, just certain ones: birth control; repeat prescriptions across a wide range of conditions. There are lots of opportunities to take the pressure off our doctors. This is particularly beneficial to regional and remote areas. 

For those who may be concerned about this measure—and One Nation is not concerned with it—I reference the PBS auditing framework. The PBS has excellent audit routines which scan all the prescriptions written across the system and zero in on any patterns out of the ordinary. These are then followed up with a phone call or, if necessary, a visit. Misuse will be detected. One Nation does contend medical professionals are given insufficient discretion to use their wealth of medical knowledge. In this case, it will provide an additional check. The initiative in part stems from the Strengthening Medicare Taskforce. One Nation is pleased to strengthen Medicare with this initiative. 

Next, I must address ‘Mediscare’ 3.0, which disreputable media have been promoting in the last few weeks. I say ‘Mediscare’ version 3 because the last two elections saw the Labor Party, or their supporters, smear the Liberals with a false ‘Mediscare’ campaign. Now it’s One Nation’s turn to be smeared, and Labor is smearing One Nation. They must fear us. While it has been only one week since the last time I defended Medicare and the PBS in a Senate speech, it seems I need to do it again. Very well. One Nation will defend the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and Medicare. Both are part of a social-welfare safety net which maintains a healthy population and contributes to Australia enjoying a high standard of living. Medicare and the PBS are why people pay taxes—and don’t forget it, government. 

Taxes are, of course, not the government’s money. Taxes are the people’s money and should only be spent accordingly. Hardworking Australians do not deserve to have their money wasted or handed over to fraudsters. One Nation will work with and better resource the Benefits Integrity Division and the Fraud Fusion Taskforce to ensure every cent of money spent through Medicare and the PBS goes to people who need it and who qualify for the benefit. 

It’s intolerable to me that new drugs, drugs that could save lives, are held back, despite agreement between the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and the drug maker, because of the cost, because billions are being taken out of the system in fraud. And, yes, some prescribers are complicit, although a tiny amount. No patient with a legally obtained Medicare card should ever be afraid of using that card under a One Nation government. No Australian will have to pay more for a prescription under a One Nation government. We will support and maintain the system of the Medicare urgent care clinics, and we will work constructively with all stakeholders to extend operating hours for service delivery to take further pressure off public hospital emergency departments—which we will be able to afford because we will remove the criminals and fraudsters from the system and ensure everyone who uses a Medicare card is entitled to use that card. The government knows who these people are—yes, you do. The government knows where the $3 billion a year in fraud is coming from. Their own integrity division said as much in Senate estimates recently. The fraud figure is the government’s, not One Nation’s—we didn’t cook it up; the government’s own agency told us. The Albanese-Burke government doesn’t have the guts to do anything about it. 

I’m concerned that the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025 could create a two-tier health system. Rural, regional and poorer suburbs would get registered nurses and nurse practitioners. Richer suburbs would get doctors galore. In fact, I’m sure that’s going to happen because it’s happening now. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and the federal department of health track their workforce using a framework called the Modified Monash Model. Their data shows a stark imbalance. Roughly 84 per cent of private hospital medical practitioners and the vast majority of medical specialists operate exclusively within major capital cities and metropolitan centres. Small, regional, rural and remote towns classified as MM4 to MM7 contain the lowest number of healthcare workers per capita. In these areas, access to medical care drops drastically. In these areas, GPs provide primary care and act as emergency doctors and hospital doctors, making up 60 per cent of the entire available hospital workforce because there are so few dedicated specialists. The bill before the Senate will help take the weight off those GPs, yet will not solve the issue of doctors gravitating to wealthy suburbs and cities. What may solve that problem is to do more to assist children from the bush to take up medicine as a career. One Nation’s health policy, to be released later this year, will add more detail to that statement. 

Finally, I’ll be moving amendments to this bill on behalf of Senator Lambie, who’s recovering after recently herself quality-testing our healthcare system. As it currently stands, properly qualified podiatrists and podiatric surgeons can prescribe specific medicines to their patients, although these prescriptions are not recognised under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Patients either have to pay the full price or meet with the GP to get the same medicine prescribed under the PBS—or, worse, go without and suffer the consequences. That’s ridiculous. Podiatrists require a university degree, must maintain membership of their professional association and are affiliated with Ahpra, like other medical associations. Their medical expertise in their area of care is well capable of supporting improved prescribing rights. The focus of our healthcare system must be what’s best for the patient, and what’s best for the patient cannot include bureaucratic roadblocks and financial pain. The amendments I foreshadow do not reduce safeguards. They do not give podiatrists greater prescribing powers. They will ease GPs’ workload and make things easier for patients. They are commonsense amendments, and they should be supported. 

/by

Avoidance on Rising Breast Cancer Rates

,

In February I questioned the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) on the surge in early-onset breast cancer, with diagnoses in women in their 20s, 30s and 40s rising sharply over two decades.

When I asked whether they’d cross-referenced these cases with lifestyle factors, or with COVID vaccination status, they admitted they haven’t done that work.

To me, that’s a glaring failure.

COVID injections were the biggest health intervention in our history, yet no one is checking for possible links to adverse outcomes. Australians deserve transparency, not avoidance.

If there’s no connection, proper research would reassure thousands of worried people. Instead, all we get is deflection.

I will continue to push for answers.

— February | Senate Estimates

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. The Cancer data in Australia 2025 report emphasises that cancers, including breast cancer, are being diagnosed more frequently in people in their 30s and 40s, with the share of all breast cancer diagnoses rising about 50 per cent over the last 20 years, which is stunning. Breast cancer is now the most commonly diagnosed cancer for women aged 20 to 39 and 40 to 59, which is surprising as well. Have you undertaken any analysis to cross-reference breast cancer in this younger cohort with lifestyle factors—drinking, prescription medications and so on? 

Dr Bolevich: We do indeed produce the report you’re talking about and have a unit within the institute that specialises in cancer data—its collection, national consistency around it and various types of analysis. We often make the data available to researchers. For the specific question you’re asking, I will defer to my colleague.  

Ms Gates: As you said, we produce that information about cancer. We sometimes look at lifestyle factors. Specifically, it depends on what information we have around the connection between having a lifestyle factor, such as risk factors around smoking or other risk factors—I haven’t got to hand anything directly that we’ve done in relation to breast cancer.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice, to give us a range of what you provide in terms of lifestyle factors like drinking, prescription medications and so on?  

Dr Bolevich: We can take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’d just like to see what you’ve got available; thank you. The American Cancer Society call this ‘early onset breast cancer’. Specifically, have you cross-referenced breast cancer in this younger cohort with COVID vaccination status?  

Dr Bolevich: No, we haven’t done that kind of work.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why not?  

Dr Bolevich: I think we have provided updates to this committee on previous occasions about the work we’ve done to create some data infrastructure that will enable various types of research to occur. That infrastructure is now largely in place, and we would expect that over time people will undertake various types of analyses using that data and other data that’s available to them. But the institute itself has not undertaken that specific type of research.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re more the constructor of the database and the ability to cross-reference, but it will be up to someone else who wants to do that to do it?  

Ms Hermann: Cancer Australia is undertaking a piece of work at the moment, directed by the minister, to look at the impacts of early onset cancer, including looking at lifestyle factors and other factors that may be influencing earlier rates of cancer in Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about COVID vaccination status?  

Ms Hermann: I don’t think that’s included in what they’re looking at.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m surprised, given what’s in the public domain about that. Have you cross-referenced COVID vaccination status with any health outcome and any demographic?  

Ms Gates: We have looked at vaccination status in terms of rates and that sort of thing, but, no, we haven’t looked at that in terms of any associations.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m surprised, because of the news that’s travelling around about that, including from many scientists. COVID injections were the most significant health response in Australian history, coming at a significant cost to the taxpayer and involving a significant level of coercion which, in hindsight, was not justified by the risk. The news about AstraZeneca and even the Pfizer shots, and the concerns, came out very early. There’s a widely-held belief that the vaccines caused adverse events, and nothing but denials has come from the government—and not just this government but the previous government as well. If you have nothing to hide, Minister, why are you not doing the research which would confirm or disprove the link between COVID vaccination and adverse events, which would put a lot of people at ease?  

Senator Green: The department and the officials have explained to you that there is work being undertaken on a range of research projects that look into trends in health care. Whether or not that’s post COVID-19, there’s a lot of time still to go before we see what that research might be. But the systems are being set up, and I’m sure that if there are any updates they’ll give them to you first and foremost.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s most unlike you, Minister, because it sounds like a lot of fluff. Is your government afraid of confirming that COVID shots cause early onset cancer? To me, people who have got cancer have got that thought in their mind; it’s right through the community. People are worried, and if there is no connection it would be wonderful to take that off their burden. It sounds like, ‘Bugger the people; just get on with the job and keep hiding it.’ Senator Green: I think the most important thing to do is to listen to the experts.  

Senator ROBERTS: And common sense and what people in the street are saying.  

Senator Green: And the health experts—particularly the health experts.  

/by