Posts

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

CASA Accountability Continues to Crash Land

,

For years, I’ve been trying to get the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to admit responsibility for allowing vaccine mandates on pilots, and the risk of injury that comes with that. I’ve been shocked at how evasive, argumentative and secretive CASA has been over this simple issue, that there is a risk of injury from vaccines, therefore making them mandatory introduces a level of risk into the cockpit.

CASA has lied, refused to answer questions they could have answered, and hidden witnesses from inquiry. As you can see from this session, there is a protection racket in place for this failure of an agency and Australian pilots are suffering hugely as a result.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. Could I have Dr Manderson to the desk, please. Dr Manderson, I asked you previously about the risk of myocarditis because you claimed to pilots that there was a higher chance of getting myocarditis from COVID than from the vaccine. I provided you with a systematic review that refutes that. It’s entitled, ‘COVID-19—associated cardiac pathology at the postmortem evaluation: a collaborative systematic review’. It was published in the Clinical Microbiology and Infection journal on 23 March 2022. I asked you to provide me with the evidence you had to base your previous statement about myocarditis on. That was in SQ23-004809. You undertook to provide the evidence that you had, but in the answer you simply referred to the TGA, not to evidence you had assessed to make the comment you made. I’d like to ask: did you write the answer to SQ23-004809 or did CASA officials?  

Ms Spence: I think we provided a follow-up answer to that and we advised that the response was provided consistent with the requirements of the standing orders around responding to Senate estimates questions.  

Senator ROBERTS: Who did you provide that to?  

Ms Spence: That was the answer to 00268 from committee question No. 254.  

Senator ROBERTS: Who wrote the first response?  

Ms Spence: The question was directed to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority provided that response. That’s consistent with the guidelines for officials.  

Senator ROBERTS: So who wrote the response?  

Ms Spence: I approved the response.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is that the guideline to responses that the government has just put out?  

Ms Spence: No. These date back to February 2015. I can table that response if that would be helpful for you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, please. In the interests of time, we won’t go through it now. One of the studies provided by the TGA in what you reference was from Anders Husby et al. It’s entitled ‘Clinical outcomes of myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination in four Nordic countries: population based cohort study’. Do you still stand behind that evidence to say that the incidence of myocarditis is lower?  

Dr Manderson: Yes, I do.  

Senator ROBERTS: When you actually read that study, it says nine of the 109 patients were readmitted to hospital with myocarditis after COVID, while 62 of 530 were readmitted with myocarditis after receiving the vaccination. That’s eight per cent for COVID myocarditis and 12 per cent for the COVID vaccine myocarditis. Fifty per cent more people were readmitted to the hospital with myocarditis after getting the jab than after getting COVID. The evidence you cited doesn’t appear to support your statement that there’s a higher chance of myocarditis from COVID than from the vaccine. Can you explain your contradiction?  

Mr Marcelja: I’d like to make an important point before Dr Manderson answers that question. We have tried to explain to the committee on a number of occasions that CASA’s role, when it comes to vaccinations, is purely related to aviation safety. I can tell you again today that there is no link to aviation safety from the matters that you’re talking about. So, while Dr Manderson can express her medical view about the questions you’ve asked, they actually have no bearing on CASA’s role and CASA’s remit when it comes to vaccinating the population.  

Senator ROBERTS: They have enormous bearing on Dr Manderson’s integrity.  

Ms Spence: I find that commentary quite disappointing coming from a Senator, but we’ll allow—  

Senator Carol Brown: The questions do appear to be out of order. Senator ROBERTS’s questions do not seem to be for CASA. They’re not part of CASA’s core duties. So they really need to be asked in another committee. He’s asking about— Senator McKENZIE interjecting—  

ACTING CHAIR: Let the minister finish.  

Senator Carol Brown: I’m asking the chair to rule whether Senator ROBERTS’s questions are in order for CASA.  

Senator ROBERTS: Chair, I would point out that we have received hundreds of calls from pilots. We’ve received emails and letters. We’ve had person-to-person conversations. Pilots from both Qantas and Virgin are absolutely terrified by what the injections are doing to some of their pilots. This is a fundamental thing, and it goes back to Mr Marcelja some time ago and also to Dr Manderson.  

ACTING CHAIR: Do you want to make a quick comment, Senator McKENZIE?  

Senator McKENZIE: Yes, I do. Nothing the minister has mentioned goes to the standing orders and whether anything that Senator ROBERTS has asked is in breach of the standing orders. Therefore he has the right in this committee to ask public officials, who earn a lot of money—more than most of the people around this table—to answer the questions on behalf of the constituency that he represents in this place. I would expect that the officials are very experienced and are very patient and will be able to respond to Senator ROBERTS’s questions.  

ACTING CHAIR: We will keep going with the line of questioning. I was also going to say that, if there are any particular areas that you, as experienced officials, feel are better answered by another agency or another department, please flag that with us here. I don’t think it’s our role to tell senators what they can and can’t ask, but we’re going to leave it to your judgement too. I think the minister’s concern is that maybe some of these questions may be more appropriate in another committee throughout this fortnight of estimates. Anyway, let’s continue. Senator ROBERTS, you have the call.  

Senator ROBERTS: Regardless of what’s in that study, is it your academic opinion, Dr Manderson, that a collaborative systematic review can be completely nullified by a single population based cohort study?  

Dr Manderson: A single population based cohort study is one piece of evidence within many thousands of pieces of evidence that have been published around COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis related to that. It would be scientifically and academically incorrect to rely on a single study or even a single piece of information within a single study to be selectively reported and base an entire policy decision or clinical opinion on that cherry-picked small piece of information. It’s a really fundamental part of research and critical analysis that you understand the breadth and the depth of clinical information that’s reported in the literature, how the reporting is done and even the fundamentals of analysis of individual articles relating to things like sources of bias and sources of statistical significance and relevance in that sort of thing. So a single study should never be relied on and a single piece of data within a single study should never be relied on. It is the breadth of information from a range of clinical literature as well as its interpretation and application—it’s called the concept of generalisability and applicability—to a population, as it applies to a group, when you’re forming an opinion, using that information, as to how it applies to your cohort.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I understand all the terms you use, believe it or not. You didn’t answer my question. You went around it with a lot of terms. Is it your academic opinion that a collaborative systematic review can be completely nullified by a single population based cohort study? Which would you put more credence in?  

Dr Manderson: A collaborative systematic review—sometimes we call those meta-analyses—is given more weight in terms of evidentiary power, I suppose, than a single study. The more data points you get from the more studies that are published and analysed, the more reliable the evidence will be.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t think a systematic review, which I provided, trumps a cohort study in the hierarchy of research?  

Dr Manderson: A systematic review is as good as the review process and the way in which it’s done. So there are important academic guidelines on the way systematic reviews should be done. That goes to the inclusion criteria for the articles that they refer to, the way they analyse the data within the articles that they’ve referenced and that they’ve selected to include, and the way that they have controlled for selection bias in choosing those articles. So there are systematic reviews that are—  

Senator ROBERTS: Single article-to-article comparison: which is more valid and carries more weight?  

Dr Manderson: Unfortunately it’s not as simple as that. A poorly conducted systematic review is not as good as a well conducted cohort study.  

Senator ROBERTS: Given equal quality, which one carries more weight?  

Dr Manderson: If they’re both conducted with great quality and equivalent quality, then a meta-analysis and systematic review of multiple data points is better than a single analysis—if they are done with the same level of quality.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’ll move to my next question. None of the studies you referenced from the TGA were actually published at the time you made your statement to pilots about the risk of myocarditis. Did you actually have any evidence at the time you made the statement to pilots in February 2022? That’s what I asked. What evidence did you have? Nothing in your question on notice was available at that time—nothing. So what did you rely on?  

Dr Manderson: By 2022, there had been tens of thousands of research articles published into COVID vaccines and the relationship between those and any adverse cardiac events. In particular, there were very large studies coming out of the countries that adopted COVID vaccination quite early. In particular, Hong Kong and Israel published a lot of data. That research was published in globally—  

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, Dr Manderson—  

ACTING CHAIR: Senator ROBERTS, sorry, but we should allow the witness to conclude her answer.  

Senator ROBERTS: She’s not answering the question.  

ACTING CHAIR: It doesn’t matter.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Keep going.  

ACTING CHAIR: Just hear her out, and then you’ll have an opportunity to ask her another question.  

Dr Manderson: That evidence was published in globally highly regarded journals: the Journal of the American Medical Association, the New England Journal of Medicine, the British Medical Journal cardiology edition, the Lancet and the publications from the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—the CDC. Those source articles formed the basis of the advice that was provided to medical practitioners in Australia by the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the advice from the chief health officer of Australia and the public health authorities of each state. In 2022, all of that information was available, and all of that information leading up to when I did that webinar was what I based that on.  

Senator ROBERTS: Your diversion is classically known as an appeal to authority. You put so many appeals to authority, and that’s very, very clever, but I asked you a question—’at the time you made the statement to pilots’. That’s what I asked. You gave me a reference that was not available at the time you made that statement. I asked you just now: what evidence did you have, specifically, when you made that statement to pilots? Secondly, nothing in your question on notice was available at that time. Why?  

ACTING CHAIR: I think Ms Spence wanted to add something before too. Ms Spence?  

Ms Spence: Again, it goes to the direction that we’re going in with the conversation. I totally respect the importance of you being able to ask the questions, but I would like to put it on the record that every other country, every other national aviation authority, took the same approach that Australia did. We did not work in isolation in this space. I hear you’re talking about the information and discussion that Dr Manderson had with the pilots, but I’m struggling to understand what specific issue there is around the actions that CASA took during COVID, which, to me, would seem to be a far more important issue to get to the heart of. If you thought we’d done something wrong, something different or something unacceptable, I’d like to have that conversation, rather than a very detailed academic conversation around which of the thousand articles that were available at the time Dr Manderson relied on.  

Senator CANAVAN: Chair, I would like to stress Senator McKENZIE’s point here. The witness is fine to raise a point of order, but any claim not to have to answer a question has to be grounded in the standing orders, precedents and practices of this Senate. Nothing you spoke about then, Ms Spence, did that. Otherwise, we’re just giving opportunities for people to cover themselves to avoid answering questions. I think Senator ROBERTS questions are perfectly fine. They’re about public statements made by witnesses, and that is definitely able to be asked about at Senate estimates inquiries.  

ACTING CHAIR: Not to summarise, but I’m mindful of time, and I don’t want to spend too much time on this. I think the point Ms Spence was trying to make was that they’re happy to keep answering questions from Senator ROBERTS. I don’t think that’s in dispute. I think she was just trying to see if there was more available time, with the time we have, to help Senator ROBERTS answer his other questions. Can we just keep continuing? I don’t know where we left to. Senator ROBERTS, do you have another question for the witnesses before us?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I do. I have lots of questions. Ms Spence, you, Mr Marcelja and, I think, Dr Manderson have all said that the ultimate responsibility for aircraft safety in this country is with you three. With the COVID injections—that’s where this all started—it’s with you too. Specifically, Mr Marcelja, you told me in one of the Senate estimates responses that Dr Manderson is the chief medical expert. That’s where I’m going. Is that clear?  

Ms Spence: Is there a question there, Senator?  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m responding to your comment. Was I clear?  

Ms Spence: I’m sorry. I still really don’t understand the direction that you’re going in. I’m happy to keep answering questions.  

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t understand safety? Alright. Well, let’s continue. Ms Spence, I asked CASA in November 2023 to do a search of the medical record system in question SQ23-004943 for key conditions, and you told me that was not possible. That’s not true. CASA can do a free tech search of your medical records system for key terms, and report the amount of times a word appears. In fact you did exactly that in a February 2023 question on notice SQ23-003267, where you told me: During 2022 … there were 27 instances where pericarditis or myocarditis was mentioned in the clinical notes for a medical certificate assessment. Have you misled the committee on whether CASA can do a search for the terms I’ve asked for in the November question, given that you actually did that in February?  

Mr Marcelja: If I recall, I answered that question. And what I told you, and I stand by today, is that our medical record system is not designed to capture those specific conditions and diseases in a way that reporting would be meaningful. While we could search the free text comments of our medical record system for those terms, those terms can appear in free text because a patient mentions them in a consultation because they believe they might have it, because of an actual diagnosis. We stand by the evidence we gave, which is that our medical record system doesn’t capture information on those specific diseases in a way that can be reported meaningfully. If you’d like to give me the reference of your question, I can reiterate the answer that we gave.  

Senator ROBERTS: It is possible to do a search in your database for the words I’ve asked for in SQ23- 004943, like you did in SQ23-003267? I understand your comments. And you can provide an answer for how many times they are mentioned in the clinical notes from medical certificate assessments in 2022 and 2023. I’d like you to take it on notice and to provide it.  

Ms Spence: If we do that it won’t be meaningful. Again, we’ll take it on notice, but what Mr Marcelja was saying was that any reference would be picked up, but it doesn’t mean that it’s actually related to that particular condition.  

Mr Marcelja: I’ve got 4943 in front of me, and at the end of that question we say: Providing the information requested would require a … collation of free-text information from tens of thousands of records and would be an unreasonable diversion of resources. 

Senator ROBERTS: Has CASA been provided with the guidebook circulated by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet giving advice on how to answer questions on notice?  

Ms Spence: Not that I’m aware of. It’s certainly not been drawn to my attention. I did hear the questioning yesterday, but I haven’t seen the circular that was referred to.  

Senator ROBERTS: If we go back to my first question of Mr Marcelja, I asked on what authority did Qantas and Virgin inject their pilots with an untested gene therapy based treatment that had not been approved by the TGA and that had not had testing done by the TGA or by the FDA in America. You said you relied upon experts. I said, ‘Which experts?’ You said, ‘Experts.’ I said, ‘Which experts?’ You said, ‘Experts.’ And when I said, ‘Which experts?’ for the fourth time, I think it was, you said, ‘International experts.’ Dr Manderson, which experts’ advice did CASA rely upon for turning an eye away from the mandated injections of healthy pilots with the COVID injections?  

Mr Marcelja: I’d like to correct the statement you’ve made, because what I recall—and if you tell me the date I’ve the Hansard in front of me—telling you we had no role in intervening in the Australian government’s public health response to COVID. We did not intervene to prevent the vaccination of pilots, just like we do not intervene in the prevention of any other administration of any medicine or any vaccination. So if a pilot was to have an adverse reaction to a vaccination, the aviation safety response to that is that that pilot excludes themselves from flying. So that’s what our procedures are based on. We have no role in intervening in public health responses, mandating or not mandating the administration of vaccinations or any medicine, for that matter.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Prime Minister at the time, Scott Morrison, said every night for about a fortnight, ‘There are no vaccine mandates in this country.’ That was a lie. But what I’m asking you is not whether or not you’re going to interfere in a vaccine mandate. What I’m asking you is: what were your reassurances that these vaccines—these injections—would not be unsafe to pilots? Did you do any high-altitude testing? What are the results of that?  

Ms Spence: Senator—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking Mr Marcelja.  

Ms Spence: Being responsible for the organisation, we treated the COVID vaccinations the same way that we treat all vaccinations. We do not do our own independent testing. What we do ensure is that the system works such that if there was an adverse reaction the pilot would not fly. I’ll be very clear here: as we’ve said at, I think, the last five hearings, there has not been, internationally, any evidence of any pilot being incapacitated as a result of a COVID vaccination while on duty.  

Senator ROBERTS: There are 1,000. I was told by a lawyer working with Southwest Airlines in America that 1,000 pilots have not been able to pass their medical since getting their COVID shots.  

Ms Spence: That’s not what I said.  

Senator ROBERTS: There are lots of them.  

Ms Spence: What I said was that there has not been a single example of a pilot being incapacitated on duty as a result of a COVID vaccination.  

ACTING CHAIR: Senator, do you have more questions? I need to move the call around.  

Senator ROBERTS: I do have some more questions, but if you move it round and come back to me that’s fine. 

/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

A Chat with Emeritus Professor Reuben Rose | Sons of Issachar

As a Scientist and former vet school Dean, Professor Rose became concerned that critical information about SARs-CoV2 virus and COVID-19 vaccines was not being reported by mainstream media.

We discussed how the world and particularly Australia changed with the arrival of COVID and how the population seems to have forgotten the drastic restrictions that were put on our freedoms. We also discussed what, if any, lessons were learned.

Reuben received a notice from YouTube that he had “breached community guidelines” and the link to his channel can no longer be accessed.

You can search for more of Reuben’s work here: https://reubenrose.substack.com/ | Sons of Issachar Newsletter | www.inancientpaths.com

/2 Comments/by

The Chaos of Lockdowns Impacting Australian Industry

There’s a long tail to the COVID response that’s affecting a lot of things. There are many changes to the way we work — working from home for example — and the way in which we interact with employees that are a direct impact of the changes made during COVID. The Australian Industry (AI) Group clearly showed in their submission the anxiety levels and the mental health impact on their members and the everyday Australians who work for them. The mixed messaging, the lack of consistent and clear communication made a challenging situation almost impossible to tolerate.

The AI Group made this statement: If we don’t come to grips with the consequences of the sometimes damaging and divisive actions of states to lock down everything from buildings and suburbs to entire states, we ignore the impacts across the community. Their testimony on the disruption to state borders, not just in border communities but to national businesses, makes clear that it was extraordinary. State and territory border closures were so disruptive they should only ever be used as a last resort. Many businesses were impacted also by localised communications and differing ‘rules’ between states which caused chaos.

The Albanese Government’s limited COVID inquiry excludes state governments from its scope. The AI Group feels this is a big exclusion given the fact that state and territory governments were responsible for implementing a lot of the measures which were contradictory and often capricious. The AI Group supports a Royal Commission into COVID with broad terms of reference.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Ms McGrath, thank you for your submission and also for appearing in person. It’s so much better to have people here in person, when possible. Your submission states: 

If we don’t come to grips with the consequences of the sometimes damaging and divisive actions of states to lock down everything from buildings and suburbs to entire states, we ignore the impacts across the community. 

What are some of the damaging outcomes that support your call for lockdowns to be included as a term of reference? 

Ms McGrath: That was the element that really had the most impact on our members. Our members, of course, are people and, as was the rest of Australian society, they were dealing with the challenges of the pandemic and worrying about their own health. I think we’ve clearly shown in the submission the anxiety levels and the mental health impact on our members and their workforces. The complexity of the shutdowns, the mixed messaging and the lack of consistent and clear communication made a challenging situation almost impossible to bear. 

Senator Roberts: Basically, what you’re saying is that there are enormous economic impacts that possibly could have been avoided—and I think many of them could have been. Those economic impacts led to anxiety and increased mental health problems, as well as economic impacts on employers. Also, you mentioned contradictions. Something that has been said repeatedly across the whole community by individuals and businesses is that each state had different science. 

Ms McGrath: They did. That’s why I referenced the bushfire response. If we think about the language that we use around bushfires, such as ‘prepare to leave’, and even just how we classify, from mild to catastrophic, the nature of a bushfire, we had none of that nomenclature when it came to the COVID pandemic. It meant that whoever was in front of the camera often used terms loosely, such as ‘essential workers’ or ‘authorised workers’. These all had different terms; often they were used interchangeably. It created great confusion amongst our members, who were trying to manage a very stressed workforce. 

Senator Roberts: I will mention that we have here the Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza, which was released in August 2019. This is a thick document, so it was comprehensively done, yet it was tossed out of the window and wasn’t even referred to. I think that led to some of the contradictions. Would you like to comment on that? 

Ms McGrath: I’m not aware of that document; I’m sorry. 

Senator Roberts: Let’s move on to another question. The High Court’s decision on the Western Australian border closures, the section 92 judgement, was instrumental in perpetuating border closures and certainly relied on health advice that closures were justified by the health dangers of COVID. Are you familiar with that decision? 

Ms McGrath: Not particularly, but I am aware of the impact of the state border closures. 

Senator Roberts: Basically, it says that border closures are within a state’s constitutional powers, providing that the state’s response is proportionate to the threat. The High Court decided that, based on the medical authorities’ advice, COVID was a serious threat, yet the health authorities at the time knew it was not. In fact, they gave me, in writing, their conclusion that showed that COVID was of low to moderate severity. If you think about the vulnerable that are a very small subset and you remove that, COVID was less severe than many past flus. Those health dangers have now been proven to be overstated, as I said, which really shows that the High Court made an interpretation of section 92 that was, in hindsight, not only not supported by the facts but also contrary to the facts; the High Court was misled. I note that your submission goes to the section 92 judgement, but it doesn’t offer a better way of doing closures. Can you expand on your thoughts around state border closures, please? 

Ms McGrath: As I said in my opening statement, they really should be of last resort. The disruption to state borders, not just in border communities but to national businesses, was extraordinary. The communication often was very localised. Victoria would talk about what was happening in Victoria, not understanding that there perhaps were companies in Queensland that had trucks that needed to come to Victoria; therefore, the message was never conveyed directly to them. The role that the Ai Group played in COVID was to try to gather all these instructions and directives, translate them into easily accessible language and make sure that all our members had access to them, regardless of where they were located. 

Senator Roberts: Do you consider that the responses to COVID were excessively politically motivated? Maybe that was intentional or maybe it was in ignorance. Some states ran focus groups to determine what the people thought was necessary, and yet we, the people, aren’t health authorities. It seemed to be driven by political purposes or political ends in some states, and that might have contributed to the contradictions. 

Ms McGrath: I’m not in a position to comment on that. I think there are many reasons for the contradictions. One is that the people making the directives were very stressed in their own right and so perhaps were not cognitively prepared for that sort of communication. As I’ve said, everyone was making very many decisions on the run. 

Senator Roberts: Your submission notes that JobKeeper benefits were paid to some companies that didn’t need the money; they made excessive profits during COVID and then refused to pay the money back. Is the answer clawbacks to recoup JobKeeper money or is the answer much tougher criteria for JobKeeper, including targeting small and medium businesses over large businesses? 

Ms McGrath: When it comes to JobKeeper, as we said, carefully calibrated support is best. The challenge with JobKeeper is that it was made very quickly and was quite broad based. When it comes to public policy, as you would know, that sometimes has unfortunate consequences. 

Senator Roberts: Your submission mentions mandatory COVID vaccination policies, yet it doesn’t say what about them should be investigated. Where does Ai stand on mandatory injections? 

Ms McGrath: We don’t have a position on mandatory injections; our position is to support members adhering to whatever regulation applies to them. What we found challenging was, again, a mix of communication styles and a mix of messages that came out, which caused a lot of stress in understanding what their obligations were. 

Senator Roberts: Just as a statement, your submission talks about the need for local manufacturing of personal protective equipment and related equipment to remove the need for stockpiling materials that degrade over time. One Nation fully supports that; we cannot be reliant on foreign countries for such products. Has Ai come up with any policy with regard to ensuring that we have the security of our own manufacturing? 

Ms McGrath: Not particularly. We work with ICN in each state and with a number of different local manufacturers in sovereign manufacturing. 

Senator Roberts: One of the responses to COVID from the previous government was to hand out a lot of money. We were warning at the time that this would lead to inflation and, sure enough, it has. We’re still living with the consequences of the COVID response; would you agree? 

Ms McGrath: There’s a long tail to COVID that’s affecting a lot of things. 

Senator Roberts: A long tail to COVID or to the COVID response? 

Ms McGrath: I’m sorry; to the COVID response. There are all sorts of things—as you say, inflation, which is happening globally, but also work from home policies—and changes to the way that we work and the way that we interact with employees that are a direct impact of many of the rules that came through COVID. 

Senator Roberts: On the second page of your submission you state: The existing Commonwealth Government COVID-19 Response Inquiry does include in its terms of reference a review of the responsibilities of state and territory governments and national governance mechanisms, such as National Cabinet. However, it includes the specific exclusion from the scope of the inquiry of ‘actions taken unilaterally by state and territory governments’. Given the fact that the state and territory governments were responsible for implementing a lot of the measures that were contradictory and often capricious, that would seem to be a very big exclusion. 

Ms McGrath: We agree. 

Transcript

Chair: Senator Roberts. 

Senator Roberts: The COVID injections or vaccines raise many questions. The TGA admitted to me in Senate Estimates that it did not test them here in this country but relied on the FDA in America. The FDA in America had already admitted previously that it didn’t test them but relied on Pfizer; and Pfizer’s trials were shut down early because of the number of deaths that they had. So, when you haven’t got something consistent, it puts people under a lot of pressure, not only employees but also employers. That puts you in a difficult position, because not all supermarkets forced their employees to get injected; I think IGA didn’t. But I can imagine a Coles or Woolies employee thinking, ‘I can’t go in the back door to the supermarket, because I’m an employee and must get injected; but I can go in the front door any time I want to and stay for as long as I like as a customer.’ How do you make sense of that? 

Ms McGrath: As I’ve illustrated, there are many complexities, particularly in communication and rules, that really added to the stress of the whole situation, and employers and employees were all coping with the same challenges. 

Senator Roberts: And customers. 

Ms McGrath: And customers. 

Senator Roberts: And sometimes they were in all three roles. Your final comment on page 6 of the January submission says, ‘A root and branch review is required to ensure that governments work cohesively and respond holistically during the next inevitable pandemic, and Ai Group supports any moves towards consideration of appointing a COVID Royal Commission.’ A ‘root and branch review’ is pretty serious stuff; it would be very detailed and comprehensive and would cover everything. 

Ms McGrath: Yes. 

Senator Roberts: Is that because it was so variable and there were so many contradictions and inconsistencies that it just didn’t make sense to many people? 

Ms McGrath: Yes, it didn’t make sense. Sometimes, there would be a minister or health officer making an announcement and we’d wait for the actual orders, and they would not be consistent with what had been announced. We would have to try to find a way to convey that to the government and ask them which directive we should listen to, and then they would try to reverse it. But it was just incredible, I think. 

Senator Roberts: I can empathise with you. I remember watching Yvette D’Ath, the Queensland state health minister, laying out the law in January 2022 or 2023, saying, ‘People in cars must wear masks.’ Someone asked, ‘What about if the driver is by himself?’ and she hummed and said, ‘Yes’. There was no science behind that: sitting alone in a car, with windows up, wearing a mask. These things were not driven by science. 

Chair: Is that a question, Senator Roberts? 

Senator Roberts: It is a statement, backing up Ai Group’s concerns. 

/by

Queensland Supreme Court Rules Against ‘Vaccine’ Mandates

,

Many Australians have lost trust in governments at both state and federal levels, and we’ve lost trust in health authorities. Last parliament the Select Committee on COVID-19 stated ‘a royal commission be established to examine Australia’s response to the COVID-19’. That was two years ago. During his election campaign, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised the Australian people a COVID Royal Commission. He and Minister Gallagher, who chaired the committee, have both broken their promises.

The Government has clearly chosen to cover-up for the failure of our health authorities to apply human rights to our COVID measures. A genuine party of the worker would be protecting workers against the billionaires who profited from COVID.

The Albanese government must restore trust and commit to a royal commission now. The royal commission could easily commence as soon as the current Senate’s inquiry into appropriate terms of reference defines those terms — an inquiry One Nation secured. I promised to hound those responsible down and I will keep that promise.

Transcript

Today the Queensland Supreme Court ruled vaccine mandates for Queensland’s emergency services workers to be unlawful. What a victory for the Australian people! It’s a victory that reaffirms the need for a full royal commission into Australia’s response to COVID. Everyday Australians have lost trust in governments at both state and federal levels, and we’ve lost trust in health authorities. Recommendation 17 of the report of the Select Committee on COVID-19 stated ‘a royal commission be established to examine Australia’s response to the COVID-19’. That was two years ago.

During his election campaign Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised the Australian people to hold a COVID royal commission. He and Minister Gallagher, who chaired the committee, have both broken their promises. Appearing to have something to hide looks terrible for the government. It is terrible for the government. The public realise that our Prime Minister and his administration cannot be trusted to keep their word.

Today’s Queensland Supreme Court ruling is encouraging for everyday Australians who’ve lost their source of income. Businesses were forced to lay off their staff unless they complied with the draconian policies, and many industries are still suffering the consequences of having to fire unvaccinated staff. Our nurses, teachers, police, firefighters and paramedics, along with other Australians, deserve to know where things went wrong and why the government turned against them. One simple green tick was the difference in being able to attend school, go to work, move around, socialise and exercise—one green tick that took our rights to freedom, life, privacy and movement.

The Prime Minister must now realise that, if he takes these things from the people, trust goes with them. The Albanese government must restore trust and commit to a royal commission now, to commence as soon as the current inquiry into appropriate terms of reference defines those terms.

The Queensland Supreme Court said there was an abuse of process and that they did not consider the loss of human rights fundamental to Australian democracy. 

/8 Comments/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

What COVID ‘Vaccine’ Mandates?

,

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

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

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

Transcript

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

Prof. Singer : Apologies, Senator. Could you—

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

Prof. Singer : Yes, please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps you could take it on notice.

Prof. Lawler : Absolutely.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/by

Australia’s Best Research Tool for Adverse Events

Australia’s best research tool for interpreting adverse events from the COVID vaccines, plus FOI information and more. All in the one spot and it’s free.

A lot of work has gone into this resource. ‘OpenDAEN’ is an easy-to-use database of TGA-reported COVID-19 Vaccines Adverse Events (de-identified) on a non-commercial, non-profit website.

https://opendaen.info/home

/1 Comment/by

Minister Gallagher Dodges Question About COVID Royal Commission

The Labor government has done everything it can to avoid the scrutiny of a Royal Commission into COVID despite promising a Royal Commission on several occasions. Instead, PM Albanese has announced an inquiry that is guaranteed to be a whitewash to try an appease the Australian public who have been waiting for the Royal Commission.

I asked the minister why the government is afraid of a Royal Commission. Her answer was instead directed at the inhouse inquiry which is essentially three insiders investigating their mates. This is a travesty after the suffering, disruption and death that the COVID years brought to Australia.

This inquiry is a cover-up. Australians deserve a Royal Commission to bring the truth to light and prevent the same mistakes from happening again.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Minister, why do you fear a COVID royal commission, and is your support for the Chief Medical Officer and the TGA unequivocal?

Senator Gallagher: In relation to the second part, yes, absolutely. In relation to the first part, there is nothing to fear about the COVID inquiry.

Senator ROBERTS: There certainly isn’t.

Senator Gallagher: Hopefully genuine learnings will come out of it and we’ll all be better prepared for the next time we have a pandemic like that.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister.

/1 Comment/by