Australian Parliament Senate Committee Media Briefings

For the vaccines we don't use, we will give it to other countries. 20 April 2021 COVID-19 Hearing Full Video: https://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=539684&operation_mode=parlview HTML Transcript: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommsen%2Fdad451ab-c4f2-4efd-9820-65f63b0d0ae9%2F0000%22 PDF Transcript: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/commsen/dad451ab-c4f2-4efd-9820-65f63b0d0ae9/toc_pdf/Senate%20Select%20Committee%20on%20COVID-19_2021_04_20_8682_Official.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22committees/commsen/dad451ab-c4f2-4efd-9820-65f63b0d0ae9/0000%22

Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes): To start my contribution on the COVID-19 Disaster Payment (Funding Arrangements) Bill 2021, I’d like to pick up from where the member for Dunkley left off about the changing health advice. It is correct that the health advice on the vaccination program has changed. But what that actually shows is how mistaken it would have been to follow the advice of members of the opposition who wanted to rush out the vaccine in the earlier days. Their call was that we must get more injections into the arms of people. But, because of that rushing out, we now have in this country 800,000 Australians who have been injected with a substance which our Chief Medical Officer now says poses greater risks to them than any potential benefit that they have received. That is historic proportions—that 800,000 Australians would be subject to a medical treatment where the Chief Medical Officer of the country now acknowledges that the risk to those people was greater than the benefits they received. And we know that dozens of those people have suffered from blood clots. This is the mistake that can happen when we panic and we rush, which was exactly the call that we heard from members of the opposition. When it comes to working out our steps and procedure in tackling COVID, surely we must look at all the evidence. The first place that we might look to is a group called the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce. I have been critical of this task force in the past. However, it is interesting to note their latest findings on ivermectin. I know that members of the opposition have called ivermectin snake oil and they have said that it doesn’t work. Well, let’s have a look at what the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce says about this. They say: ‘Evidence comes from 13 randomised trials in over 1,260 adults.’ So they’re actually getting up there in the number of randomised trials and the number of adults. What does our national evidence task force find? Surprise, surprise, they found a 67 per cent reduction in death in those who were administered ivermectin who caught COVID as compared to those that weren’t—a 67 per cent reduction in death. They’ve also found a 46 per cent reduction in ICU admissions. That’s what they found. Yet, despite those amazing figures, which show an almost 50 per cent decline in ICU admissions and a 67 per cent decline in death, our national clinical evidence task force somehow still recommends against ivermectin. There is evidence that’s now on the table, including the international peer reviewed evidence published only a few days ago in the American Journal of Therapeutics—a Cochrane standard, peer-reviewed meta-analysis, for the education of the members sitting over to my right—by researchers over in the UK. We’ve heard that apparently some of these studies that are not done in the UK should be discounted, but this is actually a peer reviewed meta-analysis from the United Kingdom by Bryant and Lawrie. What did they find on ivermectin? I’ll quote directly. They said that ‘meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin’ by 62 per cent in their study of 2,438 patients. They also found that ‘ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infections by an average of 86 per cent’. I put it to you, Deputy Speaker, that it is now game over for the ivermectin deniers with this peer-reviewed metanalysis study. All those on the other side who continue to deny ivermectin are putting Australian lives at risk. The evidence is clear. The evidence is here. These people love to say, ‘We must have peer-reviewed studies.’ Well, here it is: a peer reviewed meta-analysis of 15 studies showing a 62 per cent reduction in the risk of death and an incredible 86 per cent reduction of COVID infections when used as a prophylaxis. Let me read the final conclusion of this meta-analysis, peer-reviewed published study: Given the evidence of efficacy, safety, low cost and current death rates, ivermectin is likely to have an impact on health and economic outcomes of the pandemic across many countries. Ivermectin is not a new and experimental drug with an unknown safety profile. It is a WHO ‘Essential Medicine’ already used in several different indications, in colossal cumulative volumes. And those volumes are in the billions of doses. It continues: Corticosteroids have become an accepted standard of care in covid-19, based on a single RCT of dexamethasone 1. If a single RCT is sufficient for the adoption of dexamethasone, then … two dozen RCTs supports the adoption of ivermectin. Ivermectin is likely to be an equitable, acceptable and feasible global intervention against covid-19. Health professionals should strongly consider its use, in both treatment and prophylaxis. There you have it. That is the peer reviewed science. The denial of ivermectin must end, because it is costing lives in this country. Those on the other side must take off their tinfoil hats and follow the science, not the superstition and not the rumours. We know that many have spoken out against this drug because it’s low cost. We know that many have invested financial interests in trying to suppress its use and these studies, because there are billions involved in it. It doesn’t stop there. Not only is there that peer-reviewed study; there is another study which summarises all the ivermectin studies. I’d like to go through what the numbers actually are here. There are 25 early treatment studies, and 23, 92 per cent of them, report positive effects. The random chance of that happening is one in 103,000. For late treatment, there are 21 studies, and 90.5 per cent of them show it’s an effective treatment. The random chance of that is one in 9,000. For prophylaxis, there are 14 studies and all 14, 100 per cent of them, show it’s an effective treatment. The random chance of that is one in 16,000. In total, there are 60 studies and 56 of them, 93.3 per cent, report a positive effect, and the random chance of that happening is estimated at—wait for it—one in two trillion. So, you on the other side, may well be right: this may all just be a lucky coincidence! There’s a one in two trillion chance that you are right that ivermectin is an ineffective treatment, because that is what the numbers, that is what the evidence, that is what the data, actually says! I would like to conclude: if you want to read one particular peer-reviewed study on the effectiveness of ivermectin, I suggest to you a study published last year in the Journal of Biomedical Research and Clinical Investigation. In that study, which was across four hospitals in Argentina, they had two groups. They had 407 hospital workers —doctors and nurses and orderlies—in their standard PPE equipment and they had another group of 788, again doctors and nurses and orderlies, which they gave ivermectin to. So we had an ivermectin group and a non-ivermectin group. Of the 407 in the non-ivermectin group, 237 of them, 58 per cent, in a three-month period, contracted COVID. Understand that Argentina is not a wealthy country, not as wealthy as we are here in Australia. Their hospitals were overcrowded, COVID was rife through their society and, of the nurses and doctors in those hospitals that didn’t take ivermectin in that study period, 58 per cent of them became infected. But of the 788 that took the ivermectin treatment, can you guess how many contracted COVID, remembering it was 58 per cent of the other group? It was zero, a duck egg. Not one single person, not one single doctor, not one single nurse, not one single orderly, contracted COVID, and yet in the other group they had 58 per cent contract it. I think that I have given enough evidence here tonight that ivermectin must be adopted widely in this country. Looking at results across the board in countries like India and at how successful they have been in crushing their COVID curves with ivermectin, it must be adopted widely in this country. It is an effective treatment. I would like to conclude that, unfortunately, because of the words I have spoken, because of the evidence that I have read out, if I were to put this speech during the proceedings here on the floor of the Australian parliament on YouTube, it would be censored and deplatformed by YouTube. They would take it down. They would look at it and they would question the proceedings of this parliament, question this debate. This speech cannot be put up on YouTube because of their censorship. Full Video: (18:34) https://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=546098&operation_mode=parlview#/4 Transcript: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F1e631be5-f3d6-413c-aead-186f98561fb6%2F0152;orderBy=date-eFirst;page=0;query=ivermectin%20Date%3AthisYear;rec=5;resCount=100

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansards/25181/&sid=0068 It is with a heavy heart that I have introduced this legislation to the Senate, a Bill for an Act to protect the right of Australians to make their own health decisions in relation to COVID-19 vaccination. I do not introduce this Bill lightly. I introduce this Bill because I see no other alternative for halting the pandemic of discrimination that has been unleashed in Australia against individuals who don't get vaccinated against COVID-19. It's in the best Westminster tradition that I introduce this Bill to enshrine individual rights in law. Introducing this Bill is also a response to the disturbing trend of Australian prime ministers too frightened - or simply incapable - of exercising true leadership when their country is crying out for it. Australians who stand for their right to choose vaccination are just like any other Australians. They are doctors, nurses and paramedics caring for our health. They are police officers enforcing law and keeping us safe. They are soldiers, sailors and aviators defending our sovereignty. They are people who work alongside us in an office, in a factory, at a mine, on a farm or in a shop. They are volunteers helping their communities. They are people in line with us at Centrelink, and they are people sitting next to us in corporate boardrooms. They are people who live next door, down the street, across town and interstate. They are people born here and overseas, indigenous and non-indigenous, men and women, adults and children. They are our people. They are our fellow citizens. They are Australians just like you and me, with families and mortgages and worries and hopes and dreams. The pandemic of discrimination which has been unleashed upon our fellow Australians has taken many forms. They are demonised by elected governments and unelected health bureaucrats, a message amplified by a disturbingly compliant and complacent media. They are physically beaten by police for protesting vaccine mandates and hair-trigger lockdowns destroying their families, jobs, businesses and the economy. They have been attacked in parliaments by their own elected representatives. They face a bleak future in which they are treated as second-class citizens unable to enjoy whatever freedoms will be returned to us - freedoms we all took for granted before 2020, like going to a movie or on an interstate holiday. Many of these people have already lost their jobs and their livelihoods, with little to no prospects on the horizon. Many more jobs are under threat from this discrimination. Last week the Northern Territory government ordered people to receive a jab by 13 November if their jobs involved public interaction. Not content with this demand, people were told they would not be allowed at work without it and would be hit with a 5000 dollar fine. This is pure, naked coercion - not only will you lose your job and your income for standing for your right to choose, but you will have your savings account cleaned out also, right when you need it. In other words, do what you're told or we'll put you out on the street. Or in prison, maybe, if you don't have 5000 dollars just lying around. Not a lot of Territorians do. All this discrimination and coercion against people who won't be vaccinated against COVID-19, which has affected just over 200 people in the Territory and caused no deaths. It's appalling. Influenza kills people in the Territory - one person died last year and five the year before - but similar discrimination and coercion is not in place for people who won't get a flu jab. No, discrimination is being solely reserved for those who won't get the COVID-19 jabs. All of this discrimination has amounted to one clear message: the rights of the individual will be protected only so long as they do not conflict with the state. There is nothing - not even a global pandemic - more dangerous to a free society. Our nation's history is replete with people who recognised this danger and acted, from the miners who rebelled on the Victorian goldfields and the drafters of our Constitution, to the young men and women who enlisted to fight wars against fascist or communist tyranny and the legislators who passed landmark laws against racial and sexual discrimination. Our nation's history is also replete with the extension of equal rights to disenfranchised sections of Australian society - firstly men without property, then women, then indigenous Australians. This legislation follows this proud tradition but, more importantly, will help prevent us from going backwards on protecting individual human rights in Australia. This legislation is all about principle, something which has been abandoned by the major political parties. There sit senators of the Labor Party, the so-called champions of the working class, the political arm of the union movement now under attack from its very own members for failing to stand up for their right to choose. They won't act to prevent discrimination against Australians standing for the right to choose. There sit senators of the Liberal Party, the so-called champions for personal responsibility and economic integrity, failing to stand up for personal responsibility and spending public money like none have done before. I recently asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Birmingham, if the government would mandate COVID-19 vaccination for Liberal MPs. His response was that it was a personal choice for Liberal MPs. So the privileged members of the government are allowed the right to choose but not millions of members of the public. How does this make the government anything more than a gang of hypocritical control freaks? They won't act to prevent discrimination against Australians standing for the right to choose. Only One Nation is acting to prevent discrimination against Australians standing for the right to choose, because only One Nation stands firmly for this principle. It is the birthright of every Australian, and we must be able to exercise it safe from threats to our livelihoods and public freedoms. Safe from discrimination. Discrimination used to be a dirty word, but this pandemic has exposed it as a new virtue to be signalled. How far we have fallen in this pandemic, which has left its mark on all of us. One Nation is determined this mark does not linger in the form of ongoing discrimination against Australians standing for the right to choose vaccination. The COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2021 will prohibit discrimination based on individuals' COVID-19 vaccination status by the Commonwealth, state and territory governments, statutory authorities, local government and businesses. It will make it unlawful for the Commonwealth to discriminate against a person on the basis of whether the person has received a COVID-19 vaccination. It will make it unlawful for the Commonwealth to enter an agreement with, provide public funds or grant licences, permits or authorisations to entities if they are reasonably likely to discriminate against a person on the basis of whether the person has received a COVID-19 vaccination. The Bill has the same provisions for state and territory governments and local government. This legislation will make it unlawful for a person to discriminate against another person - in relation to the first person employing the other person, on the basis of whether the other person has received a COVID-19 vaccination. It will also make it unlawful for a business to discriminate in the provision of goods or services, or access to business premises. This principle will also apply to volunteer bodies with respect to people's membership, participation in volunteer activities and the provision of goods or services. The penalties will be steep for a breach of this law. This is because the right to choose is fundamental and must not be compromised, regardless of the choice that is made. It's a shame, really, that I am compelled to remind the Senate the right to choose is the foundation on which democracies like Australia are built. It's the reason each of us are here - because Australians freely chose us to represent them. You may not always agree with the free choices other Australians make, but that doesn't entitle us to take their right to choose away from them. And it most definitely doesn't entitle us to punish those whose free choices we do not agree with by taking away their livelihoods and restricting freedoms other Australians have. And it may very well be unconstitutional to take the freedom to choose away. I draw Senators' attention to Section 51 (23A) of the Australian Constitution which says Parliament can make laws with respect to: " … the provision of maternity allowances, widows' pensions, child endowment, unemp loyment, pharmaceutical sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services ( but no so as to authorise any form of civil conscription ) … " What is the vaccination mandate if not the conscription of the Australian people in a war against the coronavirus? The response to this pandemic has already imposed restrictions on movement and basic freedoms not seen in Australia since the Second World War. It's also been replete with wartime propaganda exaggerating the danger of the enemy that is the coronavirus. It's only right for Australians to question much of the propaganda which has been selectively spoon-fed to them by unelected health bureaucrats and populist premiers. Fatalities in particular are an open question when the average age of people we're told have died from the coronavirus is 86, higher than the average life expectancy for Australians. Did they die from COVID-19 or with COVID-19? When a patient in their 90s in palliative care is said to have died from the coronavirus it's only fair to assume other factors were in play. This is not a standalone case. Many cases were reported as a COVID death when they had many underlying health issues. I suspect this is a reality which health bureaucrats are keen to hide from the Australian people who have borne the brunt of hair-trigger lockdowns imposed by premiers running rampant in the face of the Prime Minister's impotence. We hear more about COVID deaths than we hear about deaths caused by adverse reactions to the vaccine. Why don't we be utterly honest with the people? This gutless PM's lack of leadership and authority is enabling these rogue premiers to destroy families, jobs and the economy with lockdowns while Scott Morrison, in his impotence, turns a blind eye. One Nation is not blind to the plight of Australians suffering under lockdowns and losing their jobs for standing for the right to choose. We have been told a load of rubbish and exaggerated figures from so-called health experts from the beginning. I have had enough, and so have the people. One Nation stands with them.

No Domestic COVID Vaccine Passports Bill 2021 A Bill for an Act to protect the right of Australians to make their own health decisions in relation to COVID vaccination, and for related purposes - put forward to House of Representatives by Craig Kelly (Hughes) - Introduced: 21 June 2021 See links below transcript: The principle behind the No Domestic COVID Vaccine Passports Bill 2021 is quite simple: COVID vaccines in this country should be freely available to all, with informed consent of course, but they should be mandatory to nobody. Already, there are 16 US states that have introduced similar legislation to that which I am introducing today. This bill has been modelled on Florida’s bill, introduced by Governor DeSantis, which has been widely accepted by the Florida electorate. I hope that this parliament will move forward and bring this bill on for debate and a vote as soon as possible. This bill is simply about the type of country that we want. Do we want a country where government officials and petty bureaucrats demand that you show your medical papers? That is not the country that I want. Your medical records should be something between you and your doctor. The entire concept of a vaccine passport is itself inherently misleading. There is little evidence to show that these novel experimental COVID genetic vaccines actually prevent someone from contracting COVID or prevent someone from spreading COVID or prevent someone from being hospitalised with COVID. For the education of the member at the desk, I have the latest data from the US on what they call ‘vaccine breakthrough cases’. These are cases where someone has been injected twice and, after a period of 14 days, still contracts COVID. The number is so many that they no longer count them, but they do count the number of hospitalisations. As at 14 June, the number of so-called breakthrough cases—that is, people who have been vaccinated twice and have ended up in hospital with COVID—stands at 2,622, and the number of deaths of people who have been vaccinated twice in the US and have passed away from COVID stands at 549. However, these numbers, the CDC says, are ‘likely a substantial undercount’ of all SARS infections among so-called fully vaccinated persons, and this surveillance relies upon ‘passive and voluntary reporting’. So we don’t actually know what the true number of breakthrough cases are. There is also growing concern over vaccine safety. The highly respected and highly credentialed Dr Tess Lawrie recently stated in submission she made that, ‘There is more than enough evidence to declare that the COVID vaccines are unsafe for use in humans.’ This is also a great concern, as we also have data from VAERS in the USA that shows that, as at 4 June, there have been 5,888 deaths that have occurred in people after the vaccine. Now it is true that this VAERS data is questionable. Dr Peter McCullough suggested that the number is more like 50,000 rather than 5,888. But the fact is that we just do not know. Again, this VAERS data is based on voluntary reporting. So we simply have no idea about what the true rate of deaths are after COVID injections and we have no idea whether they were related to them or just a mere coincidence. I’d say that’s the entire problem, because we have to admit that this is still one giant medical experiment. I’d liked to quote Dr Damian Wojcik of New Zealand. Talking about having his patients injected, he said: ‘Not on my watch. Not with my patients. My patients are living persons with names and families, not laboratory rats to be sacrificed in a global experiment.’ Dr Roger Hodkinson—a doctor from Canada—said recently: ‘This experimental vaccine should never have been released. Mass vaccination is so transparently stupid; medical idiocy of a grotesque degree. The bottom line is that mass vaccination of everybody should stop immediately. And when it comes to injecting this stuff into the arms of children, I call this “state sanctioned child abuse”.’ Dr Peter McCullough has recently stated, ‘I can no longer recommend the vaccines’. Therefore, as this is a medical experiment, the idea of having a vaccine passport is coercive. It is to coerce people into participating in a medical experiment, of which we simply do not know what the end result will be. We’ve even seen here in Australia how our medical bureaucrats have got it wrong time and time again. Firstly, when it came to the AstraZeneca vaccine, they said that there was no evidence of a relationship with blood clots. They were dangerously wrong. Then it was clear from the data out of Europe, from the European Medicines Agency, that the AstraZeneca should be suspended and most European countries elected for a cut-off date of 60 years of age. So, if you were under 60, in most European countries they did not give you the AstraZeneca vaccine. But our medical bureaucrats decided that the Europeans didn’t know what they were doing and that we would have the cut-off at 50. Only last week they admitted that they were wrong again, and the result of their error has been that 800,000 Australians have been injected with a substance which our Chief Medical Officer now says has a greater risk than any benefit. This was 800,000 Australians injected, where the risk was greater to them than any benefit because of a mistake by our medical bureaucrats. The thing is that we should look at that risk-benefit analysis. But we’ve seen that the short-term risks have been grossly underestimated by health officials around the world. That’s why there have been suspensions and recalls. But we have no idea of the medium-term risks, we have no idea of the long-term risks and we have no idea of the intergenerational risks. Therefore, for anyone to stand up and say that they know that the benefits outweigh the risks, well, they simply cannot say that. If you cannot quantify medium-, long-term and intergenerational risks then you simply cannot make that assessment—the data is not there. We’re flying blind into this experiment. That’s also why we do not need a domestic vaccine passport in this country. It would also be a complete violation of human rights. The UN Economic and Social Council has said, ‘The right to health contains freedoms such as “the right to control one’s health and body, including sexual and reproductive freedom, and the right to be free from interference, such as the right to be free from torture, non-consensual medical treatment and experimentation.’ I’d also like to make special mention of our Paralympic squad. We have bureaucrats there running that Paralympic squad that have decided to discriminate against Paralympians. So we have a situation where athletes are playing the same sport, going to the same country, going to the same city, going to the same Olympic facilities and playing at the same stadiums. If they are a Paralympian they are forced into this experiment—otherwise they are not picked. If they are in the normal Olympics, that does not apply. That is discrimination. That is contrary to the principles of this bill. I would call on Paralympic Australia to end their discrimination against athletes going to the Paralympics. With that, I commend this bill to the House, and I also congratulate my good friend the member for Dawson on being the seconder for this bill. The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded? Mr Christensen: Seconded. PDF of Bill: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/r6724_first-reps/toc_pdf/21084b01.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22ivermectin%22 Main Page of Bill: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6724 Full Hearing/Source Video (10:05) https://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=545897&action=backFromDownload&operation_mode=parlview&position=601 EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM (A MUST READ) - PDF https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansardr/b643579f-2893-4024-aed6-648bc13b0e8f/0139/hansard_frag.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

Mr Kelly on being banned on Facebook for Sharing Ivermectin, HCQ, & Vitamin D. We must protect our rights to Freedom of Speech. "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to my death your right to say it. " "In terms of these social media platforms, I've heard it said that anything posted contrary to World Health Organization advice should be taken down. But the problem with that is that we've had advice from the World Health Organization during this pandemic that has changed 180 degrees. " "In my case, I have been banned because of four posts out of over 1,000 posts I posted in recent months. One of those posts was nothing more than an article that I had copied and pasted from The Spectator magazine—a credible magazine that is available online and is available in every newsagent in this country, that you can go and buy—written by a highly credentialed and credible journalist about Australia's Professor Tom Borody. " "In that speech, Professor Borody recommended ivermectin as a treatment for COVID. Facebook have ruled that as dangerous misinformation and had to remove that post and give it as the reason I should be banned. Yet what Professor Borody wrote is accepted by health authorities in many countries around the world. If I were in India in the state of West Bengal, in their official recommendations about how they should treat COVID is what Professor Borody recommends, yet here we have Facebook deciding that this was dangerous misinformation. " Full Video (18:11): https://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=533350&action=backFromDownload&operation_mode=parlview&position=17162 Transcript: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F14059f01-aa4f-4143-a7dc-fa5f407d6e45%2F0159%22

Senator RENNICK: We haven’t had any COVID deaths this year in Australia, have we, from people who have contracted it here? Dr Murphy : Not from people who contracted it here. CHAIR: Senator Roberts, what are your questions? I want to clarify yours as well. Senator ROBERTS: They are continuing on the vaccine. Senator ROBERTS: I will finish off on one I touched on briefly. The intergenerational effects of the vaccine are unknown. The effect of the vaccine on transmission is unknown. GPs are not even allowed to see which vaccine they have available. Australians have a right to know. The foundation of informed consent is accurate and full information. How is it possible to achieve real informed consent in this information vacuum? Dr Murphy : The GPs are certainly able to say which vaccines they have available. They provide informed consent— Senator ROBERTS: I will interrupt there. I attended a presentation by you and Professor Kelly saying that the vaccine injections would not be disclosing which vaccine was given at that time where people go to get their injection. Dr Skerritt : They are not given a choice. Senator Colbeck: I think you’re talking about two different things. Clearly, at this stage of the rollout, the GPs are distributing AstraZeneca. The issue would have been the choice. Perhaps there might have been some other issues. Senator ROBERTS: Nonetheless, Minister, with so many effects unknown, how can there be informed consent? Senator Colbeck: I’m not going to try to give you health advice. I will defer. Dr Murphy : Professor Kelly might be able to address that. I will be very clear. People undergoing the informed consent process are very clear about which vaccine they are getting. We’re not disguising the vaccine. Professor Kelly can go through the informed consent process. Prof. Kelly : Informed consent is a very important component of any medical procedure or treatment. Doctors do that with their patients every day every time they see them, pretty much. They are talking through the pros and cons of various, in this case, vaccines. As the secretary has said, it’s pretty clear if you turn up to a GP at the moment. With a couple of exceptions, almost all GPs are only using one vaccine. For those over the age of 50, it is AstraZeneca. The benefits of it in the particular circumstances of the person in front of them would be discussed in great detail. We’ve provided a lot of very detailed information, based on the ATAGI advice, on that risk and benefit equation for GPs and other medical practitioners and nurses to use. Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. My first question goes to the question of mandatory vaccination. Is the government considering mandatory vaccination? Dr Murphy : The government has repeatedly said that it is not considering mandatory vaccination for COVID vaccines or any other vaccines. Senator ROBERTS: Is a vaccine passport still under consideration? Dr Murphy : The only situation, as we referred to earlier today, is where a state or territory, for example, may refuse entry to a residential aged care facility. That is the position that AHPPC is considering. That is not mandating vaccination. It is basically saying that it may be not possible to participate in a certain activity unless you’ve been vaccinated. But it has not been a position so far. AHPPC is reconsidering it. Ms Edwards : Obviously the issue with medical advice is the extent to which, and whether and when, you might want to limit access to aged care facilities, which the secretary is talking about. The broader issue of whether there is a vaccine passport to identify you’ve had a vaccine and what impact that might have internationally or otherwise is a matter for the Department of Home Affairs. Dr Murphy : We are providing citizens with evidence of vaccination. They can get a vaccination certificate. They can use that in whatever way they choose. Senator ROBERTS: That is essentially a vaccine passport, isn’t it, Ms Edwards? Ms Edwards : It would be a certificate. The Australian Immunisation Register has been around for quite a long time. It got expanded a few years ago to cover all vaccinations. It will have the evidence of your vaccination for COVID-19. You can access it in a printed form or electronically. It has evidence that you have had the vaccine. There is no activity at the moment that you are either permitted or prevented from doing by virtue of vaccine status. Obviously, it is medical information for you. Senator ROBERTS: So that vaccine register should be confidential, shouldn’t it? Ms Edwards : It is. Dr Murphy : It is. But each citizen can print their own certificate and they can use it as they choose fit. Ms Edwards : We use it for aggregated data. So a lot of the data we’re getting about how many people have been vaccinated, not just for the COVID-19 vaccine but for the range of vaccines that we know, is drawn out of the Australian Immunisation Register in a de-identified, aggregated form. Senator ROBERTS: So a vaccine passport, though, could be established for restricting the movement of people or entry of people to a specific venue? Ms Edwards : Well, it is a hypothetical question, not one within the remit of the health department. All we’re talking about is having evidence that you have had the vaccine, which is really important, apart from anything else, so that people know what your risk is if you come into contact with COVID-19. It is also used in vaccination clinics to check that it is your second dose. If you turn up for your second dose, they’ll check the register that you’ve had one dose of AstraZeneca and it is time for the second one. It is used for those safety reasons for an individual. It is evidence of the medical treatment that you’ve had. But any further use of it is not in contemplation that I am aware of. We are certainly not involved in that. The question about how it might be used internationally and so on is a matter for Home Affairs. Senator ROBERTS: Where would Home Affairs get their advice from? It would be from you, wouldn’t it? Ms Edwards : They would seek health advice from us and advice about how the immunisation register works and so on together with Services Australia. They would be engaging with other agencies as well. Senator ROBERTS: As I see it, threatening Australians with the loss of privileges, free movement, a job or even a livelihood without a vaccine passport is really creating a digital prison. Ms Edwards : I am not aware of any proposal to do any of those things. Senator ROBERTS: Are not aware of any? Is the government enforcing vaccination through coercion if that were to occur? Senator Colbeck: That is a hypothetical question and it is an opinion. I don’t think it is appropriate to ask the officials that question. Senator ROBERTS: People expect the vaccine to do more than prevent deaths, more than not cause deaths. People expect the vaccine to bring back life as we knew it, with the removal of all restrictions and the resumption of international travel. Clearly, while acknowledging the many unknowns that you commendably and openly acknowledged this morning, what percentage of vaccination unlocks the gate and removes the restrictions and when? Dr Murphy : I think Professor Kelly can address the fact that that is still an unknown parameter. Our knowledge is evolving. Professor Kelly has been asked this question on many occasions. Prof. Kelly : I have since answered it. Thank you, Secretary. Senator ROBERTS: We’re still asking it. Prof. Kelly : I will get to your question. On my phone through my Medicare app, I have proof of my vaccination. It arrived within 24 hours of that vaccination happening. It just shows that this is already happening. Anyone who has had a vaccination will be able to access it. If it is needed to be shown, it is there. Senator ROBERTS: We are not worried about that. My constituents are very worried about it becoming a condition of entry to a venue or to travel or something like that. Prof. Kelly : Well, as the associate secretary has mentioned, that is a matter for other parts of government to consider. We will provide medical advice about how that information can be verified in terms of a vaccine that we trust and know works. As to your question about the target, this has come up on multiple occasions. I guess my answer is that these are non-binary states. So every single extra person who is vaccinated in Australia is part of our path to the post COVID future you’re describing. There’s no magical figure that says when we get to that, we’ve reached herd immunity and everything will be fine. Rather it is a process of getting towards that. We do need quite high coverage, though, to be able to get to the situation where, for most of the time, a seeding event, such as what we are experiencing in Victoria right now, will not lead to a large outbreak. So that is modelling that is being done at the moment by colleagues at the Doherty in Melbourne and others. It is part of the work that AHPPC has been asked to do to provide information into Mr Gaetjens’s committee, which is in turn providing information and advice to national cabinet. Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Where is the government’s plan for managing the COVID virus? There are six components the three of us discussed at the last Senate estimates. There is isolation lockdown; testing and tracing; quarantining and restrictions; and treatments, cures and prophylactics. The fifth was vaccines. Then you added, I think, Professor Kelly, personal behaviours as No. 6. Perhaps we could add a seventh, and that is prevention through health and fitness, because we’re seeing now that obesity and comorbidities are a big predictor of people dying from COVID. When will we see action in No. 4, which is treatments, cures and prophylactics, and health and fitness? Dr Murphy : I can perhaps address treatments. The scientific and technical advisory committee, which is the committee that looks at the vaccines, also has a watching brief on all treatments and has considered whether there are any treatments that we recommend the government purchase. The TGA obviously is also reviewing treatments as they appear. We also have an evidence taskforce that looks at the real-time evidence of treatments. At this stage, there are very limited options for treatment other than vaccines. Professor Skerritt can perhaps give you more information. Dr Skerritt : Thank you, Secretary. At the moment, in Australia, the clinical evidence taskforce endorses three TGA approved treatments. They depend on how sick you are, whether you need oxygen and so forth. If you’re in hospital requiring oxygen, corticosteroids are recommended for use with COVID patients. I would venture to say that globally they’ve probably been the most successful intervention. A drug called remdesivir is approved for moderate to severely ill patients who don’t require oxygen or ventilation. More recently there is a drug that was originally an arthritis drug known as tocilizumab. I don’t get to name them. Senator ROBERTS: You barely get to pronounce them. Dr Skerritt : There’s a trick here. They have unpronounceable names so everyone uses the trade name. That is the trick. Tocilizumab is for people who do require oxygen. What we don’t have yet—I think I may have said this at the last estimates—is an antiviral drug that is up there as effective as the recent antiviral drugs for hepatitis C or HIV. But, trust me, there is a major effort of companies working on that area. The other thing that has been coming through the system and seems to be getting better are these antibody based treatments. We are currently looking at an antibody called sotrovimab. It has some very promising early results. We’re currently assessing that. We have always said that antivirals and other treatments will be important for a range of reasons, one of which is that even with the greatest adherence to, say, the three-week gap Pfizer vaccination or the 12-week gap for AstraZeneca vaccination, neither treatment is 100 per cent effective against catching or transmitting the virus. They seem to be very effective against death or hospitalisation. But we do know that treatments will play an important part in getting on top of this virus. Senator ROBERTS: I will build on that. You didn’t address item No. 7, health and fitness, which I suggested. The focus on the vaccine is not addressing the end-to-end from prevention to resilience to treatment. Don’t we need the full gamut of comprehensive and complementary approaches? What would that look like? Would it not include Ivermectin, assuming someone sponsors it, and other treatments for those who want alternatives to vaccines, because there are people who want alternatives? Dr Skerritt : Well, very briefly, on general health, the fact of people going to general practitioners and having the COVID vaccination is always an opportunity for the GP to have a quick discussion that, ‘Hey, smoking doesn’t actually help your respiratory chances with COVID.’ There are some mixed messages out there and some mixed results. For example, a lot of people with asthma were very worried early in the COVID pandemic. One asthma drug called budesonide, an orally inhaled steroid, is actually quite effective in the early stages of COVID. So people with asthma, for example, in general, especially if they are on those drugs, don’t seem to have been affected. But it is true that if you have comorbidities such as diabetes and so forth, your risks of COVID infection are greater. That is why in phase 1b, a number of people who, for example, had drug resistant hypertension or had diabetes and so on were prioritised early for vaccination. Going back to other therapies, we are always interested in evidence based submissions for any other therapy. Some of the early papers suggested, for example, that hydroxychloroquine had a lot of promise. When objective blinded trials were run, the early promise, very sadly, didn’t hold up. Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. I will leave it there. CHAIR: Thank you. It is now four o’clock. We will now go to a break. Source Video: (15:44) https://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=543964 PDF Transcript: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/estimate/074f811f-4fa9-49b2-a2d5-f8dc2b74d47d/toc_pdf/Community%20Affairs%20Legislation%20Committee_2021_06_01_8809.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22committees/estimate/074f811f-4fa9-49b2-a2d5-f8dc2b74d47d/0002%22

"Now our taxes are being given to big pharma for unproven and risky vaccines. There have been deaths from the vaccine. Thousands of people overseas have died from it. So my first question is: how did the vaccines get provisional approval? They said there were no alternative vaccines available. But wait—once the first was approved provisionally, the others faced an approved alternative. So how did the others get provisional approval? The vaccines fail to prevent transmission of the virus. The vaccines fail to stop someone getting the virus and getting sick. Intergenerational effects are not known at all. The vaccine’s effect against mutations is still unknown. The dosage is unknown. Vaccine frequency, number and time between jabs are still all unknown. Are people going to be jabbed forever? The vaccine fails to remove restrictions on our lifestyle. The vaccine fails to open up international borders. The vaccine makers all lack integrity. They have been fined billions of dollars—not hundreds of millions but billions of dollars—for misrepresenting their products. The health minister himself said, ‘The world is engaged in the largest clinical vaccination trial.’ I am not a lab rat. Australians should not be treated as lab rats. This is the first time in history that healthy people have been injected with something that could kill them—and yet, on ivermectin, this is the first time that sick people have been denied medicine that is safe and successful for COVID, as multiple overseas jurisdictions prove. Let’s move on to ivermectin. I took it successfully in 2014 for something else. Some 3.7 billion doses have been given over six decades. It is prescribed for many ailments. There’s no risk. It’s safe. It’s cheap because it’s off patent. It’s affordable. It is being used successfully overseas to treat COVID en masse, regionally and nationally. There are 250 medical papers in support of ivermectin—proven successful with COVID. In times of emergency, when four vaccines are provisionally approved, and adults are vaccinated—and now kids, despite the early warnings, and now pregnant mothers, apparently—why isn’t a proven, safe and affordable treatment like ivermectin provisionally approved? If no-one has made application, why didn’t the government get off its hands and do it? The government has blood on its hands. My second question is: why have four unproven, untested and risky vaccines been given provisional approval, yet one known, safe treatment has not been given provisional approval, despite extensive medical papers and successful widespread use overseas? My third question is: what are the connections between Big Pharma, Monash University, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the Gates Foundation, Google and Facebook? Think about this. Google’s parent company is Alphabet. It owns YouTube, which took down one of my videos on the topic. Google owns 12 per cent of Vaccitech, which created the AstraZeneca vaccine. Aren’t these conflicts of interest? We move on now to what the government is calling a ‘digital certificate’. Is that going to become a digital passport? Will there be the withdrawal of people’s basic access to amenities, transport, travel and jobs unless they get the jab? Will there be the withdrawal of livelihood—the ability to live? This is not a digital passport; it’s a digital prison. Social media threats: Facebook and YouTube take down posts and threaten shutdown. Always, beneath control, there is fear. So my fourth question is: of what are authorities afraid? Clearly, it’s not the virus, because they have no plan. They’re afraid of people, the truth and freedom. Freedom is so easily squashed. The key question is: why is there no government action to approve ivermectin? I call on the government not to wait for an application for approval and to get on with the job of inquiring about, and investigating, ivermectin and approving it. Australians, I call on you to decide for yourselves. Compare ivermectin and the vaccine. Consider the actions of federal and state governments. What happened to basic freedoms? What happened to Australia? Are you willing to help us bring back Australia?" HTML Transcript: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;orderBy=date-eFirst;page=0;query=ivermectin%20Date%3AthisYear;rec=18;resCount=100 PDF: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansards/40613800-1436-428a-bdb0-08ea934125d3/0298/hansard_frag.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf Full Original Source: (21:19) https://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=545389

Sen. Malcolm Roberts speech: Vaccine Injuries & Ivermectin as a Prophylaxis Senator ROBERTS (Queensland): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I agree with the need for ministers to apologise to Victorians and all Australians. This includes ministers from state governments, particularly in Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia, and the federal government. But let’s dive deeper: after 16 months we still have virtually no data and certainly no plan. People are feeling scared and confused. Some are now terrified about the vaccine because crucial universal human needs are not being met—needs like security, health, reassurance, confidence, honesty, leadership, direction, care and competence. Where is the plan for managing this virus and managing our economy? The inconsistent behaviour across states and the nation reveals no plan. Queensland, Victoria and WA have deepened fear and confusion. Ministers are lurching from event to event and crisis to crisis. The people have been abandoned and there is just confusion and lack of accountability. There are seven strategies for managing a virus, and I checked these with the Chief Medical Officer and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing. The first one is isolation or lockdowns. The World Health Organization admits that this is only of limited use to get control. So lockdowns are now an admission that the state governments don’t have control of their states. They’re not managing the virus; the virus is managing the states. We see now in Victoria a 184 per cent increase in attempted suicides by children—184 per cent! Lockdowns are failing. The second is testing, tracing and quarantine. These are partially in use, but to very poor standards. The third strategy is restrictions—things like masks and social distancing. These are capricious and dubious in benefit. The fourth one is vaccines. We now have deaths from vaccines and thousands of people dying from vaccines overseas. We have a wide variety of side effects, including blood clots, and the health minister himself has been hospitalised with cellulitis as a side effect. The Chief Medical Officer, the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the head of the federal department of health refused to declare the vaccines 100 per cent safe, and the vaccines fail to prevent transmission. The fifth factor is cures and prophylactics. Ivermectin: I took it in 2014. There have been 3.7 billion doses around the world, over six decades. It’s proven safe. It’s cheap, because it is off patent, and it’s now being proven successful—highly successful—overseas. We’ve had 655 aged-care residents who’ve died, yet this drug is available, proven and safe. There are two other factors that I won’t go into, but the main point is that there’s no plan, and governments lurch from event to event and issue to issue. They’re making it up as they go; premiers and prime ministers are hiding behind health officers. Australians have had enough of the fearmongering and the spin. Australians need honest, responsible and competent leadership. HTML Transcript: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;orderBy=date-eFirst;page=0;query=ivermectin%20Date%3AthisYear;rec=15;resCount=100 PDF Transcript: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansards/45612f2f-5760-4b4c-80ce-b98ae28d42a9/0177/hansard_frag.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf Original Recording (17:27) https://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=545527&action=backFromDownload&operation_mode=parlview&position=14520

Papers were served at 1:00pm at Dan Andrews Noble Park Electoral Office on Wednesday the 3rd of November. Q&A with Brian Shaw, constitutional community advocate, the man who served papers to Daniel Andrews. Link: http://elijahschallenge.net/ Source: https://www.facebook.com/CouncilGovernmentAustralia/videos/596647168244739 Download PDF: https://irp.cdn-website.com/a5bfcf4a/files/uploaded/Shaw%2520Andrews.pdf

Questions to and hearing from Royal College of General Practitioners & AMA regarding vaccine hesitancy, indemnity, no-fault vaccine injury scheme, Pfizer versus AstraZeneca, GP Billing, adverse effects, droplet or aerosol, TTS CHAIR ( Senator Gallagher ): I declare open this hearing of the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19. Today’s public hearing will focus on vaccinations but may cover other matters under the terms of reference. I now welcome Associate Professor Charlotte Hespe from the Royal College of General Practitioners. Associate Professor Hespe, do you have a brief opening statement that you would like to make to the committee? Prof. Hespe : Thank you very much. I’d like to begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we are meeting today and pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging. I am here on behalf of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, representing 41,000 members working in general practice across Australia, both urban and rural. I’d like to thank the committee for the opportunity to respond to the inquiry into the Australian government’s response to COVID-19. At the time our submission was written, in June 2020, we noted that Australia had performed incredibly well in comparison to other countries around the world, managing to successfully limit the spread of COVID-19. This remains true, with next to zero community spread currently in Australia. With COVID-19 cases continuing to surge around the world, Australia is in an enviable position. Much of our success can be attributed to the health system—including GPs, who responded decisively and proactively at the onset of the pandemic. General practices continue to find creative new ways of working so that we can continue to deliver safe and essential care to our communities. We believe that there are lessons to be learned from this pandemic. The role of GPs as frontline health providers must be formally recognised as part of the pandemic preparation, response and recovery. As the cornerstone of Australia’s health system, GPs and their teams can and should be central to national, state, territory and regional emergency planning and responses. The RACGP hopes that GPs’ experiences in dealing with COVID-19 will highlight the longstanding need for increased funding to support general practice to enable ongoing patient access to high-quality and affordable care. COVID-19 has given rise to innovative ways of delivering care, and we applaud the government for assisting us in delivering via telehealth. We strongly encourage that telehealth become a permanent part of the Medicare system, and we welcome the announcement that it is at least being extended to Christmas. But we are disappointed that, at this point in time, telephone calls have been limited just to basic consultations, without the flexibility for some of our rural and remote members of the Australian population being able to access the full range of health care through the telephone. We mentioned in our submission that the primary healthcare response is far from over for the pandemic. We’ve got the ongoing effects of the pandemic for the health of Australians, and our way of life is likely to be seen to be affected for many years to come. GPs are also front and centre of the current rollout of vaccine across Australia. This is the most important public health initiative, and it’s critical that we do get it right. Patients are turning to GPs for information about the vaccine, and GPs have shown their willingness to participate in the rollout. But more support is needed for the GPs to access greater supplies of vaccine in order to meet the demand, and the government must provide clear information to help us address the vaccine hesitancy. Dr Khorshid : I’d like to thank the committee for the invitation to address you again. Similar to the College of GPs, the AMA would like to reflect on just how extraordinarily successful our approach to COVID in Australia has been, in our public health measures, the ability of all our levels of government to work together to achieve what needs to be done and the ability of our health sector to respond to the changing nature of the pandemic, including most recently our GPs stepping up to be part of the vaccination program. We know that the vaccine rollout has been quite frustrating for many Australians, and we share that frustration, though we have reflected on the fact that most of the delays have been due to international supply constraints on the vaccines, until we had our own local supply—and of course made worse by the blow to public confidence that came from the ATAGI decision around the AstraZeneca vaccine’s appropriateness for Australians under the age of 50. That has created a problem in public confidence, and it’s something that we’ve been trying to bolster, I guess, throughout the pandemic—really reinforcing Australians’ confidence with the decisions of our various governments and, in particular, the vaccine program, which is, as was stated before, an absolutely critical aspect of our response and our only real visible pathway out of this pandemic. As I mentioned before, the confidence of the public is important, but we also need the confidence of general practitioners in terms of their ability to participate in the program. There has been a level of concern about the indemnity risk that GPs are taking on by participating. In other countries, the practitioners that are participating are formally indemnified by the government, and that’s not the case here in Australia. We’ve been very clear that GPs are covered in their individual interactions with patients, and there is no risk to patients here, but there is a risk to our indemnity industry, to the premiums that our GPs are paying for their insurance, and it’s something that we believe government must step in and address. We’ve had a number of discussions—as have other bodies such as RACGP and the medical indemnity providers themselves—with government to try and resolve this issue. That discussion is ongoing, but it’s one that we really look forward to resolving in order to make sure that our GPs are fully confident to continue to participate in the program. I won’t cover telehealth, as it’s been covered by the college just now. But we would certainly echo the comments made previously. The last thing I’d like to quickly cover is hotel quarantine. That’s been very topical of late. The AMA remains of the view that hotel quarantine has been an extremely successful program overall. But it has also failed us on a number of occasions, resulting in outbreaks and subsequent lockdowns and other public health measures that have significantly affected Australians’ quality of life. Of course, the worst outbreak in Victoria resulted in the loss of over 900 lives. This is actually very serious stuff, and we don’t believe that absolutely everything has been done in every state to ensure that hotel quarantine is as safe as it could be. We would certainly look forward to our state governments working together, to learn from each other, to make sure that they’re all operating at the same level of safety. We also believe that the national cabinet should be looking at other alternatives. Hotels were a short-term measure. They were brought in really quickly and very successfully, but they have had a number of breaches. We would expect those to continue. We are likely to need quarantine for many, many months, if not years, into the future, just looking at how this pandemic is rolling out around the world. We only need to look at India to see that it’s very unlikely that our borders will be freely open any time soon, regardless of how the vaccine rollout goes. We need to make sure that we have fit-for-purpose quarantine facilities available for the future. I’ll leave it there. We’re very happy to take questions. CHAIR: Thank you very much. Dr Khorshid, there are a couple of things that you said in your opening statement that I wouldn’t mind quickly following up. Around the indemnity risk, you said that GPs need to be fully confident to continue in the program and that the federal government must step in and address this issue. Is there a particular solution that you have put to the government? Dr Khorshid : The AMA has put a number of potential solutions to government, starting with our longstanding view that a no-fault vaccine injury scheme is something that Australia could and perhaps should consider. That was our view prior to this pandemic, and it would certainly have been of assistance during the pandemic. Specific measures that can be brought in quickly include a mechanism for any person who felt they had been injured by a vaccine to access the indemnity that the Commonwealth already supply to the vaccine manufacturers, because, at the end of the day, the likely party that would be sued by an individual who’d been injured by a vaccine would normally be the vaccine manufacturer. But the pathway to getting there and our legal system mean that GPs may be unwittingly caught up in that. We’d like to see GPs out of any discussion around vaccine injury, unless they have directly contributed to it themselves, in which case, of course, they should be involved. The backup mechanism, which we think has a lot of merits but doesn’t fully address the situation, would be a guarantee to our indemnity industry that the government would pick up the cost of any claims that were the result of the vaccine program that came to our medical indemnity organisations. This would be similar to some existing schemes, but it would mean that the government would provide that assurance to the insurers themselves. If there is minimal risk, which is a view that some in government hold, then this should cost government nothing; but, if there is significant risk, then obviously there could be significant cost. Of course, this would assist our indemnity providers in accessing reinsurance on a global reinsurance market, because many other countries do have no-fault schemes or other schemes that protect doctors from claims as a result of these vaccine programs. It may be difficult for our insurers to access reinsurance on those global markets if we are a higher risk environment than other countries. CHAIR: On hotel quarantine, you said that you think national cabinet should look at other alternatives. Does the AMA have a view on what those might look like? Dr Khorshid : We would really stick to the first principles, being that we believe Australia needs better access, particularly during this pandemic, to purpose-designed quarantine facilities. There have been many commentators out there suggesting what facilities might be good. The one closest to what we think would be appropriate would be the Howard Springs facility in the Northern Territory, which has been used for that purpose both prior to this pandemic and during the pandemic. But at the end of the day, it is about achieving the appropriate separation to avoid contamination of other residents or the quarantine facilities and, in particular, avoiding transmission of any infectious disease to the staff that are providing care in those facilities, within reasonable distance of appropriate healthcare facilities because people do get quite sick, particularly with COVID, quite quickly. If you have COVID-positive people, they need to have access without a long airborne transfer to a hospital with ICU facilities. It has been suggested, and we would agree, that the outskirts of major cities may be places where you could build an appropriate facility that would have access to healthcare but not be within a CBD environment or a high-rise building type of environment, where it is much more difficult to ensure the separation between people. There is also the benefit in an open-air environment, not just for the air flows but also the amenity and quality of life provided to Australians that are entering those facilities so they don’t feel like they are in jail or in detention just by wanting to return home to Australia. CHAIR: I will go to the college now. Members of parliament have been getting quite a bit of feedback from general practitioners about how the program is actually practically rolling out for them and their patients. Do you have any kind of immediate improvements that could be made to make life for GPs and their patients a bit easier with the vaccine rollout? In a practical sense, what would immediately help to improve the arrangements that are in place now? Prof. Hespe : Thank you for asking that question. The biggest thing for most of the GPs around the country is actually having increased vaccine supply. There does seem to be a rather bizarre way that the vaccine numbers have been allocated around the country. Increased numbers have gone sometimes to practices that don’t have large numbers of their own patients but which are seen as being a vaccine hub, whereas practices where they do actually have large numbers of patients who are waiting—patiently, can I say—to have their vaccination done via their own trusted general practice are being [inaudible]. For instance, in my own practice, where we have well over 8,000 patients waiting for a vaccine, we get 50 doses a week, whereas a GP down the road from me has been complaining because he gets 400 doses a week. He is a solo GP with a far more limited number of patients of his own. It is because he is designated as a respiratory clinic to do the rollout of the vaccine. One of the big advantages, we say, of having vaccines done with GPs is that the majority of patients would like to actually do it in a place that they know and trust, and where someone has their medical history, particularly the vulnerable patients. I think a lot of people who don’t have medical history are quite comfortable going elsewhere. But while we have still got a lot of the older patients and people with medical conditions, I would just beg, really, that the number of vaccines to those standard practices increase so they can just roll it out smoothly. We do this for the flu every year and it is smooth, it is efficient and it just happens. The big bugbear has been supply. CHAIR: Is there anything else outside of supply? Is the booking system working and all that kind of stuff? Prof. Hespe : Look, it has been very difficult. Every day there is some different information about the vaccine. What would be really nice is having consistent messaging from across the states as well as the federal government about what vaccines are going where, because there has been this whole thing about Pfizer versus AstraZeneca, which is completely understandable but very unhelpful. We do know that AstraZeneca is safe and that it has a really good outcome for the vast majority of people that it is indicated for—for us, everybody who is 50 and over. We just need to be able to get on with doing that and have some clear communication lines about Pfizer versus AstraZeneca for people as they plan going forwards. But that is difficult. CHAIR: Is it clear to general practitioners who gets what under the arrangements that were agreed to at national cabinet last Friday? The information is changing, so is that information getting out in good time for doctors? Prof. Hespe : Yes, I think that was incredibly helpful. Up until then there was quite a lot of confusion. What was really helpful was saying, ‘Okay, those under the age of 50 will be able to access Pfizer.’ At least we can sort of have that in mind and just roll out the AstraZeneca for the 50s and over as quickly as we can so that then we have got the time to be able to roll out Pfizer for everybody under 50. CHAIR: Just finally, there is some information coming forward that there is an increase in vaccine hesitancy since the ATAGI decision was announced? What do you think could be done there to deal with that and to put downward pressure on the increasing rate of vaccine hesitancy? Dr Khorshid : I think the key is the way that we are delivering messages out to the community, particularly when it comes to reports of side effects from the vaccines. That is something that we need to take, I guess, the media on a journey with us, because sensational reporting of a single potential side effect in a vaccination program that has already gone out to close to two million people is really not helpful and it harms confidence way out of proportion to the actual risk to any individual. It is really difficult to communicate a clear understanding of what a one-in-100,000, or one-in-200,000 risk actually looks like. I think a little more consistency and effort on that part would be good, as would making sure that when announcements are made there is an understanding of how that would be received by the Australian community. It is important to be transparent, but we need to make sure we are not being sensationalist in being transparent or driving up the temperature when it normally isn’t. Most Australians wouldn’t have the faintest idea of the brand of vaccine they are given for any other condition. They wouldn’t know what its results are, its effectiveness, it’s side effects. They trust that the doctor and the regulators do the right thing. I know it is a little bit unlikely in this particular case, but we need to get to the point where Australians accept that the TGA and ATAGI have looked at absolutely everything they can and that if they are recommending that there is a clear benefit to vaccination then that is the message and it is as simple as that. CHAIR: Did you have anything you would like to add to that? Prof. Hespe : Yes. I agree with everything Dr Khorshid has said. The biggest thing is visual aids help the understanding that this is actually a very small risk; we have got large numbers around the world that have demonstrated what a good vaccine it is. It is also very difficult because we have no COVID in the country, so it is hard for people to understand what that risk means to them when we just otherwise really seem to have a normal life. We know medically that what we are trying to do is prevent the awfulness that is happening overseas. I think some more conversation around ‘this is why we are doing it as a community‘, so it isn’t individual but is actually because we do want to go back and because we do have to prevent that sort of infection, whereas it is a no-brainer when you are actually amongst the pandemic infection numbers. Dr Khorshid : What is really important here too is the role of general practitioners in communicating that risk to individual patients. We have had a lot of reports of GPs saying that it is taking longer to have that conversation around consent with a patient, but at the end of the day almost everybody is saying yes. I have certainly found in my own practice, probably because I am president of the AMA, as an orthopaedic surgeon I am being asked in every consult what I think of the vaccine—should I have it now; should I have it before my surgery; what do you think of this clotting business et cetera? Once I have explained it, patients tend to look at it with a much better understanding. So I think that deliberate pivot from the over-50s to general practice rather than to mass vaccination clinics is a good decision and it should remain at the core of the program. Prof. Hespe : Can I quickly add to that. It is taking a lot longer to have those conversations. It isn’t a mass vaccine program from a GP perspective; it is an individualised, tailored conversation. We need to recognise that in the billing, and we have been asking that that is recognised suitably for GPs to bill appropriately for the amount of time they should and need to spend with members of the public to encourage them to have the appropriate vaccination. CHAIR: Can you explain to the committee what the arrangements are now for delivery of a COVID vaccination, and what you are allowed to bill for? Prof. Hespe : The current billing is to the level of a level A consultation, which is less than five minutes. Realistically, if you think about how long you want somebody to have a conversation with you about how you perceive the risks, what they mean, how you put that in with your flu vaccine, when the next one is and what the actual risks are, it doesn’t take five minutes. Then you’ve still got to do a vaccination, which takes up a whole lot more time on top of that. CHAIR: Are you suggesting you’d want something like a level B consultation? Prof. Hespe : I’m suggesting that we certainly need a level B consultation for discussing the role of the vaccine with the individual. There will be some people who have already made a decision, so there should be a choice of whether it is level A or level B—so tailor it, and trust GPs to bill the right amount for each of their patients. CHAIR: Thank you. Senator SIEWERT: In terms of the Australian Immunisation Register, are both of you finding that it’s effective? Are there any issues with it? Prof. Hespe : It’s been fantastic—having it as a mandatory part of participating in the scheme and also being mandatory to upload on a daily basis. It means there’s an assurance that there is a record for everybody of what they’ve had and when they’ve had it, so we can make sure there’s safety around flu vaccinations and the second dose of each of the vaccines. All of my patients who’ve had it are delighted by being able to see all of their vaccines. From my perspective, as a GP, I think we’ve needed this. For instance, for vaccines that get administered in a pharmacy, often the patient doesn’t know what they’re given. For flu vaccines, that’s been really difficult. Now, pharmacists as well as doctors have to upload it. It means there is now this across-the-board community registration of what vaccine you’ve had and when, which is so much better for safety, quality and the proper care of our community. Senator SIEWERT: So it’s operating as intended? Prof. Hespe : It’s operating, and for practices that have all their systems set up—which they should have if they’re part of the vaccine rollout—it’s really smooth and easy. For my practice, and a lot of practices around New South Wales, the patients are able to tell us about any adverse reactions after the vaccine as well. I get a daily report about what adverse reactions patients are reporting about all of their vaccines, which is a fantastic feedback tool for knowing and understanding what’s actually happening as we are rolling out the vaccine. Senator SIEWERT: I’m going to run out of time soon, so sorry if I am jumping around. Dr Khorshid, you touched on hotel quarantining and what’s been happening here in WA. Can I ask a broader question about airborne transmission? We still have this difference of opinion going on about how significant airborne transmission is, but it seems to me that, in a number of the occasions where we’ve had outbreaks here in Australia, it’s the issues around ventilation and airborne transmission that we have problems with. What’s your opinion on that? How do we deal with this issue, and how do we get past this difference of opinion? Dr Khorshid : It has been extremely frustrating to watch this. It’s almost been a pitched battle between people on either side of the argument. Actually, as is often the case, they’re both right. There’s no doubt that, if you look at the epidemiology of the COVID illness, it is a droplet spread virus in most circumstances. If it were mostly spread by airborne spread, it would be like measles: everyone who walks into a room would get it, it would have gone all over the world and we’d all have it by now. It’s not like that, which is a good thing. However, there’s no black and white here, and there’s no doubt that airborne transmission has been implicated in a whole series of outbreaks all over the world, through breaches of quarantine and breaches of PPE in hospitals and healthcare settings. There is a good, scientific explanation behind it now. In our own experience here in Australia, the reality of the number of healthcare workers who were infected in Victoria was a good sign that the established PPE protocols that were put out by the Infection Control Expert Group and implemented by our state governments were not adequate. Thousands of healthcare workers were infected, and that would have been avoidable if a more careful approach had been taken. We brought this issue up a lot last year during the Victorian outbreak. The government announced that the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce would be asked to look into the evidence and come up with new guidelines, mainly around PPE, but to really answer this question around airborne spread as well. Unfortunately, that work is not yet complete. It is almost complete. Some new guidelines are coming very shortly, but they’ve still got their way through ICEG itself and then through the AHPPC before they become a reality. And whilst you might say, ‘Well, we don’t have outbreaks, so why are we worried about healthcare worker protection?’, the reality is that we’ve had an outbreak in Queensland as a result of a doctor and a nurse not being appropriately protected in their workplaces in Queensland. And of course the philosophy around droplet-only spread seems to be built into at least some of our hotel quarantine facilities. So, it’s about accepting that philosophy that yes, in certain circumstances, and not only limited circumstances, it is airborne spread and therefore, in order to protect people and in order to have a system that works 99.999 per cent of the time, you need to put in appropriate levels of protection. So, we’re really looking forward to these kinds of PPE wars being over and to new guidelines coming out soon. That will directly address the workplace safety issues and the fact that workers deserve to be protected even from a one per cent risk of COVID. And I think if that philosophy flows out into our hotel quarantine as well it will make it much safer. Senator SIEWERT: I want to go to the issue of over-50s vaccination, particularly focusing on 1b, but over-50s who, for whatever reason, can’t have AstraZeneca. I’ve had a number of people contact me saying that they’ve got an underlying medical condition. They actually qualify for 1b but because of their underlying medical conditions—for example, a history of clotting—they really shouldn’t have AstraZeneca. Have either of you come across this issue, particularly you, Professor Hespe? And what is the official position, that you are aware of? Can they have access to Pfizer if they’re over 50 but they have these underlying conditions that increase the risk with AstraZeneca? Prof. Hespe : Perhaps I could start by shooting down the hypothesis that those conditions are associated with risks with AstraZeneca, because they’re not. There’s actually now a really good body of evidence showing that there is no underlying condition that predisposes you to the side effect that everybody is worried about, which we are calling TTS. So, even if you’ve had clotting disorders or have a family history of clotting disorders, that is not an associated predisposition that means that you are at more risk from the AstraZeneca vaccine. So, my argument is that you don’t actually have a reason to not have AstraZeneca. That’s where the media that Dr Khorshid has been talking about needs to play a role in trying to get people to understand that the evidence is not pointing a finger at these conditions as making it more likely. It’s just that people are generally fearful, because they think that if they’ve had a clot then surely they are more at risk of a disorder that has clotting linked to it. So, that’s sort of where I go, and those are the conversations that I’m certainly trying to get the GPs to have with patients. But it’s very hard to shift some of the fixed ideas that have been planted very firmly. At the beginning, when we didn’t know what was associated with TTS, it was a fairly appropriate thing to say, ‘Well, if you’ve had a clotting disorder, let’s stay away.’ So, we sort of created it for ourselves, a bit, as we were finding out what the evidence was. Senator SIEWERT: How’s that information being made available? As I said, I’ve been contacted by people raising this issue. Is there a process of going back to people who have had their appointments cancelled and letting them know this information? Prof. Hespe : That’s where we’re hoping they can have those conversations with a GP who know the patient, rather than necessarily being in a clinic where people might not know them or might not feel comfortable having that level of conversation. But I think we do need to take a responsibility for sharing that more widely so that those who are having those vaccine hesitancy conversations do feel comfortable sharing that. I know there are still some doctors who feel uncomfortable because they have fears themselves about what the risk might be—which goes to the conversation about being afraid that they’re then going to be sued if they’re the person who says, ‘Go ahead,’ and what that means. It becomes a bit of a complex catch 22 about what advice someone’s willing to give when they’re afraid they might be sued, when in fact the evidence says that that isn’t the risk and you can reassure them that that’s not the case—that the risk is the same for everybody. CHAIR: Senator Lambie. Senator LAMBIE: ATAGI says that someone under the age of 50 could choose to get AstraZeneca if the benefit of being protected from COVID-19 clearly outweighed the risk in that person’s circumstances. The Prime Minister said the choice of whether to get the AstraZeneca vaccine is between individual Australians and their doctor. Have doctors been given clear guidelines about how to weigh up whether the benefits outweigh the risks for their patients? I know that was a problem when ATAGI’s advice changed. Dr Khorshid : The AstraZeneca vaccine is still a very safe vaccine, even for people under the age of 50, if you’re in a different circumstance. And that all comes down to risk and benefit. The risk is understood: it’s very rare. But, in Australia right now, your chance of catching COVID and ending up in hospital and dying if you’re under the age of 50 is minuscule, because we don’t have COVID, plus you are in a low risk-group. What ATAGI has done is balance the risk against the benefit and come up with these recommendations. If you are travelling to the UK or to India, then you’re going to be in a very different risk environment. If I were under the age of 50 and had access to AZ, I would grab it in a flash if I were going overseas. It’s that kind of scenario that we’re thinking of. I don’t think there are too many medical or other individual aspects of people that would alter their risk and alter that recommendation from ATAGI. GPs are not going to be vaccinating huge numbers of young Australians who want AZ, unless I’m mistaken, Perhaps Professor Hespe can fill that in. Prof. Hespe : I agree. It think the difficulty around the age of 50 is that you’re the cut-off mark. It’s like anything: you have to have a cut-off, and 50 was deemed to be where that balance lies, but, if you look at the risk stratification between the ages of 40 and 60, it’s not that at 50 you radically change from 49. That’s why it is difficult for some people to say, ‘Why am I doing AstraZeneca versus Pfizer?’ And that’s why it’s so important to have those conversations. From my perspective, if people want to wait to try and access Pfizer when it comes into the country much later down the track, go for it, but you’re going to be lowest on the list of priorities, because all of those who are under 50 will be prioritised for Pfizer when it does come in. Again, it is exactly that conversation about trying to decide what is the risk for you, how many other predisposing conditions do you have, are you going to be more likely to be at risk of COVID if COVID does come into the country or are you needing to travel? It’s those sorts of conversations rather than individually—because, at 50, there is no other reason to be having the difficulty of making the conversation, but I think everybody has a right to decide that they would rather wait 12 months to access another vaccine if they wanted to, whereas, realistically, they’re probably better off getting the AstraZeneca now. Senator LAMBIE: My mates and I have all just turned 50 in the last two months, and we’re not lining up to get AstraZeneca—just so you know. What I want to know is, have the doctors been given clear guidelines about what they should be looking at? Is there official advice that they can rely on to make the call that an AstraZeneca vaccine is worth the risk? What guidelines are there? Dr Khorshid : The AstraZeneca vaccine is an extremely safe and effective vaccine—full stop. When you look at other medical treatments, like when you go and get a blood pressure pill or go on the oral contraceptive pill or go and have an operation, there are risks associated with anything you do in life and certainly with anything we do as doctors with patients. What we’re constantly doing—what our regulators do, what our individual doctors do and what patients do—is weigh up those risks and benefits before deciding on their treatment. We’ve got the huge benefit in Australia of watching what is happening in other countries that are way ahead of us in the vaccine rollouts. We’re not just making this stuff up; it’s based on millions and millions of doses of these vaccines that have been administered around the world and that leads to confidence in the vaccines. There’s a really simple message now, and that’s probably one good thing that has come out of the national cabinet decisions in recent weeks: it’s not a 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B or phase 3 thing anymore. It’s now: under 50s get one vaccine and over 50s get another vaccine. Both of them are really good vaccines. Both of them will be available to Australians sometime this year. There really is not much else to say. Those who are not in the high risk groups are going to have to be a little bit patient, unfortunately, due to the time it takes to access the Pfizer from overseas. But we’re in an extraordinary position to get access to these two vaccines so early in a disease’s history. This has never happened before in the world, and I think we just need to remember that. Senator LAMBIE: Do you think there’s a problem with people’s confidence in AstraZeneca? They’re obviously losing confidence by the day. That’s my first thing. My second thing is that it doesn’t have a compensation scheme to back it up even though it’s so credible. Do you think that’s the problem of why people are now getting extremely hesitant about lining up to get those shots? Dr Khorshid : I think the reason people are hesitant is partly because of the nature of the media coverage of the rare but serious side effects that have been determined. We see serious side effects in medical treatments all the time, but they don’t appear on the front page of the paper. It is scary for people. It’s our job, as the medical profession, and it’s the job of our government, to help people understand why the recommendations are being made so they can have confidence in them. You only need to look overseas to see the alternative of a vaccination program. A no-fault scheme would be a good idea. The number of Australians who are going to be harmed by these COVID vaccines is tiny. It is really, really, really small. We harm more people on our roads on a daily basis than would be harmed by these vaccines. The risk behind a no-fault scheme is extremely small. I don’t believe the government are concerned about the level of risk and the cost of the program, so you’d have to ask the government as to why they haven’t done it. At the end of the day, Australians will have access to suing the manufacturers. If they were injured by a vaccine, they could sue the manufacturers, and the government are actually covering those manufacturers. The government will be on the book if people were injured by the vaccines. What we want to make sure is that doctors who administer the vaccine in good faith, appropriately, with appropriate consent, don’t get caught up in that legal process. Senator LAMBIE: I’ve seen out there in those rural and regional areas that they’ve been doing it tough. Whether or not you both support it, I’m calling for it and I’ll continue to call for it when it comes to counsellors being put on the Medicare Benefits Schedule, because I cannot get those kids in to see the psychologists and the psychiatrists for weeks. They will not go and see those counsellors because they’re not getting a rebate, and counsellors cannot be expected to work for free. Do you have an opinion on that? Dr Khorshid : It’s perhaps a little off topic, but we would certainly support better access to mental health services for rural and regional children and adults around the country at a price that’s affordable to them, but we probably don’t have time to discuss the detail or how you’d arrange that, but certainly we’d support better access to services. CHAIR: Okay, and that’s a thumbs up from Professor Hespe as well, endorsing that. Thank you very much, Dr Khorshid, for taking that out of left field. Can I thank you very much for appearing before the committee today. We do genuinely appreciate your engagement with us as we continue to focus on COVID-19 and the rollout of various programs, so, on behalf of the committee, thank you very much. 27 April 2021 COVID-19 Hearing Full Video: https://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=540409&operation_mode=parlview HTML Transcript: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommsen%2F54c967b9-4210-41bc-92c5-b15d62ed36ea%2F0000%22 PDF Transcript: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/commsen/54c967b9-4210-41bc-92c5-b15d62ed36ea/toc_pdf/Senate%20Select%20Committee%20on%20COVID-19_2021_04_27_8709_Official.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22committees/commsen/54c967b9-4210-41bc-92c5-b15d62ed36ea/0000%22

Back in March this year AHPRA, the Australian Regulating Body sent out letters telling all doctors to conform with federal governments vaccine rollout. Well done to Tanya Davies MP speaking out against AHPRA threats to practitioners. ================ Tanya Davies MP ================ https://www.facebook.com/tanyadaviesmulgoa http://www.tanyadavies.com.au/ ================ The 9 March 2021 AHPRA Position Statement: ================ https://www.ahpra.gov.au/documents/default.aspx?record=WD21/30751&dbid=AP&chksum=zrOQ56xJaaLbasNxLDyqMA%3d%3d https://www.ahpra.gov.au/News/2021-03-09-vaccination-statement.aspx ================ Source: ================ Australia - The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency Censored & Threatened Doctors https://rumble.com/vm7wup-australia-the-australian-health-practitioner-regulation-agency-censore-and-.html

Senator Roberts asking TGA when Ivermectin will be approved in Australia Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Ivermectin is an antiviral that has been proven safe in 3.6 billion human doses over 60 years. It’s now demonstrating success in treating COVID internationally, including in certain Indian states that are performing far better than the other states without it. Last time you were here, Professor Murphy and Professor Kelly, you acknowledged that cures and preventatives are a fundamental and complementary part of a virus management strategy. What is your timeline for the assessment and use of Ivermectin in light of the emerging evidence and its historical safety? Dr Skerritt: Senator, we have not received a submission for Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID. I have had a number of people write to me and say, ‘Why haven’t you folks approved?’ We can’t make a medicine submission to ourselves for regulatory approval. There is no provision in law for us because it requires a legal sponsor. But we have said to people, ‘If you come with a dossier of information, we will review it as a priority.’ So it is open for any sponsor to put an application in for Ivermectin to the TGA for regulatory approval. PDF Transcript: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/estimate/074f811f-4fa9-49b2-a2d5-f8dc2b74d47d/toc_pdf/Community%20Affairs%20Legislation%20Committee_2021_06_01_8809.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22ivermectin%22 Original Full Hearing Video (11:17): https://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=543903&action=backFromDownload&operation_mode=parlview&position=781

Mr CHRISTENSEN I will talk about some threats at home, particularly a threat to freedom. This idea of COVID vaccine passports is one that is anathema to freedom. It is anathema to freedom because no Australian should have to carry around papers in their own country to go to places. I understand there is concern about state premiers shutting borders if someone sneezes on the other side, but the answer to that is not a domestic COVID vaccine passport . The answer to that is the Commonwealth taking state premiers to the High Court for breach of the Constitution, which actually says that there is to be free and unfettered movement between states. We are one nation, after all, not a conglomerate of nations. We are one nation. It is disgraceful that in this country the Prime Minister was stopped from going to a particular Australian state. I cannot understand that. Many Australians cannot understand that. But the answer is not to bring in something that will be, ‘Your papers, please,’ if you want to get to a certain area—and it will be used and abused in other circumstances. I am sure that businesses will actually say, ‘Show us your papers if you want to come and dine in our place or if you want our service.’ We’ve even had airlines saying that they will need to see some form of proof of vaccination. I just think that this is something beyond the pale. I quote US statesman Benjamin Franklin, who said: ‘Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.’ In the long run, he is right, because we will probably get neither if we keep moving down that path. The Wuhan coronavirus is going to be with us forever, just like the flu is. The question is: are we going to keep on locking down, masking up and shutting out forever and have a situation where Australians are going to have to present to someone a document when they say, ‘Your papers, please’? It just seems like we are heading down a path that is going to be bereft of the freedoms that we once enjoyed in this nation. Along with that, I want to take this opportunity to talk about another particular freedom which must be seen to in the time that we have left in this term of parliament, and that is religious freedom. The government, going into the last election, promised that they would legislate for religious freedom. I am saying right here, right now, that it will be a broken promise unless the government actually steps up and passes legislation that is in accord with all of the faith groups who backed us on that policy. So I am calling on the new Attorney-General to actually present that legislation to the House in an amended form that conforms to what the churches and other faith groups actually want, so that they have true protection under the law from discrimination—so we don’t see a repeat of the situation when the Archbishop of Tasmania was actually dragged before the antidiscrimination tribunal for sending out a booklet to Catholic school students on the Catholic Church’s teaching on marriage. It is insane that we have that situation in this country, but we do have it. That is why this legislation is needed—so we don’t have pastors, Christians, Jews or anyone of faith hauled up before some jumped-up kangaroo court to answer for what they believe in. That is wrong. Finally, I go from those freedoms—the freedom of choice around vaccines, freedom of movement and the freedom of faith—to a fundamental freedom, and that is the right to life. I am putting up a private members bill to this place and I intend to pursue it with vigour. That private member’s bill has been drafted. It is called the Human Rights (Children Born Alive) Protection Bill 2021. It says that children who are viable, who are born alive as a result of an abortion in this country, should be afforded medical treatment. That is in line with our international obligations under the International Covenant on the Rights of the Child, which says two things. At article 6, it says that every child shall have the right to life, and it goes on to say that all state parties must provide services to ensure that right to life. Article 24 talks about the provision of health services and actually states that no child shall be deprived of the provision of health services because of the circumstances of their birth. I have to tell you that, from the data I have seen, around this country, hundreds of children are born alive as a result of abortions every year and are simply left to die. Not all of them are unviable. I have testimony to that fact. Children who are viable, born alive, prematurely, as a result of an abortion, are left to die. That is not in accordance with the international obligations that we as a nation have signed up to under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. So I will pursue that legislation with vigour in this House while I remain in this parliament. The right to life is a fundamental freedom. The right to liberty and the right to movement are fundamental freedoms. In summing up, I will state that we must protect these freedoms in this place because, if we don’t, what then is the point of all the spending on defence? What are we actually protecting? We’re protecting ourselves against other nations that might do us harm and bring in totalitarianism here. We’ve got to protect freedom here as well. That’s why I’m supportive of the budget and it’s defence spending. But I am also supportive of protecting the freedoms that many of our diggers fought so hard for and sacrificed their lives for. Source Video (19:11): https://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=544136 PDF Transcript: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansardr/c9cf9ca9-c2c1-482e-a6ea-f977bc3736be/0231/hansard_frag.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

Federation Chamber: COVID-19: Ivermectin - Feb 17 2021 Kelly pleads the National COVID task force to look at the evidence of Ivermectin. We have a therapy that can fight COVID-19. The medications have been around for 50 years, they are cheap, FDA and TGA approved, and have an outstanding safety profile … To save lives we should be using whatever is safe and available right now. We could lead the world in this fight. Australia has some of the best medical and science people in the world - indeed the Ivermectin connection was first discovered by Dr Kylie Wagstaff's team at Monash University in April. How long do we need to wait before Australian politicians get behind Australian medical science and use 'war room' tactics with safe and approved medications. Transcript: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F14059f01-aa4f-4143-a7dc-fa5f407d6e45%2F0220%22 Original Hearing: (10:21) http://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=533316&action=backFromDownload&operation_mode=parlview&position=1860

Vaccine & Pregnancy, Baby-Defect Compensation, Vaccinating Kids, Herd Immunity, School-based vaccination programmes Senator LAMBIE: I realise it’s only early days with the vaccine. We’ve obviously got pregnant women out there. What is the advice that cabinet or whatever is coming up with to vaccinate these women who are carrying babies? Are there any terms that they should be vaccinating them—at one month, two months or three months? Dr Murphy : The ATAGI advice is that, at the moment, there’s no evidence that any of the vaccines have any adverse impact on pregnancy. There has been quite a bit of vaccination of people who turned out to be pregnant in the UK—people who didn’t know they were pregnant—and there’s been no evidence of what we call teratogenic or other adverse effects of the vaccine. But, in the absence of any specific studies in pregnant women, the advice has been that, at this stage, people should have a discussion with their doctor. I might ask Professor Skerritt to comment because he has the actual specific advice there, presumably, from the TGA. Dr Skerritt : The specific advice from the TGA is that the safety and efficacy of the vaccine wasn’t assessed during clinical trials in pregnant women. However, people—for example, a nurse who may be working in an infectious diseases department or an emergency department—can choose and elect in consultation with their doctor to be vaccinated. There’s a very recent study that has been looked at in the US where they actually have looked at several hundred pregnancies and found no evidence of any birth defects or adverse outcomes on the pregnancy. We’re hoping that it will be published in the next couple of weeks. So, through the regulators’ grapevine, there’s a positive study—that was mainly with the Pfizer vaccine and the Moderna vaccine—showing that there are no adverse effects of the vaccination during pregnancy, and that’s really good news. Dr Murphy : There are resources on our website, Senator Lambie, for any pregnant woman who seeks information, and for providers who want to look at the issue there’s significant information. Senator LAMBIE: If that causes any defects or any issues when the baby is born, will they be covered with any sort of compensation? Dr Murphy : There is, again, no evidence that that might be the case, but obviously— Senator LAMBIE: That’s not what I asked you, Mr Murphy. I asked you: are they covered by a compensation system or scheme? Dr Murphy : Obviously, if there were proven adverse effects from a vaccine, whether it was a birth defect or any other effect, there would be well-established avenues for getting compensation via our legal system, and, as you know, the Commonwealth has provided certain indemnities to the vaccine manufacturers to protect against that. So, yes, there are existing mechanisms if such a thing is proven, but there is no evidence that it’s the case. Senator LAMBIE: I want to talk about children. We know that children can catch COVID-19—that’s now swinging back around—and that there are trials, but do we know if the vaccines are safe for young children? And to be protected will they need a vaccine? Dr Murphy : I might get Professor Kelly to talk to that. There are trials being done at the moment in teenagers, who seem more commonly to get clinically evident COVID than younger children do. But the main reason to want to vaccinate children would be to create herd immunity. Very, very few children have clinically apparent COVID disease, and the very young children—primary school children—often don’t get the virus at all. It doesn’t seem to transmit very well. It does seem to transmit in older children, secondary-school-age children, and for that reason there are trials underway to make sure the vaccines are safe and effective. If they are safe and effective, we would probably, like most countries, want to embark on a program of vaccinating older children to create greater herd immunity to stop transmission. Professor Kelly might want to address that. Prof. Kelly : I think it’s a very important component. Thank you for the question, Senator. For the reasons that Professor Murphy has mentioned, it’s not so much to protect the children, because we’ve found right around the world that that hasn’t been a major issue in terms of COVID—surprisingly; it’s very unusual for a respiratory infection like this to affect adults more than children, but that appears to be the case. It will be an important component of our vaccine rollout eventually. At the moment, there are trials, I believe—and Professor Skerritt will of course know more about these through his contacts internationally—down to the age of five— Dr Skerritt : Five or six. Prof. Kelly : five or six—for several of the vaccine candidates. So we look forward to those matters, but, at the moment, the TGA has approved only 18 and over for the AstraZeneca vaccine and 16 and over for the Pfizer vaccine, on the basis of the trial data that they’ve been presented with. Dr Skerritt : But there is an expectation, in talking with some of the companies—and I’ve got to watch what I say because it’s commercial-in-confidence. Some of the companies that are already providing vaccines in Australia are expecting to submit regulatory data on children and adolescents later this year. That will give the Commonwealth the ability to decide whether or not to lower the age threshold. This is very common, for example, with the flu vaccines. The trials and data are originally generated in adults, and then later on adolescents and children are added to those trials. Dr Murphy : There’s an important difference between flu and COVID, in that flu can be a very nasty disease in young children— Dr Skerritt : For young children, yes. Dr Murphy : and COVID is not a nasty disease in young children. Dr Skerritt : But the general thing is that the very first trials you do with any vaccine are with healthy adults. For ethics reasons, they don’t round up a bunch of schoolkids to do those trials; they start with healthy adults over 18. As Professor Murphy said, flu is worse for children than COVID appears to be, as far as the symptoms. Senator LAMBIE: Are you in discussions behind closed doors about getting herd immunity in our population if children aren’t vaccinated? Those under five or six. Is there any discussion on vaccinating them to get that herd immunity going? Prof. Kelly : I might answer that. The issue of herd immunity is an important one to consider. It’s not an all or none phenomenon. The more people that are vaccinated, the more protection we have as a community. As you know, Senator, the vaccine rollout plan is based very much on vaccinating the vulnerable communities first and then working through the wider community. It’s true that the proportion of the Australian community who are at a younger age, who currently can’t be vaccinated and haven’t, in general, been exposed to the virus, could be a pool to recreate outbreaks in Australia, even if we’ve got a very high rate of vaccination within the adult community. So that is a matter; it’s a balancing act, again. Of course, we’re not going to start any vaccination program in children until we have that go-ahead from the TGA that it’s safe. Senator LAMBIE: The question is: does anybody know whether we will be able to get herd immunity in our population if children are not vaccinated? Do we know that yet? Prof. Kelly : We could, but it would require a very high rate of vaccination in adults. We need to get over 70 per cent to get herd immunity, and the higher, the better. With about 30 per cent of the population under the age of 18 in Australia, that would be difficult. CHAIR: Would you need almost 100 per cent of the adult population to get to herd immunity without children? Prof. Kelly : Correct. Senator LAMBIE: The Pfizer and the AstraZeneca are approved for people over different ages: 16 for Pfizer and 18 for the AstraZeneca. Dr Skerritt : Correct. Senator LAMBIE: Are there any early results on whether certain vaccines are safer for children under the age of 10, five, or however you’d break it up? Is AstraZeneca less safe for children than the mRNA vaccines? Dr Skerritt : Those studies, those trials, are still underway globally. Some of them have completed recruiting children and they’ve now vaccinated all of those kids. They’re waiting, obviously for a few months, to see whether there are differences in the vaccinated group of children versus the unvaccinated group of children or adolescents. As I indicated earlier, those trials will read out—we’ll get the results later in the year. There’s no evidence, for example, that one particular vaccine is more or less safe or effective in children than another vaccine. But, as more companies and clinical research groups are involved in those trials, we’ll be able to see the data, for example, for maybe three or even four vaccines by the end of the year. Senator LAMBIE: Do children need to be vaccinated before we can open the borders and go back to living life more normally, or are we’re going to leave them out and just see what happens? Prof. Kelly : As I mentioned in a previous answer, Senator, that is, in fact, the information that’s been sought and the advice that has been sought from the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee to the national cabinet—to decide about border and other opening matters. That’s work that’s currently underway. CHAIR: So the level of vaccine deployment or the level of vaccination across the community will be a key component of that advice? Prof. Kelly : I think it’s the absolutely most key part. Senator LAMBIE: Have we got as far as asking if we have enough of the right vaccines to vaccinate our kids when it’s safe to do so? Do we have plans ready for a vaccine rollout for the kids? How would it work; or are we not that far yet? Dr Murphy : Obviously we wouldn’t be using the AstraZeneca vaccine as a preference now for people under 50. But we have 40 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine coming, and eventually over 50 million doses of the Novavax vaccine coming later in the year. So we have plenty. There’s no suggestion that Novavax would have any age restrictions to it. We have plenty of vaccines on order to cover all of the Australian population twice over. Senator LAMBIE: Have we got as far as the vaccine rollout for the kids? How would that work? Dr Murphy : I think it’s a bit speculative at the moment until we have the evidence of safety and efficacy. But, in general, vaccine rollout to children is done through school based programs. They are the most effective way to get mass vaccination of children. The states and territories have a primary role in school based programs and are very experienced at them, and they’re very successful programs. So, if we got to that, that’s likely how we would do it, obviously supplementing it with general practitioners. It depends on the age range you’re talking about. If we eventually got down to quite young children, you might use other avenues. But, in the main, school based programs are the preferred option. Ms Edwards : I can add that, in the vaccine rollout strategy since it was first announced in January, phase 3 has always envisaged the vaccination of children if and when a product is approved for that age. The age was recently reduced to under 16, subject to a new product, because the Pfizer vaccine is actually approved for people of 16 and above, and we have indicated that we would consider school based programs. But, of course, in regard to the logistics of what sort of vaccine it is and how it might be done, I’d expect we’d potentially be using all of the available mechanisms of vaccination for children, assuming that the product that’s approved for them in due course can be delivered through those mechanisms. So, yes, we have given some thought to it, but exactly how it would happen would depend on what happens in the meantime with an authorised product. 27 April 2021 COVID-19 Hearing Full Video: https://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=540409&operation_mode=parlview HTML Transcript: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommsen%2F54c967b9-4210-41bc-92c5-b15d62ed36ea%2F0000%22 PDF Transcript: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/commsen/54c967b9-4210-41bc-92c5-b15d62ed36ea/toc_pdf/Senate%20Select%20Committee%20on%20COVID-19_2021_04_27_8709_Official.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22committees/commsen/54c967b9-4210-41bc-92c5-b15d62ed36ea/0000%22

Senator GREEN: Alright. We’re about to finish this section of Health. So I just have one other question. Again, I want to thank you particularly, Dr Murphy, for spending so much time with us and answering so many questions. We have one follow-up question from earlier that I want to get on the record to understand how this is working. You gave us a lot of information about the data you have on vaccinated aged-care workers, and we’ve got information on how we’re tracking aged-care residents with vaccines and information about the quarantining rates of vaccines. As part of that, is the Department of Health recording if Australians have received a vaccination overseas if they have come home through the hotel quarantine; if so, what type of vaccination that is; and is there documentation they need to provide to tell you they have been vaccinated? I understand some countries are providing almost a vaccine passport . Is that built in the process? CHAIR: Senator Green, we did finish off aged care prior to this section. Senator GREEN: I just wanted to come back in the last five minutes I have and just check this. CHAIR: Can we put this on notice? Senator GREEN: If they’ve got the answer, it’s something that people should— Senator DEAN SMITH: You can’t go backwards. Senator GREEN: I’m not going backwards. I’m asking an important question about vaccines. Senator DEAN SMITH: It feels like deja vu. Senator GREEN: If you want to run interference instead of letting Dr Murphy answer the question— Senator DEAN SMITH: You don’t know what interference looks like. Senator GREEN: You don’t have to threaten me. CHAIR: I’m happy for him to answer it if he wants to, but I’m also very conscious of the fact that we were here to do outcome 2. Senator GREEN: I’m just asking a really important question that we need to understand about where people are getting information. CHAIR: You’ve put it on the record and it’s up to the officials if they want to answer it or take it on notice. Senator GREEN: They were about to answer it before you stepped in. So it wouldn’t be a good look if they didn’t answer it now. Dr Murphy : I think Ms Edwards might comment. Senator GREEN: Thank you. Dr Murphy : Very briefly, this is an evolving area. We do not have any requirements, or relaxation of quarantine requirements, for people under the state and territory public health orders for vaccination. We will be working through which vaccinations overseas we will be able to recognise at some stage. We will have to get the TGA—there are some vaccines we wouldn’t recognise. It’s an evolving area. At the moment we are not collecting that information. Some of the states and territories are asking people as they come into hotel quarantine whether they’ve been vaccinated. Ms Edwards might add something. Ms Edwards : I will just add that there are obviously two real issues we will need to deal with going forward. One is the extent to which there’s a record of vaccination that might be of interest to us in terms of what that means for you in the community, and that’s an evolving issue. But the other issue of course is personal healthcare. We want people to have a record of what care they’ve had. So we are going to have to work with our records and the My Health Record and so on to say: ‘What vaccine? Will it be recognised? How should we record it?’ Obviously, there are all sorts of issues for an individual, for example: ‘In what circumstances and in which place did you get the vaccine? How can we be clear that you have the right level of protection if we don’t know the manner of it?’ We will be able to come to an agreement with some countries about the clinical mechanisms; others we may not. So it’s a very complex issue. At this point we are not collecting that information for people arriving. But the sharing of vaccination information is something that the whole world will have to grapple with going forward. Senator GREEN: Great. Could you take that on notice, then. It would be good to understand what is happening right now and if states and territories are recording that information. Finally, I think it would be helpful to understand what the plan to record that information going forward is. Dr Murphy : Well, we’re developing a plan and, as Ms Edwards said, we have to work out which certificates other countries will trust for which vaccines and all of that sort of stuff. Senator GREEN: Yes, that is an important part of it. That’s what I was getting at. Ms Edwards : We can certainly take on notice the extent to which states and territories might be collecting it and any other information we have to hand. But, in terms of the plan, I suspect there might be a question for you to ask us and other agencies in the future. Senator GREEN: Which other agencies? Dr Murphy : Home Affairs have also been doing some international work on digital recognition. Ms Edwards : And DFAT are bringing people back and are responsible for what happens at the border and what happens with arrivals. Dr Murphy : There are lots of departments involved. Ms Edwards : It’s a whole-of-government issue. Senator GREEN: Perhaps it’s a COVID committee issue with a couple of different agencies around the table. Dr Murphy : That could be useful. Ms Edwards : Far be it from me to recommend a COVID hearing! Senator GREEN: I am sure there will be more. I’m not on the committee, so I can’t decide that. Thank you. CHAIR: It’s now 9 pm. Source Video: (20:56) https://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=544136 PDF Transcript: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/estimate/55396c0f-a088-488f-9e5a-bfbd32a6e1e2/toc_pdf/Community%20Affairs%20Legislation%20Committee_2021_06_02_8816.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22committees/estimate/55396c0f-a088-488f-9e5a-bfbd32a6e1e2/0002%22

From June 2021 NSW government and Kerry Chant grilled on handling of Delta outbreak https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/nsw-government-and-kerry-chant-grilled-on-handling/13491668 Transcript: (Excerpt from 7.30 - 17th June) LEIGH SALES, PRESENTER: Do you reckon that the audience would buy that an unvaccinated driver picking up an infection from an international flight crew is an unknown unknown. BRAD HAZZARD, NSW HEALTH MINISTER: Well, I just said it was but I think the issue is ... LEIGH SALES: But how can that be? How can that be? BRAD HAZZARD: Well, it was. (End of excerpt) PENNY SHARP, LABOR: On what date specifically was the advice first provided to the Health Minister on locking down? BRAD HAZZARD: That is not that easy, Ms Sharp. DAVID SHOEBRIDGE, GREENS: The question was put to Dr Chant and I wish, and I think it is right that we get an answer from Dr Chant. BRAD HAZZARD: We have volunteered to come here. DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: The question was put to Dr Chant. BRAD HAZZARD: Actually I will answer the question that I'm now talking about, thank you. It's not up to you to determine who is going to answer the questions. I'm the minister. DR KERRY CHANT, NSW CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER: I think with the benefit of hindsight, there are different decisions that can be made. Clearly the Delta variant behaved very differently to the other variants. DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: But Dr Chant, that wasn't new information. We had that experience and that knowledge from the UK in particular, from India. Surely that should have been the decision making, fed into the decision making ... BRAD HAZZARD: You're challenging Dr Chant's advice and that's not appropriate. We are in the middle of a pandemic. You are holding us up here while we should be doing the work we need to do. The question is out of order and wrong. KERRY CHANT: So could I perhaps clarify... BRAD HAZZARD: And a waste of time. I actually thought it was a ridiculous proposition in the middle of a pandemic to take away the Chief Health Officer who is working 18 hours a day and sometimes longer to do what we are doing. But we have done it and we agreed to one hour. That deal has been broken. So at this stage if you have any further questions, you address those to the Premier. ================ C19 Updates ================ LinkTree: https://linktr.ee/JustWantFreedom

EPISODE #1 - SCHOOL'S IN SESSION Introducing One Nation's new series "Please Explain", we have a double feature today so after this episode keep an eye out for episode two. This is a light-hearted series that aims to entertain and answer some of the most common questions I've been asked over the years while bringing a whole new audience up to date with the issues of the day. Hope you enjoy! https://www.facebook.com/PaulineHansonAu Episode 1: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=4590892154293967

EPISODE 4 "PLEASE EXPLAIN TAXES" Source: https://youtu.be/k2T6-CYd9tU https://www.facebook.com/OneNationParty/videos/602389241101771 ================ C19 Updates ================ LinkTree: https://linktr.ee/JustWantFreedom

Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (16:55): Two years ago the idea that people could be discriminated against based on their private medical history would have disgusted the majority in this country. However, over the last 18 months we've seen so much of our God-given freedoms eroded by power-hungry state premiers and bureaucrats that such an idea has become increasingly palatable and even appealing to some. I referred to it as a vaccine passport in the past, but I'm not talking about a certificate or a stamp which allows you to travel to another country. I'm talking about a pass documenting an individual's vaccination history which corporations, governments and others can ask for that enables them to legally discriminate against an individual. Imagine someone telling you that you can't enter their restaurant, their shop or their hotel because of your private medical choices. Imagine being denied a job or getting laid off because you chose not to get a vaccination. Imagine being told you can't cross a state border because you decided to exercise your free will to not receive an injection. These are not farfetched scenarios from some dystopian novel about a totalitarian government. They are very real prospects that could turn into reality, if we choose the wrong path. As a nation I believe we're at the crossroads. We've had the situation thrust upon us. This is a virus that kills about three out of every 1,000 people it infects. Of course every life lost, whatever the cause, is a tragedy and not just a statistic. But we must make a choice here. We are blessed to live in what I believe is one of the greatest countries in the world, and the reason it is one of the greatest countries is the freedoms that we enjoy. Are we going to choose to trade in those freedoms that this great country was built upon and people sacrificed their lives for? I've heard people dismiss this as nothing. They say it's a small sacrifice and an inconvenience. Where do these sacrifices end? Where do we draw the line? I hope we'd all agree that forced vaccinations would actually cross that line. We need food to survive, we need money to buy food, we need a job to earn money. If we need a vaccine to get a job, how is that not coercion? Is that not someone being forced into getting a vaccination? Then there's the issue of domestic state borders. We hear rumblings from certain Labor state governments that they may require people to show proof of vaccination before crossing the state border. This cannot be allowed to happen. We are one country. Any Australian should have the right to travel wherever they please within their own country, without having to disclose their private medical records. We've seen our state borders closed enough times under questionable circumstances over the last 18 months. This has been under the guise of stopping the spread of COVID-19 as a temporary measure, but we should not have any hard borders within Australia. We do not need checkpoints within Australia. We do not need to present our papers to travel from one state to another in Australia. If someone chooses not to have a vaccine, they should be afforded exactly the same rights as any other Australian. The elephant in the room regarding the vaccines themselves is that people who've received both doses or a dose can still actually transmit the virus. Although it's less likely, it's a possibility. So where would that leave us a nation? The answer is divided. We would be a nation of vaccinated first-class citizens and unvaccinated second-class citizens. But we've already seen enough division. There has been blaming and shaming of people who've caught the virus and unknowingly spread it. I don't want to fuel that fire and I'm sure no-one else wants to fuel that fire anymore. There are many Australians like me who aren't anti-vaxxers, but who have legitimate concerns about being injected or having family members injected with a vaccine that has been produced in quite a hurry and who want to wait to see whether there are side effects from that vaccine. These are legitimate concerns. We've already seen side effects manifest in the form of blood clots from the AstraZeneca vaccine. People concerned about their health and the health of their families should not be treated any differently, whether or not you think their concerns are legitimate. They should not be subject to discrimination or denied employment, services, travel and health care. How often do we as Australians laud our country as a land of opportunity, a fair go for all? Vaccine passes are the antithesis of that idea. Australia should be free, Australians should be free to decide their own path without the shackles of an overbearing government, and that's why I firmly say no to the idea of vaccine passports in this country and the idea of vaccine certificates that others shouldn't have any right whatsoever to see. PDF Transcript: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansardr/eb97f924-9ac6-4ef0-a3d7-0b15830be9b1/0243/hansard_frag.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf Source Video (16:55): http://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=546327&action=backFromDownload&operation_mode=parlview&position=12600

EPISODE 3 "PLEASE EXPLAIN DONATIONS" https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=935474910740263 https://www.facebook.com/PaulineHansonAu

Is consent is valid when undue pressure, coercion or manipulation are applied? We cannot become a society where medical procedures are undertaken without proper consent for "the greater good". This will lead us down a dark path that has been trodden many times throughout history. 9 Sept 2021 "Today, I again put my Freedom Scissors to work. Journalists and others have asked me previously about my vaccination status and I have refused to answer as I think this is a personal matter that is not the business of anyone else. At the core of my philosophy to defend the rights of people to make their own choices. I don't judge or intend to pressure people because they make different choices to me. I have consistently stated that my view on medical procedures is that it's a personal choice and should not involve any coercion from Government. This is actually in line with the Australian Immunisation Handbook which states that valid consent must be free from undue pressure, coercion or manipulation. The Victorian Charter of Human Rights also states under section 10 that a person must not be "subjected to medical or scientific experimentation or treatment without his or her full, free and informed consent." However, with the Victorian Government now making it a requirement to receive a first jab before Victorians can re-enter their own state, along with the recent rhetoric from the Government about "lockouts", I am calling into question whether this invalidates consent. We cannot set a precedent of allowing medical procedures without informed consent and we cannot allow the rights of Victorians to be dependent on medical procedures." Source: https://youtu.be/MqMyd3yVzRc https://www.facebook.com/davidlimbrickldp https://twitter.com/_davidlimbrick

Episode 2: "PLEASE EXPLAIN PREFERENCES"… https://www.facebook.com/PaulineHansonAu Episode 2: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=4479498798808938

Lots of waffle from Pfizer. 3 August 2023. Australian Pfizer Officials, Senate Inquiry. Full Hearing: https://www.aph.gov.au/News_and_Events/Watch_Read_Listen/ParlView/video/1585181 The rest of the clips will be added to (split between) the following channels in the next hour: https://rumble.com/c/ImportantCensoredVideos (short clips) https://rumble.com/c/OzParliamentMedia (longer clips)

3 August 2023. Australian TGA Officials, Senate Inquiry. Full Hearing: https://www.aph.gov.au/News_and_Events/Watch_Read_Listen/ParlView/video/1585181 The rest of the clips will be added to (split between) the following channels in the next hour: https://rumble.com/c/ImportantCensoredVideos (short clips) https://rumble.com/c/OzParliamentMedia (longer clips) Related Posts: Australian Senators Vs Pfizer https://pennybutler.com/senators-vs-pfizer-aug2023/ Australian Senators Vs ModeRNA https://pennybutler.com/australian-senators-vs-moderna/ Australian Senators Vs TGA https://pennybutler.com/senators-vs-tga-aug2023/