Posts

Mandates Must Go for Defence Service

,

I questioned the Department of Defence regarding their ongoing COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

Other major institutions, like the Federal Police, have dropped these requirements, acknowledging that the evidence on safety and efficacy has shifted significantly.

While the Surgeon General tried to frame these injections as “recommended” not “mandatory” for general staff, the reality is that vaccine mandates are still hanging over the heads of our defence members.I don’t care where a soldier is stationed in the world; if a treatment isn’t proven safe or effective, our defence personnel shouldn’t be forced to take it just to keep their jobs.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’d like to move to vaccine mandates. The Australian Federal Police and other major Commonwealth institutions have removed their mandates for COVID-19 injections on the basis that resulting major health problems from the injections contrasted with very few benefits from the injections, which evidence now shows are neither safe nor effective. Does the Department of Defence still mandate COVID-19 vaccination for employees?  

Adm. Johnston: Senator Roberts, the Surgeon General will come to the table to talk through our vaccine approach. While the Surgeon General is getting to her notes, Senator Roberts, as you would appreciate, the employment basis for the Australian Federal Police is largely domestic and delivered in a very different health environment to that which the ADF often finds itself, particularly when we are overseas or operating in very remote or austere occasions. So the circumstances of what law enforcement agencies might do or those agencies based domestically in Australia might do are not equivalent to the employment circumstances our people are often in.  

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that, Admiral Johnston. As I said in the last phrase of my concluding sentence, these are injections ‘which evidence now shows are neither safe nor effective’. I don’t care where they are on the planet. They’re neither safe or effective, and that’s now accepted.  

Rear Adm. Bennett: There are two aspects with respect to vaccinations, and I think your question is specifically around the COVID vaccine?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Do you still mandate COVID-19 vaccination for employees?  

Rear Adm. Bennett: Defence routinely vaccinates our personnel both on entry and annually for certain vaccines, and then there are also operational requirements for vaccination that might be specified on an operational health support order. With respect to the COVID vaccine, on entry we follow the national advice, from the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, around recommendations for vaccines. Defence’s approach has changed over time as those recommendations have changed. The COVID vaccine is safe and effective, but the need for vaccination has changed as the virus has changed, as the prevalence of the virus in our community has changed and as the population’s immunity has changed as they’ve either had COVID or received vaccines. We follow the current recommendations, which I could describe: primary course is still recommended, but an annual booster is recommended for certain populations at risk or for people who, on discussion with their own treating clinician, would like to protect themselves from the virus that year.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does that mean it’s voluntary?  

Rear Adm. Bennett: It is recommended, but it’s not mandatory. That’s correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you’ve ended the mandates  

Rear Adm. Bennett: There are two aspects, as I said: on entry and routinely. On operations, there has been an order for vaccination because, as you can appreciate, when personnel go on deployment they are often living together in close quarters and there are different viruses circulating depending on where an operation occurs. The risks of people becoming unwell are much greater, both for themselves and for their mates. But, having said that, with the shift in the virus, Joint Health Command, my team, is consulting with the service chiefs to consider how they feel about the removal of that mandate and about looking at operations on a case-by-case basis—so, should there be a risk, considering what vaccinations may be warranted then. That work’s currently underway.  

Senator ROBERTS: How do you assess the risks? Whose medical advice do you take?  

Rear Adm. Bennett: ATAGI’s—the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation. We follow their advice on all vaccinations and then consider our own needs for vaccination.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you ever go against ATAGI?  

Rear Adm. Bennett: No—well, it depends on what you mean ‘against’. We may go beyond. ATAGI don’t just look at safety and efficacy; they look at the cost to the system. For those vaccines that are recommended, for instance, on the National Immunisation Program, we may provide more routinely in Defence for our personnel because, again, of those operational and other aspects.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that there are significant risks to healthy young people and that many other Commonwealth entities, including the Australian Federal Police, have now revoked their vaccine mandates?  

Rear Adm. Bennett: Nearly all states and territories and organisations have revoked mandates. That’s not all on safety; it’s on need as well. All vaccines do have an adverse-effect profile, and part of vaccination is the clinician understanding that profile and informing each individual, case by case, of what that is. The balance of benefits versus risk is considered always in vaccination. As far as COVID goes, the recommendations provided are that, on balance, the benefits of vaccinating people at risk and others are considered to outweigh what is a small incidence of adverse side effects. 

/2 Comments/by

COVID Testing: The Truth They Tried to Hide

A peer-reviewed, published study has revealed some astonishing findings—though they come as no surprise to supporters of One Nation. The study found that only 14% of adults who were diagnosed with COVID using a PCR test went on to actually develop COVID, based on their blood antibodies.

This study is a slam dunk: PCR tests were misused to “show” a pandemic, when the actual infection rate was much closer to that of a bad flu outbreak.

There was criticism at the time about using PCR tests for this purpose from the man who invented them—Kary Mullis, whose invention earned him a Nobel Prize. The world should have listened, yet health authorities were more interested in manufacturing a pandemic that didn’t exist, to further their own power and sell products for the pharmaceutical industry.

This was criminal. The countless hours of work lost, the loss of income that went with that, the cost to small businesses, and the disruption and isolation caused by lockdowns and unnecessary isolation for false positives is a scandal that demands a Royal Commission. It was a deliberate decision to misuse PCR tests, followed by another deliberate decision to cover up the disparity between PCR test results and actual infection rates by claiming people could spread COVID without having symptoms. Shameful!

Another significant finding from the study: one year into COVID, just before the vaccine rollout, 25% of the German adult population already had natural immunity. A quarter of the population didn’t need the “vaccine” — and as the next year rolled on, the figure for natural immunity would have increased. We don’t have the data to prove this because the German government, along with other governments worldwide—including Australia—stopped collecting data to prevent their lies from being discovered.

We have enough evidence anyway. One Nation demands a Royal Commission into COVID now.

https://senroberts.com/4oSwb3D

/4 Comments/by

Lockdowns Next Time? Maybe Not

,

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.  

/by

Patients First – Not Profits or Mandates

✅ 100% agree!

Sourced from Secretary Kennedy on X @SecKennedy:

Medical decisions should be made based on one thing: the wellbeing of the person—never on a financial bonus or a government mandate.

Doctors deserve the freedom to use their training, follow the science, and speak the truth without fear of punishment.

/3 Comments/by

Podcast with Dr David Martin and Dr Phillip Altman

, ,

Ever wonder how we ended up where we are today, both as a nation and in the West? Curious about what the future holds?

In today’s show, we’re diving deep into the last 60 years to make sense of the present and uncover what’s ahead.

We all have stories about the contradictions, the government lies, and the misinformation surrounding COVID—from exaggerated fears to the low severity of the virus, all amplified by propaganda.

To help us navigate this, we’ve got an expert who can explain it all: Dr. David Martin.

With unmatched experience in medicine, healthcare, national governance, finance, research, and industry, Dr. Martin is one of the most qualified voices to shed light on the truth. He’ll be sharing his knowledge and offering a platform for facts over ideologies.

A data-driven expert, David has been uncovering the truth since the anthrax scare. He’s not interested in opinions, just the facts.

Joining me in this discussion is Dr. Philip Altman, an Australian pharmacologist with a deep knowledge of Big Pharma. With 40 years of experience, Dr. Altman has seen it all.

Tune in for a powerful conversation.

/6 Comments/by

Labor Rejects Call for Royal Commission into COVID-19 Response

,

Last year I was successful in having the Senate inquire into the prospective terms of reference for a Royal Commission into the government response to COVID-19. The Inquiry was held in good faith by Senator Scarr and I thank everyone concerned for their work, which produced a 128 page report full of honesty, decency and common sense. After hearing and reading testimony from multiple highly qualified witnesses, every one of whom called for a Royal Commission.

The Committee recommended a Royal Commission be held and included a comprehensive Terms of Reference that would have uncovered the truth. Last week, the Government provided a response to the Inquiry Report, which stated that the Government does not support a Royal Commission, does not support working with the States to review COVID, does not support the proposed terms of reference and does not support you, the public, having further involvement in the inquiry process.

This is the same Labor Party that took one million dollars from the pharmaceutical industry in 2022/23, including large donations from Pfizer and Astra Zeneca.

Do we have the best government money can buy? You decide.

Transcript

I move: 

That the Senate take note of the document. 

I wish to comment on Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee report COVID-19 Royal Commission. Last year, I was successful in having the Senate inquire into the prospective terms of reference for a royal commission into the government response to COVID-19. The inquiry was held, and I thank Senator Paul Scarr for his even-handed treatment of the process and for producing with the secretariat at an excellent report—outstanding! After hearing and reading testimony from multiple highly qualified witnesses, every one of whom called for a royal commission, the committee did, in fact, recommend a royal commission be held. Their report was 128 pages of honesty, decency and common sense. 

Last week, the government provided its response to the report—one-and-a-bit pages. Here’s what it says: ‘The government does not support a royal commission. The government does not support working with the state governments on an inquiry. The government does not support the proposed terms of reference. The government does not support any further public involvement in the inquiry process.’ How can we have an investigation when the government says it does not support working with the state governments, yet it’s got an inquiry underway right now that is not considering the state governments. Instead, the Albanese Labor government will continue with their cover-up inquiry, comprised of two bureaucrats and a university academic closely involved in the COVID response. Shame! The government is letting bureaucrats and academics investigate themselves. What a disgrace! It is betrayal. It’s inhuman.  

During the last election campaign, the Prime Minister promised a royal commission or similar inquiry. A Senate select committee inquiry would fit that description. Then Senator Gallagher promised us a royal commission. No wonder the public distrust politicians, when two promises that were as clear as day were broken the minute the Labor Party came to power. It does raise this question, though: what was the motivation for the government to proceed with a cover-up instead of its promised judicial inquiry? Could it be the donations the Labor Party received from the pharmaceutical industry in the last election?  

Here’s the list from the Australian Electoral Commission of donations made to the Australian Labor Party in 2022-23: AbbVie, the makers of leuprorelin, a puberty blocker, $14,000; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, $33,000; Amgen biopharmaceuticals, $27,500; Aspen Medical, $83,000; AstraZeneca, $33,000, and isn’t there a huge conflict of interest in refusing to investigate them; Bayer, $33,000; Bristol-Myers, $52,000; HA Tech pharmaceuticals, $54,000; and Johnson Johnson pharmaceuticals, $36,000. Kerching, kerching, kerching! The cash register at the Labor Party is ticking over. Here are more donations: Merck Sharpe Dohme, $66,000; Navitas, $33,000; Pfizer, $25,000—another cash register kerchinging. There was Roche, $66,000; Sanofi-Aventis, $42,000; Pharmacy Guild of Australia, who enjoyed years of profit dispensing high-paying COVID injections, $154,000; and Medicines Australia, the peak lobbying body for the pharmaceutical industry, which just gave the former head of the TGA, Professor Skerritt, a job as a director, donated $112,000 to the Labor Party campaign funds—kerching! Including smaller donations, the Labor Party raked in almost a million dollars from pharmaceutical companies and associated favours bought. It’s not just big pharma, either. Remember when you couldn’t get COVID at Bunnings, yet you could get it at your neighbourhood hardware store? Governments forced many hardware stores to stop business during lockdowns, and they went broke while Bunnings grew its market share. Then they set up vaccination stations in their car parks. I know many people thought that was odd, so let’s look at this list of donations. The owners of Bunnings, Wesfarmers, donated $110,000. For completeness, let me list One Nation’s pharma donations in 2022-23: none! There was not one donation from the pharmaceutical industry, the banking industry, the healthcare industry or the net-zero industry. Why? It’s because One Nation is not for sale. 

I will now review what the government is covering up with their refusal to hold a COVID royal commission. This is based on expert witness testimony to the committee inquiry and on peer-reviewed papers and data analysis which have come out since the inquiry. Firstly, testimony before America’s congress proves SARS-CoV-2 was the product of gain-of-function research, with funding from Anthony Fauci’s National Institutes of Health, managed through Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance. The research started in the USA, and when President Obama banned gain-of-function research, it was moved to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China. But the research continued secretly and illegally in North Carolina. We know that. In 2021, Australia’s CSIRO confirmed it assisted in the Wuhan research. We’re complicit. 

Secondly, the official timeline for COVID is wrong. The University of Siena in Italy sequenced COVID on 10 October 2019. Unconfirmed reports persist of three lab technicians from Wuhan lab presenting with flu-like symptoms to a hospital in Wuhan in mid-September 2019. Those three were COVID patients ‘zero’. Wuhan has 90 direct overseas flights a day, including five a day into Italy and five a day into Australia, where symptomatic infections started showing up around the end of December 2019. This means that, in October 2019, when the Bill Melinda Gates Foundation sponsored the COVID-themed Event 201 war game that the World Economic Forum organised, COVID was alive in public. Note that the Nobel Prize winning virologist Luc Montagnier sequenced COVID in April 2020 and found: ‘It is not natural. It’s the work of professionals and of molecular biologists—a very meticulous work.’ Luc declared the virus was a combination of the original man-made SARS virus, parts of the HIV virus and a bat virus which was there to fool the body’s immune system into thinking it had never seen the virus before and as a result had no immune response to it. 

The fact the virus escaped before it could be perfected has saved billions of lives. What they tried to do was evil personified. Here is an example. The RNA genome of SARS-CoV-2 consists of 30,000 nucleotides and 11 major coding genes. Pfizer, BioNTech and Moderna took the 4,284 nucleotides constituting the spike protein. At positions K986P and V987P, they introduced mutations to stimulate increased production of human antibodies. Those spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2 are involved in receptor recognition, viral attachment and entry into the host cells. The last part is significant. Both COVID itself and the mutated vaccine material enter human cells. There’s certainty on this point. These COVID vaccines are gene therapies yet are not regulated as such. No safety testing was done on the long-term effect of introducing a mutated COVID DNA strand into the human genome. 

Secondly, Oxford University investigated brain injury from COVID. It mapped the brains of 785 participants and waited for them to get COVID; 401 obliged, creating a control of 384. All were scanned a second time, and any brain function difference was attributed to COVID spike proteins. Oxford University found: ‘significant longitudinal effects, including a reduction in grey matter thickness and tissue contrast, changes in markers of tissue damage in regions functionally connected to the olfactory function and a reduction in global brain size in the SARS-CoV-2 cases. The participants who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 showed on average a greater cognitive decline between the two time points.’ The paper concluded these results may indicate degenerative spread of the disease through olfactory pathways through the nose. Doctors who advocated for nasal preparations were actually right. The nose turns out to be the key. One study found 471 bacterial agents in 171 face masks, many of which had high resistance to antibiotics. This was an important issue for the royal commission to understand. Thirdly, Yonker et al. from Massachusetts General Hospital tested young people presenting with chest pains and found free spike antigen was detected in the blood of adolescents and young adults who developed post-mRNA-vaccine myocarditis, linking the shots with heart disease in the young. Fourthly, we knew as early as November 2021 that spike protein could build up in the lungs, heart, kidney and liver, causing an inflammatory response, yet we kept injecting spike proteins into people, including children, over and over. Now they’re dying suddenly and doctors are baffled—the hell they’re baffled. 

Fifthly, SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins, meaning most likely the shots as well, have serious effects on the vasculature of multiple organ systems, including the brain. Outcomes include fatal microclot formation and, in rare cases, encephalitis. Wait a minute. Isn’t New South Wales now urging parents to vaccinate their children against a sudden outbreak of encephalitis? COVID and COVID shots are the same man-made poison, yet we never tested the shots long enough to reveal that. Now people are dying and suffering life-altering disease while we continue to inject the public with boosters containing the very substance that is causing these deaths and injuries. 

Today I’m announcing that, in the first week of December, I will be conducting the third of my full-day reviews of COVID, to be called ‘COVID in trial’. I promise to hound those responsible— 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Allman-Payne): Thank you, Senator Roberts. Do you wish to seek leave to continue your remarks? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I seek leave to continue my remarks. 

Leave granted. 

References

https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing‐wrap‐up‐dr‐fauci‐held‐publicly‐accountable‐by‐select‐subcommittee/

https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/news/2021/june/response‐to‐the‐australian‐25‐june‐2021

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8778320/

https://www.weforum.org/press/2019/10/live‐simulation‐exercise‐to‐prepare‐public‐and‐private‐leaders‐for‐pandemic‐response/

http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020‐04/21/c_138995413.htm

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/prca.202300048

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586‐022‐04569‐5

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9883076/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36597886/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003‐021‐02856‐x

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33053430

/15 Comments/by

COVID-19 Commission of Inquiry Blocked!

,

Recently, I co-sponsored a Bill to establish a Senate Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 and the government’s response. A Senate Commission of Inquiry is similar to a Royal Commission.

It’s extraordinary that Australia’s most costly and far reaching government response since WWII has not been subjected to an inquiry. This is more than likely because of the serious mistakes made, including poor judgments and instances of cronyism in both the government and the health industry.

I spoke in favour of the Bill, but it was voted down by globalist Liberals and, unsurprisingly, the corporate lackies in the Labor Party. The Greens chose to abstain.

One Nation remains committed to securing a thorough Commission of Inquiry into both the disastrous government response and the origins of COVID-19 itself.

How They Voted

Transcript

One Nation strongly supports the COVID-19 Response Commission of Inquiry Bill 2024, which I’ve proudly co-sponsored. To use the words of a former prime minister, ‘It’s time.’ It’s time to accept our duty is to the Australian people, not to ourselves and our colleagues. It’s time for courage and for truth.  

My Senate office held the first inquiry into COVID and response measures, called COVID Under Question, on 23 March 2022; a second was held on 17 August of the same year. Witnesses included Australian and international experts on health and the relatives of people that the COVID vaccine injections killed or maimed. All aspects of Australia’s COVID response were questioned. Several political parties participated, making it a truly non-partisan, cross-party inquiry. Because of the two full days of testimony at these hearings my decision-making has been better informed ever since. And that’s what senators must do: inform ourselves. 

The increasing interest from mainstream media in reporting the harm our COVID measures have caused indicates time is running out for those engaging in a cover-up. The public remains deeply dissatisfied and gravely concerned about state and federal governments’ COVID response. The people have many questions to be answered before trust can be restored in federal and state governments, politicians, health departments and agencies, medical professionals, medical professions, the media and pharmaceutical companies. 

I find it surprising our health bureaucrats and politicians oppose a judicial inquiry into COVID. After listening to their responses in Senate estimates hearings over the last four years, it’s clear they do not want to admit to a single mistake. In fact, their answers suggest they consider their performance exemplary, worthy of medals and parades. The United Kingdom even called upon the whole country to stand every Thursday evening on their front doorsteps and applaud their health professionals. Can you believe that? The inventor of the Moderna vaccine was given a stage-managed standing ovation at Wimbledon. Certainly, big pharma thought so highly of the head of our TGA, Therapeutic Goods Administration, Professor Skerritt, that they offered him a thankyou job on the board of Medicines Australia, which, despite the grandiose name, is the main pharmaceutical industry lobby group—heady days, indeed. Those days are over. That’s it! To those in this place fighting a rearguard action against the tidal wave of knowledge and accountability, it must now be clear to you that the battle is lost. Public anger is not going away; it’s here to stay until you restore trust. Trust in the medical profession is lower than at any time I can recall, and I fear where that will lead if not corrected. 

Every new unexplained death and every new heartbreak increases public realisation of what was done to our people in Australia. Despite the statistical sleight of hand, excess deaths are not falling. The genetic timebomb of mRNA vaccines is still ticking. More people are dying and more will die. The failure of our regulatory authorities to protect us is a crime. Approving a novel vaccine that killed people is a crime—homicide. Banning existing products that had proven efficacy and safety in order to drive sales of the so-called vaccine is a crime. Finally, covering up this corrupt process is a crime. 

Those who approved the vaccine knew, or rightly should have known, it was a gene therapy of a type which has failed a generation of safety testing. Five United States states—Texas, Utah, Kansas, Mississippi and Louisiana—are currently suing Pfizer for knowingly concealing vaccine caused myocarditis, pericarditis, failed pregnancies and deaths. The complaints allege Pfizer falsely claimed that its vaccine retained high efficacy against variants, despite knowing the reverse to be true—that is, protection dropped quickly over time, and the vaccine did not protect against new variants. Marketing the vaccine as safe and effective, despite its known risks, is a violation of consumer law in these five states. 

The lawsuit alleges that Pfizer engaged in censorship with social media companies to silence people criticising its safety and efficacy claims, proof of which has been public knowledge since Elon Musk released the Twitter files in December 2022. The lawsuit charges civil conspiracy between Pfizer, the US Department of Health and Human Services and others ‘to wilfully conceal, suppress or omit material facts relating to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.’ Under America’s PREP Act, Pfizer has indemnity for injuries. That indemnity is invalidated through making false and misleading claims. 

The reason this relates to Australia and to Australians is our contract with Pfizer, which provided indemnity against injury, can be negated through Pfizer’s misconduct, and misconduct there was, as I’m sure this commission of inquiry will discover. To taxpayers wondering why the expense of this inquiry is needed, here’s a thought: if we have a chance to move the cost of vaccine harm from the taxpayer to the perpetrator, we must take that opportunity. The guilty should pay; taxpayers should not pay. 

The grand jury evidence gathered to prepare the United States court case from the five states that I mentioned earlier applies to Australia as well. It makes for horrifying reading. First, Pfizer’s chairman and CEO, Dr Bourla, a veterinarian, not a doctor, declined government funding in order to prevent the government’s ability to oversee the vaccine development, testing and manufacture. That’s not something one does with a safe and properly made product. Second, Pfizer’s independence from Operation Warp Speed allowed it to demand a ‘tailor-made contract’ that did not include the normal clauses protecting taxpayers’ interests. Third, the investigation found Pfizer wilfully concealed, suppressed and omitted safety and efficacy data relating to its COVID-19 vaccine and kept them hidden through confidentiality agreements. Fourth, Pfizer had a written agreement with the United States government that Pfizer had to approve any messaging around the vaccine. I suspect the inquiry will find the same arrangement applied in Australia. In effect, Pfizer told our regulators what to say about their product. 

Fifth, Pfizer used an extended study timeline to conceal critical data relating to the safety and effectiveness of its COVID-19 vaccine. The study timeline was repeatedly pushed out to avoid revealing the results of the clinical trials until after billions of doses had been given. I’ll say that again: they avoided revealing the results of the clinical trials until after billions of doses had been given. Sixth, instead, Pfizer submitted a Hollywood version of the safety trials, which showed efficacy and safety that their real trials did not have—and our state and federal health authorities bought it. 

Seventh, we’re three years into COVID and scientists still can’t review Pfizer’s COVID-19 raw trial data. Eighth, so, when Professor Skerritt said in Senate estimates hearings that the TGA, the Therapeutic Goods Administration—his Therapeutic Goods Administration—had analysed all of the trial data, that was a lie. They used Pfizer’s special data. 

Ninth, Pfizer kept its COVID-19 vaccine’s true effects hidden through destroying the trial control group, invalidating the whole study. This was not gold standard research; this was dangerous and fraudulent behaviour. Tenth, Pfizer rigged the trial through excluding individuals who had been diagnosed with COVID-19, who were immunocompromised, pregnant or breastfeeding, or who were simply unwell. Why did the TGA claim the vaccine was safe for these very people when the vaccine was not tested on these people? Eleventh, the statement that the vaccine worked even if you already had COVID is therefore a lie, and yet that lie was used to expand the market and make more money. 

Twelfth, Pfizer maintained its own secret adverse events database, which was obtained in court process, and showed in the first three months of the rollout 158,893 adverse events resulted, including 1,223 deaths. Thirteenth, Pfizer was receiving so many adverse event reports that it had to hire 600 additional, full-time staff. It hired 600 extra people to monitor the adverse event reports. 

And, finally, while Pfizer tested its COVID-19 vaccine on healthy individuals in 2020, Pfizer and its partner, BioNTech, quietly tested its COVID-19 vaccine on pregnant rats. Test rats produced foetuses with severe soft tissue and skeletal malformations, failed to become pregnant and failed to implant embryos at more than double the control group rate. That’s amongst other side effects. Some rats lost their entire litter. Pfizer did not issue a press release announcing the rat fertility study’s findings. And when they were asked, they lied about the outcome. I can’t help but think about women, humans, suffering as a result of this. We know that. 

The United States is achieving what Australia is not—rigorous inquiry and testing of the law. What are you afraid of? In Australia, this is behaviour which, under normal circumstances, would already have resulted in a commission of inquiry. Our delay in calling that inquiry damns us. Other nations are now ahead of us. South Korea has produced a study which analysed 4.3 million individuals—4.3 million!—comparing the rates of various new medical conditions in vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups over three months. The study revealed that the vaccinated experienced a 138 per cent increase in mild cognitive impairment, a 93 per cent increase in sleep disorders, a 23 per cent rise in Alzheimer’s disease, a 44 per cent rise in anxiety and related disorders and a 68 per cent rise in depression. 

In Australia, following my questions to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare at the inquiry into excess mortality in Australia, evidence was presented that the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare could have done this same research. It chose not to. Our health authorities are not conducting this research because they don’t want to know the answer. They want to hide from the truth, hide from the homicide that’s been caused in this country. I ask the Senate to pass this bill so we can get the answers ourselves, which is, as senators, our sworn duty.  

/by

COVID Update No. 5

In March 2022, my office conducted an inquiry titled “COVID Under Question” to examine COVID and the response measures. Another inquiry was held in August of the same year. Witnesses included Australian and international health experts, as well as individuals or loved ones who were impacted by the jabs. The inquiry scrutinised all facets of Australia’s COVID response, involving politicians from multiple parties, ensuring a genuinely non-partisan cross-party inquiry.

Channel 7’s Spotlight program revealed widespread public dissatisfaction and concern with the government’s COVID response. Many people are expressing anger and have numerous unresolved questions. Rebuilding trust in federal and state governments, politicians, health departments, medical professionals, media, and pharmaceutical companies cannot happen without fully addressing these concerns.

Call a COVID Royal Commission now!

Transcript

My Senate office held the first inquiry into COVID and response measures, called COVID Under Question, on Wednesday 23 March 2022. Another was held on Wednesday 17 August of the same year. Witnesses included Australian and international experts on health and relatives of people that the COVID injections killed or maimed. All aspects of Australia’s COVID response were questioned. Politicians from several parties participated, making it a true non-partisan cross-party inquiry. 

Because of the two full days of testimony at these inquiries, my decision-making has been much better informed. That’s what a senator must do. I acknowledge the support of my wife, Christine, as our office team’s workload increased in response to the many serious breaches of Australians’ rights and tens of thousands of deaths due to mandated COVID injections. 

Our aim is to restore our country and our planet for humans to abound and flourish. Channel 7’s Spotlight program two nights ago revealed that the public remains very deeply dissatisfied and concerned about governments’ COVID response. Many are angry. The people have many questions to be answered before trust can be restored in federal and state governments, in politicians, in health departments and agencies, in medical professions, in media and in pharmaceutical companies. 

Across Australia, citizens are waking, making an effort to understand for themselves and for Australia. Generally speaking, people are wonderful and deserve to have their needs and expectations of governments met. Citizens are our constitutional democracy’s highest order. As servants to the people, it’s our duty as their representatives to address their questions and concerns. I find it surprising that our health bureaucrats and politicians oppose a judicial inquiry into COVID. Listening to their responses in Senate estimates over the last four years, it’s clear they desperately do not betray they’ve made a single mistake. In fact, their answers suggest their performance has been exemplary—worthy of medals and parades. The United Kingdom even called upon the whole country to stand on their front doorsteps and applaud their health professionals every Thursday evening. The inventor of the Moderna vaccine was given a staged standing ovation at Wimbledon. Certainly, big pharma thought so highly of the head of the TGA, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, Professor Skerritt, that they offered him a thankyou job on the board of Medicines Australia—which, despite the grandiose name, is the main pharmaceutical industry lobby group. Heady days, indeed. Those days are over as the reality of their incompetence, self-interest and lies comes home to roost. 

To those in this place fighting a rearguard action against a tidal wave of knowledge and accountability, it must be clear to you now that the battle is lost. Public anger is not going away; widespread and deep anger remains. Trust in the medical profession is lower than at any time I can recall. I fear where that will lead if it’s not corrected. 

Every new unexplained death and every new heartbreak increases public realisation of what was done to the people. Excess deaths, despite statistical sleight of hand, are not falling. The genetic timebomb of mRNA vaccines is still ticking. More people are dying and more will die. The failure of our regulatory authorities to protect us is a crime. Approving a vaccine—a novel vaccine that killed people—is a crime. Banning existing products that have proven efficacy and safety in order to drive sales of a so-called vaccine is a crime. Covering up this corrupt process is a crime. This is homicide. Those who approved the vaccine knew, or rightly should have known, it was a gene therapy—an experimental gene therapy of a type which has failed a generation of safety testing. 

Five United States states—Texas, Utah, Kansas, Mississippi and Louisiana—are currently suing Pfizer for knowingly concealing that the vaccine caused myocarditis, pericarditis, failed pregnancies and deaths. The complaints allege Pfizer falsely claimed that its vaccine retained high efficacy against variants despite knowing the reverse was true: protection dropped quickly over time, and it did not protect against new variants. Marketing the vaccine as safe and effective despite its known risks is a violation of consumer law in all five of those states. The lawsuit alleges Pfizer engaged in censorship with social media companies to silence people who were criticising its safety and efficacy claims and who even dared to question them—proof of which has been public knowledge since Elon Musk released the Twitter files in December 2022. 

The lawsuit charges civil conspiracy between Pfizer, the US Department of Health and Human Services and others ‘to wilfully conceal, suppress or omit material facts relating to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine’. While Pfizer has indemnity for injuries, under the PREP Act, that indemnity is invalidated through making false and misleading claims. The reason this relates to Australia as well is that our contract with Pfizer, which provided indemnity against injury, can be negated through misconduct from Pfizer, and misconduct there was. Surely, if we have a chance to move the cost of vaccine harm from the taxpayer to the perpetrator, we must take that opportunity. Citizens of Australia deserve this. 

Evidence for this lawsuit in the United States was gathered during a grand jury investigation and has now been presented to the Supreme Court of the United States, the ultimate court. It makes for horrifying reading. One, Pfizer’s chairman and CEO, Dr Bourla—a veterinarian, not a doctor—declined government funding in order to prevent the government’s ability to oversee the development, testing and manufacture of the vaccine. That’s not something someone does with a safe and properly made product. Two, Pfizer’s independence from Operation Warp Speed allowed it to demand a tailor made contract that did not include the normal clauses protecting taxpayers’ interest. Three, contrary to its representations, Pfizer has wilfully concealed, suppressed and omitted safety and efficacy data relating to its COVID-19 vaccine and has kept data hidden through confidentiality agreements—it kept it hidden. Four, Pfizer had a written agreement with the United States government that Pfizer had to approve any messaging around the vaccine. A judicial inquiry can determine if such a clause was in the Australian agreement as well.  

Five, Pfizer used an extended study timeline to conceal critical data relating to the effectiveness and safety of its COVID-19 vaccine. The study timetable was repeatedly pushed out to avoid revealing the results of the clinical trials until after billions of doses had been given. Six, instead Pfizer submitted a ‘Hollywood’ version of the safety trials, which showed efficacy and safety data that their real trials did not, and our health authorities bought it. 

Seven, we’re three years into COVID, and scientists still can’t review Pfizer’s COVID-19 raw trial data. Eight, so, when Professor Skerritt said in Senate estimates that the TGA had analysed all of the trial data, that was a lie. They used Pfizer’s ‘special’ data. Nine, Pfizer kept the true effects of its COVID-19 vaccine hidden by destroying the trial control group, invalidating the study. This was not gold-standard research. This was dangerous and fraudulent behaviour. 

Ten, Pfizer rigged the trial by excluding individuals who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 or who were immunocompromised, pregnant, breastfeeding or simply unwell. Why did the TGA claim the vaccine was safe for these people when the vaccine was not even tested on these people? Eleven, the statement that the vaccine worked even if you already had COVID is therefore a lie, yet that expanded the potential market. Twelve, Pfizer maintained its own secret adverse-events database, which was obtained in court processes and showed that, in the first three months of the rollout, 159,000 adverse events had resulted, including 1,223 deaths.  

Thirteen, Pfizer was receiving so many adverse-event reports that it had to hire 600 additional full-time staff. Fourteen, while Pfizer tested its COVID-19 vaccine on healthy individuals in 2020, Pfizer and its partner, BioNTech, quietly tested its COVID-19 vaccine on pregnant rats. Subjects had fetuses with severe soft-tissue and skeletal malformations, and some subjects failed, at more than double the rate of the control group, to become pregnant and to implant embryos, amongst other side effects. Some rats lost their entire litter. Pfizer did not issue a press release announcing the rat fertility study findings, and it lied about the outcome. 

My 10 minutes is almost done, and I’m only up to page 24 of the 179-page brief of evidence. There are another 155 pages yet to cover. If it’s not clear to the listeners by now, the vaccine was criminal fraud. I have plenty more to share with you. 

The last word for today is from South Korea, where a study analysed 4.3 million individuals over three months, comparing the rates of various new medical conditions in vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups. The study revealed that the vaccinated experienced a 138 per cent increase in mild cognitive impairment, a 23 per cent rise in Alzheimer’s disease, a 68 per cent rise in depression, a 44 per cent rise in anxiety and related disorders and a 93 per cent increase in sleep disorders.  

In Australia, following my questions to the Institute of Health and Welfare at the inquiry into excess mortality in Australia, evidence was presented that the Institute of Health and Welfare could have done this same research. It chose not to. Our health authorities are not conducting this research because they don’t want to know the answer. They want to avoid the answer and hide the answer. A judicial inquiry is needed to get to the truth, and I call on Prime Minister Albanese to call a royal commission immediately. 

/2 Comments/by

CASA Relied on Chief Medical Officer’s Advice Only

,

At the last estimates in May, I asked CASA which experts they had consulted for their advice. After some delay, CASA admitted they had relied solely on information from the Chief Medical Officer, without conducting any independent research. They stated their sources were limited to the TGA and FDA and that the only data used came from Pfizer, which has since admitted to numerous fatalities.

Ms. Spence said she was aware AstraZeneca had been withdrawn and that Novavax had also been withdrawn. However, she noted that there had been no reported adverse events in the cockpit.

I raised concerns about CASA’s varying health test requirements for pilots of large commercial aircraft versus small private planes and pointed out that these differing standards posed a risk in shared airspace.

Transcripts

ACTING CHAIR: Thank you to your legal officer. Senator Roberts?  

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Marcelja could not tell me the specific names of the experts upon which CASA relied for turning a blind eye to Qantas and Virgin on mandates, which weren’t government mandates. Dr Manderson, can you tell me specifically which medical experts you relied upon for allowing Qantas and Virgin to mandate the vaccines? Who gave you the advice? Dr Manderson: The chief health officer of Australia at the time would be one important name.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did you actually get his advice?  

Ms Spence: I think we have gone through this previously. I appreciate—  

Senator ROBERTS: That was with Mr Marcelja—  

Ms Spence: But I think what we—  

Senator ROBERTS: and he wouldn’t tell me the names of the chief medical officer—  

Ms Spence: Sorry, Senator. Do you want me to finish?  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you want me to allow you to keep interrupting?  

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, come on. You know that’s against standing orders.  

Senator ROBERTS: There’s been a lot of protection of—  

ACTING CHAIR: No. Allow Ms Spence to conclude her answer to your first question.  

Senator ROBERTS: She’s not answering my question; Dr Manderson is.  

ACTING CHAIR: I thought I heard Ms Spence, but—  

Senator ROBERTS: She interrupted.  

ACTING CHAIR: I’ll allow CASA to answer your question. CASA?  

Ms Spence: All I was going to say is that we’ve tried to explain before that we don’t get individual advice on specific issues; we rely on the advice of the health experts, and, in this case—as Dr Manderson has said—the chief health officer of Australia was basically a key source. But the TGA was also providing advice. I think we have actually put that in response to questions or in some of the Hansard previously.  

Senator ROBERTS: The reason I’m frying up is that Mr Marcelja said that it was the experts, and he wouldn’t name them, and the experts wouldn’t name them. And then we went to international experts, to I gave up. Your answer is the Chief Medical Officer—not the chief health officer. I presume you’re talking about the federal Chief Medical Officer.  

Ms Spence: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s important. The Chief Health Officer is—  

Mr Marcelja: Senator, perhaps you could refer me to your question specifically so that I’ve got in front of me what you’re talking about. What date was that? I’ve got the Hansard in front of me. 

Senator ROBERTS: I can’t remember the date.  

Mr Marcelja: You can’t remember it. My recollection of the conversation was that you were asking me on what basis we were taking the actions we were taking, and I told you that we were taking no actions to intervene in the Australian government’s response. The advice, as Dr Manderson pointed out, about Australia’s response was not being led by us; it was being led by health authorities. So we did not intervene and override the advice of Australia’s Chief Medical Officer or other health experts.  

Senator ROBERTS: You have told me that the buck ends here for aviation safety. You did not do any testing at high-altitude pressures, correct?  

Ms Spence: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: You just assumed Pfizer, the Chief Medical Officer and the TGA knew that the pressure would be okay at high altitude?  

Mr Marcelja: As I tried to explain a moment ago, what we’re interested in from a vaccination or medication perspective is: is it likely that you will get into a cockpit, have a sudden, incapacitating event and be unable to fly the plane? That’s our primary concern. For all vaccinations, including the vaccinations that were being—  

Senator ROBERTS: In the cockpit at altitude.  

Mr Marcelja: at altitude—our primary concern was whether that medication, the vaccination, would cause that event to happen. There is no evidence in Australia or anywhere around the world. We’ve checked with our regulatory authorities and colleagues in the US and Europe. There is no evidence of that event occurring anywhere in the world over the last several years. I think we were on pretty sound footing not to intervene and prevent a particular cohort of the population from being vaccinated when that’s not our role.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let me ask you a few more questions around that. I want you to remember at all times in your answers to me that, when it comes to safety, the buck stops with you, CASA. There is no high-altitude testing done that you’re aware of. Are you aware that the TGA, when I asked them what tests they did in Australia on the vaccines, said they did no tests and relied on the FDA? Are you aware of that?  

Mr Marcelja: I reiterate what I said. They are not matters for us. We look at it from an aviation safety lens. Dr Manderson has been involved in international panels looking at aviation safety on a number of different topics. I’m sure she can step you through that. There is no evidence whatsoever over several years now of there being an aviation safety risk. That’s our concern. Whether the vaccine has other effects or issues—  

Senator ROBERTS: You relied upon the TGA. That was one of the people you relied on.  

Ms Spence: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: The TGA admits it did no testing and that it relied upon the FDA. The FDA, prior to the TGA’s announcement, admitted that it did no testing and relied on—wait for it—Pfizer.  

Mr Marcelja: Are you suggesting—  

Senator ROBERTS: Now we find out Pfizer in their trials had hundreds of fatalities.  

Ms Spence: I don’t know how many times we can say this, but we treated the COVID vaccinations the same way we treat all vaccinations, and we don’t do individual, independent testing. But—  

Senator ROBERTS: Let me continue, then. Are you aware of AstraZeneca being withdrawn?  

Ms Spence: Yes, but I think—  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware—  

Ms Spence: Senator, sorry. I don’t think it’s quite as clear cut as saying it’s been withdrawn. They’re no longer using it. It wasn’t around inefficacy at the time, but now they’re no longer producing it. Yes, we are aware.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do blood clots say anything to you. What about Novavax? We understand that has been withdrawn just recently.  

Ms Spence: I wasn’t aware of that one.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Excess deaths, 13 per cent, in line with the COVID injections—before COVID outbreaks in Queensland and Western Australia—what would make you investigate whether or not pilots are suffering from COVID injection adverse events? Because you don’t do testing on pilots; you rely upon pilots to turn themselves in. What would make you investigate it?  

Ms Spence: The only thing that would make us investigate is if there was an adverse reaction in the cockpit which could be directly attributed to a COVID vaccination. 

Senator ROBERTS: What if I told you that pilots are telling us that they know of mates who have had adverse events but they won’t speak up for fear of losing their job?  

Ms Spence: I would encourage them to report through the confidential reporting arrangements that I mentioned, both with us and with the ATSB, because we are not getting those reports, and there are mechanisms for them to do that.  

Senator ROBERTS: With pilots losing their jobs, I wonder.  

Ms Spence: As I said, they’re confidential, so they don’t need to report who they work for—but just giving us the information, if that is actually occurring, would be incredibly beneficial.  

Senator ROBERTS: Given that CASA use Austroads fitness to drive as a guideline for recertification for TIA or stroke in class 5 medicals, on what are the class 1 and 2 medical recertification guidelines based, and do they differ from class 5 guidelines? If so, how and why?  

Ms Spence: The standards for class 1 and 2, which is the commercial pilot and the private pilot medical certificates, are based on the International Civil Aviation Organization medical standards for certification for pilots—for commercial and private. They are quite different to the domestic Australian class 5 medical certificate, which is not an ICAO certificate and doesn’t need to comply with those medical standards. So class 1 and class 2 reference the international pilot standards.  

Senator ROBERTS: And class 5—you make up the standards?  

Ms Spence: Class 5 medical standard was developed through really extensive consultation through technical working groups with both doctors and pilots, with operational input from pilots in particular. It also went through a really strong risk assessment process within CASA to determine what those standards should be, mapped against the risk treatments for the operational restrictions with the class 5.  

Senator ROBERTS: But my question was: CASA developed those standards? I’m not interested in the process. CASA developed those standards?  

Ms Spence: Yes, CASA developed those standards.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. CASA allow airlines to push pilots to the limit as a routine practice. This is facilitated by a concession given to the airlines masquerading as ‘fatigue risk management’. CASA have allowed airlines to use this system as a shield when continuing to roster pilots to fly unreasonably long hours. Do class 5 medical holders and class 1 and 2 medical holders operate in the same airspace?  

ACTING CHAIR: What are you quoting? I think the witnesses would like to see the source of that quote.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not quoting from anything here. My research assistant—  

ACTING CHAIR: I thought you were.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, I’m not quoting.  

ACTING CHAIR: Okay.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m just quoting the fatigue risk management title.  

Mr Marcelja: So, for the record, we don’t agree with the statement you just said.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Do class 5 medical holders and class 1 and 2 medical holders operate in the same airspace?  

Ms Spence: Yes, they do.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Is a class 5 medical holder a single pilot operation?  

Dr Manderson: Yes, it is.  

Mr Marcelja: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. You had some doubts, Dr Manderson?  

ACTING CHAIR: I think they answered the question.  

Dr Manderson: Sorry, only because I felt it was self-evident that—but, yes, it is.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you. So, if a class 5 medical holder with a recent history of stroke or TIA after four weeks of grounding is back in an aeroplane at the holding point at an airport and has a relapse, his or her aircraft taxis out in front of the landing heavy jet fully laden. Class 1 and 2 medical holders can operate with multicrew and autopilots as well as current pilots repositioning as passengers in the cabin on numerous flights. Class 5 pilots have no back-up. Is that correct so far?  

Ms Spence: Senator, I— 

Mr Marcelja: Perhaps you could repeat the question. I’m not sure what the question was in that.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve got a heavy laden jet coming in to land with class 1 and 2 medical holders, with other back-ups on their position, and we’ve got a class 5 just about to go in front of the path and they have a relapse.  

Ms Spence: It feels like you’re describing—without being derogatory—a weekend warrior landing in the same place as a large commercial air transport operator, and I’m just trying to—  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s continue then. We’ll get on to your weekend warriors. What value does CASA place on the designated medical examiner’s ability to diagnose and recertify pilots? And what situations require CASA to intervene with their diagnosis?  

Dr Manderson: So the designated aviation medical examiners are absolutely fundamental to us being able to make safe decisions about issuing medical certificates. They are the doctors that perform the examination and interact with the pilots and air traffic controllers at every medical certificate renewal application. We trust their assessment as clinicians as to whether or not there is any medically significant or safety relevant medical condition present in that pilot or air traffic controller applicant. We take their clinical information and their advice when we decide whether or not to issue a medical certificate.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why then is CASA advocating self-certification for class 5 medicals—as I understand it?  

Mr Marcelja: We are not advocating. What we’re presenting are options for different types of operations. So a pilot that chooses to operate with a single passenger in a light aircraft can choose a class 5 certificate or they can choose any other certificate. So we’re not advocating any particular medical. We’re creating options and different pathways for different pilots in different circumstances, and those circumstances are adjusted based on risk and the level of medical certification.  

Ms Spence: This is a matter that has been under debate for a number of years, around CASA being a proportionate regulator. Under the class 5 medical, we put restrictions on the way you can operate, therefore you can operate within those constraints and then we will review to see how that’s working over time. We’re monitoring it closely to make sure that we’re auditing people’s self-declarations and the like. So I think people do expect us to be a proportionate risk-based regulator, and I think the class 5 medical is an example of how we can do that.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I’m exploring here. I’m trying to understand. I’m not a pilot. Considering CASA AvMed can override opinions of consulting physicians and specialists during the medical renewal process, how could the view of a CASA AvMed doctor come to its own diagnosis of an individual pilot in the absence of face-to-face consultation and overrule the opinions of independent specialists and consultants? Is that possible?  

Dr Manderson: The aero-medical decision-making process is more than and different to the clinical decisionmaking process. The medical assessment process that we’re required to follow by the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations and the ICAO standards and recommended practices is that we take all of the advice that is available from all of the clinicians—including their expert opinions, the investigations and reports that are available, the medical examination from the DAME—and we apply that information against the medical standard for medical certification. The key difference is that the medical specialists who are seeing the patient and the patient pilot or controller are performing an assessment of the medical status of that person as a clinician for diagnosis and management, not for aero-medical risk assessment and not for medical certification processes. So it’s quite a different role and a different process. We consider their advice, but their advice is about the condition and its disease and severity, not about its safety relevance for medical certification.  

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we need to break for dinner. Are you close to finishing?  

Senator ROBERTS: We might put these on next Senate estimates.  

ACTING CHAIR: We are going to release CASA now. Thank you very much. 

/by

Truth Wins: Vaccine Mandates Were Unlawful

,

I was disappointed in the Minister’s response to my questions about the implications of the QLD Supreme Court judgement on the COVID ‘vaccine’ mandates. I expected more clarity and less deflection from the Minister. These decisions were made by the Liberal, Labor and Greens parties, there can be no avoiding the fallout form their actions across the COVID period.

While the ruling was made on the basis of the human rights act in QLD, identical provisions are in place in Victoria and the ACT, suggesting the decision is not just a QLD issue. The government is arrogantly ignoring the reality of the situation and failing to read the room when it comes to this topic.

People have had enough of high-handed, out of touch government. One Nation is calling for the Royal Commission into our COVID response to be announced right now!

Transcript

I take note of Senator Gallagher’s answer to my question on the Queensland Supreme Court’s decision. The court found measures relating to COVID were mandated on a number of Queensland workers without adequate consideration of their human rights as required under the Queensland Human Rights Act. Identical human rights provisions apply in Victoria and the ACT. So certainly there is the probability of the same or similar decisions being made in other jurisdictions.  

I’d hoped the government would be fully aware of the implications of this decision. I was disappointed. The minister deflected and failed to address the substance of the question, so here are some more reasons the minister should get clarity on this issue. An employee who is fired as the outcome from a vaccine mandate can sue the employer, which may be the government, for wrongful dismissal. An employee who took a vaccine to keep their job as a result of a vaccine mandate, who is now vaccine injured, can sue for damages. Class-action lawsuits will result from this decision. The Commonwealth will be as much in the firing line as Victoria and Queensland.  

It’s not just mandates. Evidence has been presented over the last few months that closing schools and denying children education has caused a permanent drop in children’s educational potential and medical health—permanent harm. Last week, a landmark study of 99 million people including Australians found the injections caused an increase in blood clots, brain injuries and heart disease of up to 600 per cent. These injuries are legally actionable. Whether it’s over mandates, vaccine injuries, education or business closures, victims will be joining class-action lawsuits sooner rather than later.  

All levels of government in Australia made terrible mistakes during COVID. Only a royal commission has the powers and the resources to decide what mistakes were made and how the victims of those mistakes can be fairly compensated. This will be expensive, yet failure to act through a royal commission will create a running sore on public administration for a generation. Only an objective royal commission will restore trust in governments and in the healthcare sector. 

/by