Craig Kelly's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Data Availability and Transparency Bill 2020, Data Availability and Transparency (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to speak on the Data Availability and Transparency Bill 2020. I cannot support this bill. The balance between the risk to privacy and the potential benefits is just not there. If we go...
I rise to speak on the Data Availability and Transparency Bill 2020. I cannot support this bill. The balance between the risk to privacy and the potential benefits is just not there. If we go through the explanatory memorandum of the bill, it notes: … The Bill establishes a new data sharing scheme which will serve as a pathway and regulatory framework for sharing public sector data— 'Public sector data' means your data, Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, and my data and the data of every other one of the 25-million-plus Australians— 'Sharing' involves providing controlled access to data, as distinct from open release to the public. What that means is your data, which you as an individual may wish to keep private, can be given to others. As the minister noted, in his second reading speech: This bill is about creating a scheme that will provide controlled access to data to trusted people and organisations. Who are these trusted people who can be trusted with Australians' private data? Who are these trusted organisations who can be trusted with Australians' private data? In my mind, the risks of this clearly do not outweigh the potential benefits. We have seen what has happened over the last two years, where it is now the custom in this country to have to show your medical records to line up, to hire a car, to enter a restaurant. That has become common practice in this country. Medical records that should be your private information are no longer private in this country. We are going down a dark, authoritarian track towards a society of digital identity, and I cannot stand and support this legislation. When I came to this place for the very first time, I signed up to the principles that the Liberal Party believes in. The very first sentence was: We believe: In the inalienable rights and freedoms of all peoples; and we— that is, the Liberal Party— work towards a lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives. Allowing trusted people and so-called trusted organisations to access the private data of Australian citizens is not what I signed up for when I first came to this parliament, and I cannot support this bill.
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2021-2022, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2021-2022; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Today the front page of the Australian tells a story of how, across the nation, 700 BHP workers are facing the sack. Seven hundred Australians are being thrown out of their jobs, and yet we...
Today the front page of the Australian tells a story of how, across the nation, 700 BHP workers are facing the sack. Seven hundred Australians are being thrown out of their jobs, and yet we hardly hear a whimper about this from either side of politics. Where is the party of the workers, who say they stand for the workers of this country? Where are they when it comes to arguing for the 700 BHP workers that are being sacked? They're being sacked not for poor job performance or for anything that they've done wrong but because they have decided to exercise what should be their right in a democratic society. Whether you participate in a medical experiment, whether you undertake a medical intervention, should be your free choice in a democracy. Your job should not be held hostage because you've decided not to participate in a medical experiment. Seven hundred workers across the nation, today, are being thrown out by BHP, and that is on top of the tens of thousands of workers that have already lost their jobs—teachers, nurses, doctors, paramedics, retail workers and truck drivers. Across all sectors of our economy, people have been thrown out of work because they have simply decided to exercise what must be a right in a democratic society. No democratic society should mandate the injection of a substance into your body just to keep your job. In many cases, this is more than just people's jobs; it's people's careers that are being thrown out. Teachers are losing not only their job but their career. Ambulance officers and paramedics, who we rely upon, are today sitting on the sidelines of our economy because they've decided not to get injected with one of these experimental COVID vaccines. This is the shameful day for our nation. But what is even more shameful is the lack the people in this parliament that are speaking up and using their voice against it. The economy is not doing so well that we can afford 700 mining workers in BHP to be no longer working in that industry. We're looking down the barrel of a $1.4 trillion debt, and we're telling these people that they cannot participate in the economy? The party of the workers is silent about these workers losing their jobs—absolutely silent. It's hard to know what's worse: those in this parliament that actually think that the government and big industry and big medical and big pharma and the bureaucrats here in Canberra know better and should force you, against your will, to be injected—they think that it's okay to have a society where your freedoms are all held hostage to the point of a needle; or, equally, the number of people in this House that know in their heart that that is wrong, that know in their conscience that that is wrong, but come to this parliament and say nothing about it. To mandate an injection, to mandate a medical intervention—and not just any old medical intervention; a medical intervention with an mRNA vaccine, a substance that has never been injected into humans before, that we have no long-term safety data for—is not only unethical, immoral, a breach of human rights but simply darn un-Australian, and more of us need to use our voices to stick up against it. What's even worse, there may have been an argument six months ago, 12 months ago, when we had all those experts stand up and say, 'If you get injected, you can't catch COVID and you can't spread it'—that was what was told to the general public, where they talked about 90 per cent plus efficacy. That's what we were promised. That's what this was sold upon. We now know that is completely untrue. It's not only untrue. If we want to see how idiotic and how stupid these mandates are, and how counterproductive they are, just look at the latest data out of the United Kingdom, from the official UK Health Security Agency. In their weekly COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report, for week 6 of the year, 10 February, just have a look at what that data shows. You'd think these mandates would mean that, if you've been injected, you are less likely to have COVID. That is the entire premise behind it. But look what the data shows. Look at the rates of cases reported between week 2 and week 5 of 2022, a four-week period. In the UK, of those aged 30 to 39, there was a 4.9 per cent COVID-positive rate amongst those who were injected not once, not twice, but three times! A 4.9 per cent infection rate over that month amongst those injected three times. But for those not injected at all, those that are vaccine free, that supposedly have a higher rate of COVID, it's actually just over two per cent. So the rates of infection in the UK in the 30 to 39 age bracket are less than half amongst those that are vaccine free, compared to those that have been jabbed not once, not twice, but three times—a 140 per cent difference. It's the same for the 40 to 49 age group, where there's a 172 per cent greater probability of having COVID if you've been injected three times, compared to a vaccine-free person. For my age bracket, those that are 50 to 59 years old, there's a 2.6 per cent infection rate for those injected three times, but for those not injected, those vaccine free, just 1.167 per cent—a 120 per cent higher rate of infection amongst the triple-jabbed than amongst those that are vaccine free. With that data, how can anyone possibly mandate these injections? It should be a free choice in a free society. Yet here we have thousands of Australians—we saw them here on the weekend, the largest protest ever in this nation's history—protesting just for the right to work in a free, democratic society. We have taken that right away from them. We have the constitutional power here in this parliament to end these insane, illogical, unethical, immoral, un-Australian mandates. We have the constitutional power here today to end them if we want to. But, sadly, there are so many in this parliament that are happy to see these mandates go ahead because they think that it gives them some extra protection. They are prepared to sell out the human rights of other Australians because they think they might get some benefit from it. They think it may somehow be not popular. We've got to stand up for what is right in this parliament, and it is not right that 700 Australians are losing their jobs today, 700 BHP workers. It is not right that teachers are being told they can't go back into the classroom to teach in front of their children, because they have decided to be vaccine free. It is not right, when our hospitals around the nation are in chaos and the queues are lengthening, that we have paramedics and ambulance officers stood down, unable to work in the hospital system because they've decided to be vaccine free. I would hope that more members of this parliament would speak up. I know that, at the moment, this is not popular, but let me tell you: history will judge us on the decisions that we are making, history will record that this parliament stood by and did nothing, and history will condemn this parliament for those actions. In the years to come, parliamentarians will look back upon this parliament, look upon the actions of every single member of this parliament, and say, 'What did you do to stand up and fight against those illogical abuses of human rights, those vaccine mandates?' Sadly, there are very few of us that will be able to say that we've stood by to fight the good fight. We weren't concerned about the attacks upon us in the media, because we called it out according to our conscience. And my conscience tells me that what is happening is completely and utterly wrong. It's contrary to everything that I believe in: freedom of choice, freedom of bodily autonomy. If you don't have the freedom to decide what substances you will inject into your body, what's the point of any other freedoms? Our freedoms of medical choice, our freedoms of economic opportunity, our freedoms of personal travel are all subject and dependent and interlinked. When we break one, we break them all. Turning to the election, there are only a few sitting days left in this parliament. I hope that, in the month's break that we have before budget week, many other members of parliament will look into deep into their conscience and speak out about how wrong this is and stand up for those Australian workers. Every Australian worker that has been sacked because of these vaccine mandates must have their job back. We can do it in this parliament, if only we have the courage. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Parliamentary Precinct | Questions to the Speaker | House debates
During that protest, can the Speaker confirm if the AFP positioned one or more long-range acoustic devices in the parliamentary precincts with the intention that it be used as a sonic weapon...
During that protest, can the Speaker confirm if the AFP positioned one or more long-range acoustic devices in the parliamentary precincts with the intention that it be used as a sonic weapon against protesters who included nurses, schoolteachers and paramedics? Did the AFP seek approval from the Presiding Officers to deploy such a device, and was the long-range acoustic device used against the protesters on that day?
Mr Speaker, my question to you is based upon your authority under the Parliamentary Precincts Act 1988, which gives the Presiding Officers the responsibility for the control and management of...
Mr Speaker, my question to you is based upon your authority under the Parliamentary Precincts Act 1988, which gives the Presiding Officers the responsibility for the control and management of Parliament House and its immediate surroundings. Last Saturday, 12 February, Canberra witnessed the largest-ever protest in the nation's capital, when many tens of thousands of Australians travelled from all—
Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2021; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I am pleased to rise this evening to speak on the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2021. I was listening to the debate when the member for Herbert, Mr Thompson, was...
I am pleased to rise this evening to speak on the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2021. I was listening to the debate when the member for Herbert, Mr Thompson, was making some excellent points about this bill, like how we need to protect this nation from paedophiles, from child rapists, from those that would push drugs upon our kids—all excellent points. But I also heard the member for Clark contribute to this bill, asking, 'Is it actually necessary?' I listened to the member for Clark, and I think he has many good points. I asked myself: under the current legislation, the migration minister of this country had the power to deport tennis player Novak Djokovic from this country not because of something he had done incorrectly but because they thought that somehow his mere presence in this country would do something which would, I think the minister's words were, 'increase antivax sentiment'. Antivax sentiment is code for antifreedom sentiment. The antivax debate in this country is about a case of freedom of choice. In this country the minister has the power to expel someone for their political views, even though they have never espoused those views in this country. Just look at the details of that particular case and what happened. We know that Novak Djokovic arrived lawfully as the world's No. 1 tennis player for the Australian Open, a Grand Slam event. That Grand Slam event, the Australian Open, brings our nation enormous wealth and prestige. I have been overseas at that time of year many times, and it is one of the few times we see Australia mentioned on the front page of the world's newspapers as they report the results of the Australian Open. So, when the world's No. 1 player arrived, there should have been a red carpet and a marching band. Instead, the way he was treated at Melbourne Airport—remembering that he had lawful documents and had come here lawfully—is what you would expect if someone turned up at Melbourne Airport with a kilo of hashish in their bag. He was held overnight in Melbourne Airport and questioned for hours on end. That is not how we want to treat international sporting personalities when they come to our country to contribute to our nation. What precedent has this set? We know that it is not just the Australian Open that we rely on for overseas events. Australia has to compete for every single major sporting event. We don't have any great special right to host any single event. We are up against competition from the Middle East, from South-East Asia, from China, from countries all around the world that want to host world cups in their particular sport. But what we have now done is handed all those other nations a competitive advantage, a reason they can attack Australia. They can argue against Australia. Why should you have your No. 1 world sporting event, your world cup, in Australia, knowing that the Australian government can deport your top player not because of something he has done wrong but because of a political issue? Novak Djokovic was a political prisoner in this country, and that should bring shame upon every single one of us in this parliament. If we're going to amend the law of the Migration Act we should be looking at taking away that provision that gives the minister that discretion, to ensure something like that never happens again. We need to give each sporting group that goes out to compete for these events worldwide the confidence and the backing that they cannot be attacked by other nations calling upon our record on expelling and deporting their major players for nothing other than the political expediency of the government. If you think our tourism industry is going to come bouncing back when we reopen our borders, I suggest having a look at the tweet that George Brandis, our high commissioner in the UK, recently put out a couple of days ago. The tweet he put out was: We have a simple message to our best mates in Britain: we can't wait to welcome you back down under. It's had over 2,800 comments. But, sadly, the majority of those comments are negative towards Australia. Our international reputation has been trashed over the past 12 months. The government claims that it doesn't mandate compulsory vaccines. Yet it won't let Australians exit the country unless they have been 'fully vaccinated'—whatever that means at a particular point in time. Is it two jabs? Three jabs? Who knows. It may be four, five or six jabs sometime in the future. We've got to get our tourism sector firing again. One of the ways we can do it is admit to the mistakes we made under the Migration Act with Novak Djokovic. We as a nation should apologise to him. We should apologise to the Serbian people for what we did—making him a political prisoner, an example. We ignored the science and the evidence. The idea that someone with the fitness of Novak Djokovic poses a health risk to anyone in this country is a complete nonsense. It should never have happened. Yet that is the existing power the minister has under the Migration Act today. It is difficult to see why these additional powers are needed. If I'm to err on this issue, I'd prefer to err on the side of giving the minister the discretion when it comes to rapists, paedophiles, criminals and drug pushers—those who try to push upon others the drugs they make for pure profit. Those people do not belong in Australia. I thank the House.
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Foreign Influences and Offences) Bill 2022, Electoral Legislation Amendment (Authorisations) Bill 2022, Electoral Legislation Amendment (COVID Enfranchisement) Bill 2022; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
Yes, I seek the call. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment be disagreed to and I call the honourable member for Hughes. Examples would be if the provider prohibits, restricts or...
Yes, I seek the call. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment be disagreed to and I call the honourable member for Hughes. Examples would be if the provider prohibits, restricts or prevents the posting of proceedings by a member or, if a member posts proceedings, the provider removes the post, other than at the initiative of the member; restricts access to the post, by means of shadow banning; encourages or requires the member to remove the post; victimises the member because of the post, including by means of banning, shadow banning, suspending or deplatforming the member or supressing posts of the member; prohibits, restricts or prevents the reposting of any post by a person; or if the end user reposts a post to which the paragraph applies. This amendment guarantees the freedom of speech in this parliament. It says that this parliament stands supreme above the tech giants. It goes to the traditions of the UK parliament back in the 1600s, where they said specifically that the parliament has primary place over the King of England. The King of England could not censor the proceedings of the parliament back in the 1600s. YouTube, Facebook, TikTok, and Twitter should not be able to do the same thing today. I hope that other members see the importance of this. As I've said, this is not just about me. This is about the integrity and the primacy of the Australian parliament and the Australian people over these social media giants to prevent them putting undue influence on our parliament and our Australian elections. I hope it has the support of many members of the House.
I move the amendment circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 14), at the end of the Schedule, add: Part 3 — Freedom of parliamentary proceedings Commonwealth Electoral...
I move the amendment circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 14), at the end of the Schedule, add: Part 3 — Freedom of parliamentary proceedings Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 23 At the end of Part XXI Add: 351A Freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament (1) A person commits an offence if: (a) the person is a foreign campaigner; and (b) the person is the provider of a large social media service; and (c) the person, by communicating electoral matter, impeaches or questions the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament. Penalty: 100 penalty units. (2) Without limiting when the provider of a social media service impeaches or questions the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament, the provider of a social media service impeaches or questions the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament if the provider: (a) prohibits, restricts or prevents the posting of proceedings by a member; or (b) if a member posts proceedings: (i) removes the post (other than at the initiative of the member); or (ii) restricts access to the post, including by means of shadow banning; or (iii) encourages or requires the member to remove the post; or (iv) victimises the member because of the post, including by means of banning, shadow banning, suspending or deplatforming the member or supressing posts by the member; or (v) prohibits, restricts or prevents the reposting of the post by any person; or (c) if an end user of the service reposts a post to which paragraph (b) applies: (i) removes the repost (other than at the initiative of the end user); or (ii) restricts access to the repost, including by means of shadow banning; or (iii) encourages or requires the end user to remove the repost; or (iv) victimises the end user because of the repost (including because of a statement included in the repost), including by means of banning, shadow banning, suspending or deplatforming the person or supressing posts by the end user. (3) Subsection (1) does not apply to the extent that it would otherwise infringe any constitutional doctrine of implied freedom of political communication. (4) This section does not limit article 9 of the Bill of Rights, 1688. Definitions (5) In this section: large social media service includes the following social media services: (a) Facebook; (b) Twitter; (c) YouTube; (d) Instagram; (e) WeChat; (f) TikTok. member means a member of the House of Representatives or a senator. posted has the same meaning as in the Online Safety Act 2021. proceedings means proceedings in Parliament. provider of a social media service has the same meaning as in the Online Safety Act 2021. remove has the same meaning as in the Online Safety Act 2021. repost a post means post on a social media service a post that previously been posted on that or another social media service. The amendment I have moved is to protect the proceedings of this House from foreign interference. I'll go through the sections that are here: (1) A person commits an offence if: (a) the person is a foreign campaigner; and (b) the person is the provider of a large social media service— including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, WeChat and TikTok— (c) the person, by communicating electoral matter, impeaches or questions the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament. The wording of that—'impeaches or questions the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament'—comes from the direct words of the Bill of Rights 1688, which ensured that debate in this chamber could be free, that freedom of speech reigned superior and that no-one, not even the King of England, could impeach what was said in this parliament. Yet we have a situation today where we have these large social media giants using their control of what is said in this parliament by threatening members of parliament with having their speeches made here deleted, de-platformed and censored. The proceedings of the Australian parliament must have priority over the so-called ideological positions of these large social media giants. Where they have such a position of influence across society, we cannot have these large social media giants holding the power to censor the proceedings of the Australian parliament and to de-platform elected members of the Australian parliament. To allow so undermines our democracy. Yet that is exactly what has happened. I know I could be accused of self-interest here because of what has happened to speeches I have made. I have introduced bills in this parliament, such as the No Domestic COVID Vaccine Passport Bill and posted my speech on the bill from start to finish on YouTube, but on YouTube, there is nothing in between the Speaker saying 'I give the call to the member for Hughes' and the end of my speech. My speeches have been censored and deleted from YouTube. This is a breach of the Bill of Rights of 1688, and we need to set out that this is specifically illegal because it interferes in Australia's democracy. For members of this parliament, if you go to the official Australian parliamentary website, alongside your member's name, there are links to Twitter and Facebook so that you can contact a member of parliament. Yet we allow Twitter and Facebook to decide that some members of parliament are unworthy of having a Facebook page. We cannot have that situation in this parliament. This, again, is a violation of our democratic principles. It threatens our democracy. It is foreign interference in our electoral campaign. I, as a member of parliament, am banned from having a Facebook page for saying nothing other than the truth and for posting peer-reviewed studies—expert opinions of doctors that are now shown to be correct. We've even had Facebook's admission in a court case in the US that, when they say something is 'misleading', they don't mean that it's misleading; they now just mean that it's an 'alternative opinion'. The way that we are slandering people—saying they are saying something that is misleading—is contrary to freedom of speech. It destroys the principles of debate and open discussion, and we've seen the damage that it has done over the last 12 to 18 months, not only in this country, but around the world. This section of my amendment provides that, without limiting when the provider of a social media service impeaches or questions the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in the parliament, the provider of a social media service does so if—
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Foreign Influences and Offences) Bill 2022, Electoral Legislation Amendment (Authorisations) Bill 2022, Electoral Legislation Amendment (COVID Enfranchisement) Bill 2022; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I'm pleased to rise this afternoon to speak on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Foreign Influences and Offences) Bill 2022, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Authorisations) Bill 2022 and...
I'm pleased to rise this afternoon to speak on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Foreign Influences and Offences) Bill 2022, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Authorisations) Bill 2022 and the Electoral Legislation Amendment (COVID Enfranchisement) Bill 2022. Before I do, I note that during this debate the member for Perth, specifically when talking about the importance of fair and free elections, made a gratuitous attack on the United Australia Party, which I would like, of course, to respond to. At this next election, it will not just be the two old major parties contesting it. This will be one of the first elections in Australia's history where there will be a real third choice. Australians at this next election will have a real third choice, not just the two major parties, and this is even despite how the system is rigged against the smaller and minor parties. In our entire electoral system, which we've been talking about and debating this morning, the cards are stacked against new and minor parties. Let's just take a couple of examples. The incumbent members of a major party, the Labor or Liberal party, when they go out to campaign at this next election campaign, of course, are on full freight—they are being paid a wage by the taxpayer and will have their staff paid for by the taxpayer. If they go to a railway station in the morning, the transport—the car that they have—will be paid for by the taxpayer. But the new party, someone that's trying to break into politics, doesn't have any of those advantages. They must fund everything out of their pocket. Their volunteers must be genuine volunteers—not the paid volunteers that we as elected members of parliament have. New parties don't have access to these community grants schemes, which are little more—as we all know—than local pork-barrelling before an election. We know the media covers our election campaigns as a presidential race, giving millions of dollars of free advertising to the old parties. And that is how it has been in past election after past election after past election. But at this election there is truly a third choice. These will be fair elections; we know there are no Dominion voting machines in Australia. So I would encourage every Australian to get onto the rolls and make your voice count. Don't listen to the nonsense. Make your voice count at this next election: a big change can be made. With that, at this coming election, it's very disappointing to hear that the AEC has gone down a road of superstition, ignorance and sheer stupidity by mandating vaccine mandates for those that will work on election day. Let's be very clear: you are free to turn up and vote at this next election whether you've been injected with one, two, three, or now maybe even four shots of the COVID vaccines. But if you want to work as an AEC official in the election booth on election day, you will have had to submit to being so-called fully vaccinated. Now, it is not yet clear whether that that will mean two injections or whether it will mean three injections that you have had to undergo. Dr Robert Malone has described such mandates as 'pointless and idiotic'. Professor McCullough has called for all these mandates to end. And yet here we have the Australian Electoral Commission going down the track of mandating injections. And there is simply no cause for this. Free and fair elections should allow any Australian to put their name forward to work for the AEC on election day. For the data is clear. In the latest data from the UK, the COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report for week 6, 10 February, we go to table 13 and it clearly shows that those in the 30 to 39 age bracket who have been injected three times have a 140 per cent greater chance of being COVID-positive. The 40- to 49-year-olds have a 172 per cent greater chance of testing positive for COVID if they've been triple vaccinated, and those in the 50 to 59 age group have a 127 per cent greater probability. That is what the data shows. So the AEC is, clearly, missing the boat. The AEC is, clearly, adopting the policies of superstition, ignorance and stupidity, and its vaccine mandates for employees at this next election should be called off and should be suspended. One of the great concerns that I have about having fair and free elections is not just the voting system but the influence that our large foreign social media tech giants—Facebook, Twitter, Google and TikTok—have on the Australian political landscape. The other day, the member for Dawson moved a very wise private member's bill seeking to stop these foreign tech giants from censoring and removing political posts that are not illegal. It should be the principle in this country that, if you can say something on a soapbox in the town square on a political issue, and that is lawful speech, it should be unlawful for a foreign tech giant to censor and delete that speech. Doing so is foreign interference in the Australian electoral system. Our democracy is being threatened by the censorship policies of these tech giants. I commend the good work of the member for Dawson. That's why I have moved a third reading amendment to this bill, expanding on the good work from the member for Dawson, to ensure that there are greater protections in our democracy from foreign interference from these large tech giants. We also need to draw a line between what is foreign interference and what is a genuine free debate and criticism from other nations. We should rightly be free to call out human rights abuses in other countries where they occur. Likewise, other countries should be free to call out abuses of human rights that occur in our country. Those of us who witnessed it were able to see through the censored media the scenes of Victorian police officers opening fire with rubber bullets, shooting into the backs of fleeing demonstrators in the shadow at the Shrine of Remembrance. Acts like that deserve to be condemned. That is not foreign interference in Australian election campaigns. Likewise, when we see abuses of human rights in other countries, Australia has the right to call them out. We have a very special relationship with Canada. Australian and Canadian troops served together in the Boer War, World War I and Korea, arm in arm, shoulder to shoulder, to fight against tyranny and for freedom. It was Australian troops, working side by side with Canadian troops, that brought about what the Germans called their darkest day during World War I. It was the Australian and Canadian troops that turned the tide on World War I, fighting for freedom. Today, all Australians look at what is happening in Canada and at what Prime Minister Trudeau is doing to the Canadian people and the truckers in Ottawa. We should call that out as an abuse of human rights—loudly and clearly. This is the shame of what is happening to our great Canadian brothers. An issue that greatly concerns me about the interference of these foreign tech giants is that in this parliament we have parliamentary privilege, and we should be free to stand up here and debate whatever issue comes to us without fear of censorship, without fear of impeachment, and without fear of being de-platformed or struck off by these large foreign tech giants. But that is not happening. I declare a vested interest in this because it has happened to me. But this is not about me. This is about this parliament going forward to enable whoever comes into this parliament in the years and decades ahead to stand at the dispatch box or rise in their place and speak with their conscience without having to worry that their speech will be questioned, impeached or de-platformed by someone from a foreign country, a large tech giant. But that is exactly what is happening today. Speeches that I have made in this parliament, the proceedings of the Australian parliament, are being censored and removed from YouTube’s platform. That should shock every single Australian. Freedom of speech in this place goes back to the Bill of Rights in 1688. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 provides: That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament. For centuries, that has been the principle. And the way that came about, the historical reason for that act in 1688, goes back to the reign of King Charles I. In 1629, three members of the UK parliament—Eliot, Holles and Valentine—were thrown into the Tower of London for making speeches concerning complaints about allegedly illegal taxation. The monarch of the day imprisoned them in the Tower of London. Sir John Eliot died there in 1632 and the two other members of parliament were detained in the Tower of London for 11 years. In 1668, Eliot's conviction was reversed by the House of Lords. It was regarded as illegal and against the freedom and privilege of parliament. This was followed by the Bill of Rights of 1688, which simply says that the proceedings of parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament. Yet today we have large foreign tech giants questioning the proceedings of this parliament and if it doesn't comply with their so-called community standards—not the community standards of the community but the community standards and interests of these large tech giants—they will impeach that speech, they will take it off their platform, they will threaten the member of parliament that if he makes another speech such as that he'll be struck off their platform altogether. Allowing this to happen gives the tech giants of today—the Facebooks, Googles, YouTubes, and TikToks—greater power to censor parliament than the King of England had in the late 1600s. We need to take action against this, and that is what the amendment that I'll be moving in the third reading will address. Our elections are important. The integrity of our elections are important. They are continually are under threat. We need to be ever vigilant on foreign actors who are trying to undermine Australia's democracy and Australia's election campaign. I support these bills. They make further enhancements to our democracy. However, I will be moving an amendment in the third reading stage.
Religious Discrimination Bill 2021, Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021, Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
I move the amendment circulated in my name. (1) Page 21 (after line 8), at the end of Part 3, add: 17A Religious objections to COVID-19 vaccination (1) To avoid doubt, if: (a) conduct is engaged...
I move the amendment circulated in my name. (1) Page 21 (after line 8), at the end of Part 3, add: 17A Religious objections to COVID-19 vaccination (1) To avoid doubt, if: (a) conduct is engaged in because a person has not received a COVID vaccination; and (b) the reason, or one of the reasons (whether or not it is the dominant or a substantial reason) the person has not received a COVID vaccination is that the person genuinely considers that doing so would be inconsistent with a religious belief held by the person; then, for the purposes of this Act, the conduct is taken to be engaged in for the reason of that religious belief. (2) This section applies in relation to conduct engaged in because a person has not received a COVID vaccination of a particular type (for example, vaccination with a particular brand of vaccine, or a first, second or third etc. booster) in the same way as this section applies in relation to conduct engaged in because a person has not received any COVID vaccination. (3) Sections 37 and 38 do not apply to discrimination constituted by conduct to which subsection (1) of this section applies. Vaccine passports (4) Without limiting subsection (1), conduct is taken to be engaged in because a person has not received a COVID vaccination if: (a) the person has not received a COVID vaccination; and (b) the conduct is engaged in because: (i) the person does not demonstrate that the person has received a COVID vaccination; or (ii) does not demonstrate in a particular way (such as by producing a particular type of vaccination certificate) that the person has received a COVID vaccination. Definitions (5) In this section: COVID means the coronavirus commonly known as COVID-19 (including any subsequent variants of that coronavirus). During this debate, over many hours, I have heard many fine speeches. Most had a common theme—that all Australians should have the right to live free of discrimination. They should have the right not to be thrown out of their jobs because they have a truly held belief. There should be a right to practise your religion as you see fit, with, of course, the one proviso: that it does not cause harm to others. Today in this country there are many people who have a true and genuinely held belief that they wish to be vaccine-free and yet they are being discriminated against; they are being denied the right to participate in the Australian economy. I am talking about airline pilots, nurses, paramedics, teachers, even truck drivers and shop assistants. If we truly want a society where we end all of the discrimination, it should be across all areas. Therefore, the amendment that I seek to move would make it unlawful for a person to be discriminated against on their vaccine status if they hold a genuinely held religious belief that they wished to be vaccine-free. I acknowledge that vaccination in general has been one of the greatest public health achievements over the last century. But the COVID vaccines, we must admit, use a novel technology that has never been tried or tested in humans before; therefore, it is only fair that citizens in a free, democratic country have the right to decide what substances they inject into their body free of coercion, free of discrimination, and this is what this amendment seeks to achieve. The only argument against this is: does it put others at risk? Would allowing such an exemption put other Australians at risk? There may have been arguments for that six to 12 months ago, but the data now is crystal clear from around the world: if you are vaccine-free you are less likely to have COVID and less likely to spread it. For someone in my age group, the data from the UK COVID surveillance data shows I would have a double the probability of having COVID if I was vaccine-free. I hear my good friend, the member for MacArthur, doubt that. I encourage you to get a look at that data—official data from the UK COVID health surveillance. That is clearly what official UK government data shows, so I would hope that members of this House would think about those thousands of Australians who are currently thrown out of their jobs, thrown out of their careers, doing it very tough at the moment. There are no grounds, no reason why those people should not be given the right to get back to work. That is what the amendment I propose would do. I hope it has the support of many members of this House.
COVID-19: Vaccination | Motions | House debates
I'll conclude with the final point: (3) calls on the government to immediately bring on the No Domestic Vaccine Passport Bill 2021, introduced in this parliament in July by the member for Hughes,...
I'll conclude with the final point: (3) calls on the government to immediately bring on the No Domestic Vaccine Passport Bill 2021, introduced in this parliament in July by the member for Hughes, for debate and determination before this parliament rises for the Christmas-New Year holiday break. Leave not granted. I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Hughes from moving the following motion immediately: That the House: (1) notes: (a) in a free democratic nation, any experimental medical intervention, which has zero long-term safety data, should only be administered with the free and informed consent of the undergoing the medical invention; (b) no Australian should ever be placed in a situation where they are coerced into undertaking any medical intervention, let alone an experimental provisionally approved medical intervention (which has zero long term safety data) with the threat of being sacked from their job and denied the freedom to work in their career of choice and a career that they have trained for; (c) any policy by a government or the private sector which mandates Australians to be injected with an experimental genetic agent violates basic human rights; (d) thousands of Australians including nurses, police officers, airline pilots, teachers, truck drivers, disability workers, charity workers, office staff, etc. have already been thrown out of their jobs and denied the freedom to pursue their career of choice for not submitting to be injected with an experimental, provisionally approved substance that has no long-term safety data due to compulsory mandates for medical intervention with the COVID vaccines; (e) compulsory mandates, requiring Australians to be injected with any of the COVID injections, and policies of segregation, discrimination and medical apartheid are not based upon the science or the evidence - such mandates are based upon the marketing literature of the vaccine sellers, superstition, and mindless fearmongering; (f) the most recent published data from the UK Health Security Agency, titled: COVID Vaccine Surveillance Report week 46 - records that those injected twice aged between 60 and 79 years of age have a greater chance of having COVID than those not injected. And for those in age groups between 40 and 69 years of age the data records those "injected twice" have more than double the rate of COVID infections compared to those not injected at all; (g) the title of a recent published study by researchers from the University of California is self-explanatory: 'Vaccinated and Unvaccinated individuals have similar viral loads' (h) the esteemed virologist Geer Vanden Bossche was warned that such mandates will result in a 'catastrophe' and have stated: "No healthy individual should be considered more of an infectious threat than another. There is no scientific rational for any individual, whether vaccinated or not, to discriminated against contacts with any healthy vaccinated or unvaccinated person"; and (i) that recent detections of the Omicron COVID variant in Australia have all been among people with a vaccine passport, demonstrating that vaccine passports are worse than useless; (2) notes that the federal Government of Australia has multiple constitutional powers to ban COVID injection mandates, and to ensure that workers currently sacked from the jobs under vaccine mandates can return to work and recommence their careers before Christmas; (3) only hours ago, in the USA a federal judge issued preliminary injunction against the US President's vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. With the decision, no healthcare worker in all 50 states of USA can dismissed from their job for not submitting to mandatory injection with a COVID genetic vaccine, with the judge noting: "if human nature and history teach us anything, it is that civil liberties face grave risk when governments proclaim indefinite states of emergency..."; and (4) call on the Government to immediately bring on the No Domestic COVID Vaccine Passport Bill 2021, introduced to this Parliament in July by the Member for Hughes in July for debate and determination before this Parliament rises for the Christmas New Year break. With only a few weeks left until Christmas, many Australians are facing a dark and bleak Christmas holiday. They are facing a situation where they will not be able to recommence their jobs. They are facing a situation of being sacked from not only their employment but also their career of choice. This includes nurses. This includes police officers, airline pilots, teachers, truck drivers, disability workers and charity workers. Many of them have already been thrown out of their jobs, denied the freedom that we are blessed with here in Australia to pursue their career of choice, simply for deciding—they have made the decision for themselves—that they do not want to participate in this global vaccine experiment. That should be the free choice that these people have in a democratic society. Standing and sessional orders should be suspended because we here in this parliament have only hours before we will pack up and go on holidays. This parliament will close down over the Christmas break for all of us to enjoy the Christmas holidays and a Christmas break. But we will be denying that break to thousands upon thousands of Australians. We heard only a few hours ago that in the USA a federal judge issued preliminary injunctions against the US President's vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. With this decision, no healthcare worker in all 50 states of the USA can be dismissed from their job for not submitting to a mandatory injection with a COVID genetic vaccine. The judge noted: If human nature and history teach us anything, it is that civil liberties face grave risk when governments proclaim indefinite states of emergency. The House should bring this on for a debate. If the member for Macarthur has an alternative opinion, let's have the debate, because there are thousands of medical experts with far higher qualifications than the member for Macarthur who have treated far more COVID patients than the member for Macarthur has and have a completely different opinion to the medical bureaucrats of this nation. We deserve to have that debate. There is no single source of truth when this comes about. Mandates forcing Australians to be injected against their free will, using coercion, are unethical, un-Australian and should stop. This parliament has the power to do so. It has the power to reunite our nation, to end the segregation, to end medical discrimination, if it wants to. That is the choice that I wish to put to this parliament that they can vote on immediately.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Further: (f) the most recent published data from the UK Health Security Agency, titled COVID vaccine surveillance report: week 46, records that those injected twice between...
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Further: (f) the most recent published data from the UK Health Security Agency, titled COVID vaccine surveillance report: week 46, records that those injected twice between the ages of 30 and 79 years of age have a greater chance of having COVID than those not injected, and the title of a recently published study by researchers from the University of California is self-explanatory; it is 'vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals have similar viral loads'. The esteemed virologist Geert Vanden Bossche has warned that such mandates will result in a catastrophe and has stated: 'No healthy individual should be considered more of an infectious threat than another. There is no scientific rationale for any individual, whether vaccinated or not, to discriminate against contacts with any healthy vaccinated or unvaccinated person'; (2) notes that the federal government of Australia has multiple constitutional powers to ban COVID vaccine mandates and to ensure that workers currently sacked from their jobs under vaccine mandates can return to their work and recommence their careers before Christmas. Only hours ago, in the USA, a federal judge—
I have two more points, Mr Speaker.
I seek leave to move the following motion—and I apologise to members of the opposition for delaying the matter of public importance: That this House: (1) notes: (a) in a free and democratic...
I seek leave to move the following motion—and I apologise to members of the opposition for delaying the matter of public importance: That this House: (1) notes: (a) in a free and democratic nation any experimental medical intervention which has zero long-term safety data should only be administered with the free and informed consent of the person undergoing the medical intervention, (b) no Australian should ever be placed in a situation where they are coerced into undertaking any medical intervention with the threat of being sacked from their job and denied the freedom to work in their career of choice and the career that they have trained for, (c) any policy by a government or a private sector employer that mandates Australians to be injected with an experimental vaccine violates basic human rights, (d) thousands of Australians, including nurses, police officers, airline pilots, teachers, truck drivers, disability workers, charity workers, office staff et cetera, have already been thrown out of their jobs and denied the freedom to pursue their career of choice for not submitting to being injected with an experimental, provisionally approved substance that has no long-term safety data, (e) compulsory mandates requiring Australians to be injected with any COVID injections, and policies of segregation, discrimination and medical apartheid are not based upon the latest science or the latest evidence, but such mandates are based upon the marketing literature of the vaccine sellers, superstition and mindless fearmongering, and (f) the most recent—
National Health Amendment (Enhancing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2021; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
There is clearly not informed consent, and that is the reason why I have moved that amendment. The other amendment I have moved in this series of amendments is about the functions of the...
There is clearly not informed consent, and that is the reason why I have moved that amendment. The other amendment I have moved in this series of amendments is about the functions of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, to include after section 101(4F): (4G) The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee must: (a) review recommendations made by the Advisory Committee on Medicines Scheduling in relation to new restrictions on prescribing previously approved drugs for off-label use … Why is this needed? We have had this advisory committee on medicines deciding they would ban ivermectin in this country. Who reviews this decision? Who questions them? We have experts in this country—men like Professor Thomas Borody, with more letters after his name than the alphabet, and Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy—who not only have been using these treatments on Australians but have documented and shown that they are saving lives. They have documented and shown that they are keeping Australians out of hospital. Yet an unelected group of unaccountable faceless bureaucrats, many of them not even medical people, have come forward and told those two medical geniuses, who are among the highest qualified people in this country, that they cannot use a treatment that they have demonstrated will save lives. There clearly needs to be more oversight of these groups because they are not doing their job as the Australian public would want them to. The other amendment is to section 132, which relates to the provision of COVID vaccines and treatments. It calls for the minister, before engaging in any conduct that would restrict any medical practitioners, such as Professor Borody and the 30 doctors he had working underneath him, to engage in some consultation. Has the minister sat down with Professor Borody to go through the results of his trials? There have been 600 patients and zero deaths. We know that in an equivalent group of 600 Australians who had COVID there would normally be seven deaths. There should be in the legislation a requirement for the minister and the department to consult with these medical doctors, who are saving lives, before they pull the rug from underneath them. These are sensible amendments to this bill. They enhance the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme to talk simply about more oversight and more consultation and to make sure that the concepts of free and informed choice and consent are enshrined in law. I would hope that every single member of this House supports the amendments.
I seek the call again. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Hughes. Doctors must be free to give their own opinion to their patients. The sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship is important, and...
I seek the call again. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Hughes. Doctors must be free to give their own opinion to their patients. The sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship is important, and we cannot have informed consent in this nation if our doctors are silenced, censored and face threat of deregistration, because that is exactly what is happening. There cannot be informed consent when other medical experts from around the world, such as Dr Peter McCullough—probably one of the most highly qualified medical minds in all of the United States of America—says, in his belief, that the vaccines are not sufficiently effective and they are not sufficiently safe and should be stopped tomorrow, but his opinion is not allowed on any mainstream media. His opinion is censored from places like Facebook and Twitter. How can there be informed consent if there is a suppression of free speech? And how can there be informed consent when we continue to say 'safe and effective' but yet there is zero—I repeat zero—long-term safety data? As for the short-term safety data, the method of data collection is not fit for purpose. It is grossly underreporting the number of adverse events. I'll give an example of this. We have the TGA collecting data for adverse events, and they currently say the number of adverse events from the COVID vaccines is 0.21 per cent. The question is: how many are being underreported? The TGA say: very little. However, we have another group that reports on vaccine safety, called AusVaxSafety. What do AusVaxSafety do? They actually contact, rather than wait for a voluntary response. They are sending SMS messages out to people after they have the COVID vaccine. They have got over four million responses back, and those responses show that the number of people going to a hospital or emergency department or doctor's surgery—which, according to the TGA, should all be reported, under the method they use—is running at 0.9 per cent. So the TGA data is 0.21 per cent, and the AusVaxSafety data is 0.9 per cent—and we know the AusVaxSafety data is underreported because it only goes out on the third day. From that, we know that the TGA's data of adverse events is missing at least 75 per cent of adverse events occurring. Yet that is not reported. How can there be informed consent? Are parents aware that when their child, a 12- to 17-year-old child, goes and gets a vaccine, their child, if they are in the United States of America, would not be getting the Moderna vaccine because the Food and Drug Administration in the US has not yet decided that it is safe for injection in a 12-year-old child? Do Australian parents understand, and are they given the information, that the Moderna vaccine being injected into their 12-year-old child has been suspended as an injection for 12-year-old children in places like Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and many other countries? Is that information being given to parents? Do parents know the data from AusVaxSafety about young adolescents, which shows that, in comparison to the Pfizer vaccine, while the Pfizer vaccine in adolescents reports at least one adverse event in 48 per cent of kids after the second dose the Moderna vaccine reports adverse events in an incredible 61 per cent? Are parents informed that, of the Pfizer vaccine in adolescents, just over one in 100 people report going to the emergency department and seeing a doctor after their second dose of Pfizer but just under two in 100 do if they are given a dose of Moderna? For adolescents, the chances of ending up needing to see a doctor or going to hospital increase by almost 100 per cent if they take the Moderna vaccine over the Pfizer vaccine. Are parents being informed of that? (Time expired)
I move amendment (1) circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 4), before the heading specifying National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits-Budget and Other Measures) Act...
I move amendment (1) circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 4), before the heading specifying National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits-Budget and Other Measures) Act 2018, insert: National Health Act 1953 1A At the end of section 9B Add: (11) Nothing in this section or any other Commonwealth law allows the Minister to: (a) require a person to receive a vaccine; or (b) provide, or arrange for the provision of, a vaccine unless the Minister is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the vaccine is not or will not be administered to a person without the person's free and informed consent. (12) Without limiting paragraph (11)(b), a person's consent to the administration of a vaccine to the person is not free and informed if: (a) when the person consents, the person is under a threat of negative consequences (including prejudice or disadvantage) if the person does not consent; or (b) the consent is a result of coercion. 1B After subsection 84C(1AA) Insert: (lAB) To avoid doubt, for the purposes of determining a person's eligibility for a concession card or any other concession or benefit under this Act, it is irrelevant whether the person has been injected with any: (a) experimental medical intervention; or (b) medical intervention that has less than 5 years of safety data. 1C After subsection 101(4F) Insert: (4G) The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee must: (a) review recommendations made by the Advisory Committee on Medicines Scheduling in relation to new restrictions on prescribing previously approved drugs for off-label use; and (b) advise the Minister and the Department about the recommendations. 1D After subsection 132G(2) Insert: (2B) Nothing in this section or any other Commonwealth law allows the Minister to: (a) require a person to receive a COVID-19 vaccine; or (b) provide, or arrange for the provision of, a COVID-19 vaccine unless the Minister is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the vaccine is not or will not be administered to a person without the person's free and informed consent. (2C) Without limiting paragraph (2B)(b), a person's consent to the administration of a COVID-19 vaccine to the person is not free and informed if: (a) when the person consents, the person is under a threat of negative consequences (including prejudice or disadvantage) if the person does not consent; or (b) the consent is a result of coercion. 1E At the end of Part VIIIB Add: 132H Restrictions on COVID-19 treatments (1) This section applies to a treatment for COVID-19 that: (a) has documented success in reducing hospitalisation or death from COVID-19; and (b) is currently being provided by medical practitioners in Australia. (2) Before the Minister engages in conduct (whether or not under this Act) that would have the effect of restricting the ability of medical practitioners to provide the treatment, the Minister must consult with the medical practitioners in Australia who currently provide the treatment. (3) For the purposes of subsection (2), engages in conduct includes makes a legislative instrument. There are five separate clauses to this one amendment which I have put together as a single amendment for the ease of the House. Firstly, I will talk about clauses 1A and 1D together as they are basically the same. They amend to enhance the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme section 9B, which is the provision of vaccines, and also section 132G(2), which is the provision of COVID vaccines and treatments. Both parts have the same wording, which I'll read out. They add two paragraphs to both those sections, and they are: (11) Nothing in this section or any other Commonwealth law allows the Minister to: (a) require a person to receive a vaccine; or (b) provide, or arrange for the provision of, a vaccine unless the Minister is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the vaccine is not or will not be administered to a person without the person's free and informed consent. (12) Without limiting paragraph (11)(b), a person's consent to the administration of a vaccine to the person is not free and informed if: (a) when the person consents, the person is under a threat of negative consequences (including prejudice or disadvantage) if the person does not consent; or (b) the consent is a result of coercion. These two additional parts of the amendment to the National Health Act are most important. We have two provisions in the act about the provision of vaccines, but neither of them have any requirement that the administration of those vaccines be only done with free and informed consent. This is a fundamental tenet of medical ethics that has developed over the centuries, and it should be in our National Health Act to spell it out loudly and clearly. The reason this amendment is needed is that it's very clear when it comes to free consent that we have medical treatments being administered in this nation today that are not given with free consent. And we see it in thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs and occupations, from airline pilots to nurses to schoolteachers to people that work at Woolworths. They are facing not only a loss of their job unless they submit to take one of the COVID vaccines; in many cases, they are facing the loss of their career. They are being prohibited to work in their career of choice. When someone has a mortgage to pay, when someone has rent to pay, when someone has children that they need to look after, they have no option; it is coercion and threats that they are actually taking these COVID vaccines under. That is not free consent. We have a society at the moment where you cannot cross a state border unless you have been vaccinated. In Sydney today, I cannot sit in a barber's chair and get a haircut; I cannot sit in a barber's chair in Queanbeyan, but, if I come across the border to Canberra, I can get a haircut. In Sydney today, inside, I cannot sing, I cannot dance, because I'm unvaccinated. This is an absurdity. We are abandoning those principles of medical ethics that have stood us in good stead and have been developed over the centuries. Those two provisions need to be put in to ensure that we are getting free consent. Because it's free and informed—that's the phrase. There is also no informed consent. How can we have informed consent in this nation when we have doctors that are censored and silenced and face threat of deregistration if they decide to put up an alternative expert medical opinion? There is no one source of truth in this issue. It is important that we allow doctors to be doctors, to practise medicine. (Time expired)
National Health Amendment (Enhancing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2021; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise this evening to speak on the National Health Amendment (Enhancing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2021. It was a pleasure to listen to the member for Macarthur, who spoke before...
I rise this evening to speak on the National Health Amendment (Enhancing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2021. It was a pleasure to listen to the member for Macarthur, who spoke before me, outline some of the significant breakthroughs that are coming down the track that can improve the quality of Australians lives, but we must remember that to list drugs on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, to make them available to Australians at an affordable cost, costs money. We have first to create wealth out in the community. There was a period in the time that I've been a parliamentarian when this parliament, in the three years from 2010 to 2013, then under a Labor government, decided that, because of the budgetary situation, the listing of some drugs on the PBS had to be delayed. The member for Ryan was correct when he spoke about that. However, there is no point in continuing to list drugs on the PBS if it's all done by running up our debt. Back when the listing of new drugs on the PBS was suspended the debt was something around the $100 billion mark. Today, national debt stands at something like $1,000 billion—a trillion dollars' worth of debt. This debt is going to greatly compromise this parliament's ability to continue to list on the PBS new life-saving drugs and drugs that will improve the quality of life of many Australians. I have a second reading amendment that I am proposing, which has six separate points. I will quickly go through some of those. The first one is: "whilst" … "not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes: (1) that the price of the drug Ivermectin in Australia under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) is significantly higher than reported elsewhere in the world; I had a quick look on the PBS schedule, and it has the price for a pack of four three-milligram tablets of ivermectin at the maximum safety net price of $41.30. Yet anyone who looks on the internet can see that same drug available out of India costing something like 20c Australian per tablet, so a pack of four, which you can buy online from India, would be less than a dollar, yet it is $41 even under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Something is going very wrong if a drug that costs less than a dollar to make is being sold to Australians, even under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, for $41.30. The second point in the amendment that I am moving is: (2) that on 10 September 2021, the TGA placed new restrictions on prescribing Ivermectin through the PBS for COVID-19, denying sick Australians access to a medicine that many medical experts believe could save lives, and this denial of Australians' access to a medicine through their doctor was described by experts— including no less an authority than Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy— as 'a sad and shameful day for Australian medicine'; I'll quote from the article. Again, these are not my words; these are the words of Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy, which he published an article in Quadrant on 13 September. He said: September 10, 2021, was a black day, the day a group of faceless bureaucrats known as the "Advisory Committee for Medicines Scheduling", through its effector arm, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), compromised medical practise and the health of their fellow Australians. The TGA used its regulatory muscle to prevent doctors at the COVID-19 pandemic's coalface from prescribing ivermectin (IVM), the one therapy available that is safe, cheap and which reduces mortality in the order of 60 per cent. These are not Craig Kelly's words; these are the words of Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy. I will continue to read from his article: This poorly conceived action threatens the high standards of medical practise we have achieved in Australia, and the credibility of the administrative structure within which medicine operates. The immediate consequence of the TGA Notice means patients contracting COVID-19 are left to hear, "Sorry, no treatment for COVID-19 is legally available. Just go to hospital when you get very sick." In the longer term it means that bureaucrats can change the way medicine is practised for whatever reason without review by, or discussion with, the medical community. It is important for Australians to consider two issues that follow the TGA's decision: first, it adds risk to those exposed to COVID-19, putting additional pressures on health-care facilities; second, it drives a wedge into the fault lines that have appeared in medical practise during the course of the COVID-19 saga. Looking at the first issue, the decision by the TGA to prevent general practitioners from prescribing IVM to manage COVID-19, the Notice is flawed and misleading, although giving clues to its political motivation. Again, I am quoting directly from Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy. He writes: The evidence that IVM is safe and effective in both preventing and treating early (pre-hospital) COVID-19 is overwhelming, as has been laid out in four Quadrant articles published through 2021. Despite this evidence, every artifice has been used to quash IVM's use and to do so in unprecedented fashion. The causes for the suppression include political agendas, pressures from pharmaceutical companies, ideology and breakdown in medical communication. This latest blow by the TGA follows its previous form in shutting down use of hydroxychloroquine, another safe, effective and cheap COVID-19 therapy. Every experienced doctor prescribes drugs for 'off-label' indications. It is anathema and dangerous that the doctor-patient relationship can now be over-ridden by government agendas. Again, these are not my words but the words of one of the most senior, respected and highly qualified immunologists in this country. He concluded: The authoritarian and poorly conceived interference by the TGA in the effective running of clinical medicine, and its broader implications, is a further splintering event. This is a time when everyone needs to be on message to counter a devastating pandemic. The use of blunt legal tools to threaten and bully doctors with de-registration, legal action for "advertising" and even with jail terms for striving for the transparency and common sense that has served medicine so well compromises the rules of science and the doctor-patient relationship upon which our profession is built. The answer is transparency and communication around agreed goals based on science. We should again involve all levels of health care and the public we serve. The decision-making process should include clinicians familiar with the problem to ensure the pragmatic and common-sense approach needed to get us through this pandemic with minimum damage. This is his final paragraph: Rather than create the chaos and loss of respect for an important institution that will follow continued enforcement of the current Notice, the TGA should initiate a working party that includes frontline doctors to establish an agreed treatment protocol that includes dosage, with monitoring of the outcomes. We live in dangerous times that call for new ideas able to address a real world crisis that is out of control and will only get worse without a different way of thinking. They are the words of Emeritus Professor Clancy, written in an article on 13 September. The third point in the amendment that I would like to move is that the recently published Australian data evidence is that ivermectin prescribed under the PBS in Australia prior to the TGA's ban combined as part of a triple therapy including zinc and doxycycline has been highly successful in reducing hospitalisations and deaths. We actually have some data to show how effective this has been; this is not just some theoretical argument or theoretical conclusion put forward by Emeritus Professor Clancy. There is a paper that has been published with the lead authors Thomas Borody and Professor Clancy. In this study, they took 600 Australian residents with positive PCR symptomatic COVID and treated them with ivermectin, doxycycline and zinc for 10 days. The treatment period was from June to September 2021. It involved two states, New South Wales and Victoria, and over 30 frontline doctors. The result of those studies were that only two people visited hospital, for 24 hours, and went home. A total of five people in that study were admitted to hospital, 0.83 per cent, and there were no deaths. In an equivalent control group, so if we took another 600 Australians with similar characteristics who weren't in general society and weren't given Dr Borody's triple therapy, what were the results? On average, 70 were admitted to hospital: 11.5 per cent. So we have those who took Dr Borody's triple therapy, with 0.83 per cent admitted to hospital; and those who didn't, with 11.5 per cent. The number of deaths in that equivalent group: six. In Dr Borody's group: 0. When we have such results in an Australian based study, how is it possible that we are denying Australians access to these treatments? This is what the TGA have done. I do not know whether this drug is effective, but I do know that Australians should not be denied access to this treatment when we have published studies showing such results. Surely when we have people dying every day of COVID we have the right to try in this country. Surely doctors must have the right to practice medicine. Those rights are being taken away by a bad decision of the TGA that is criticised by some of our most senior immunologists in this country. As I'm short of time on the clock, I will quickly also note that the TGA said there had been a threefold to fourfold increase in dispensing ivermectin prescriptions in recent months. They were concerned about the safety of this. We can go to the TGA's DAEN database and see whether this led to more reports of adverse events. We can see throughout the entire length of the pandemic, from 1 January 2020 to 14 November, the latest data of 2021, that there were only two cases of adverse events reported by people taking ivermectin as a single suspect medicine, and one of those took it not through the prescription. In comparison, the number of reports from the COVID vaccines on the same database for the same period is 80,669 cases. I move: That all words after "whilst" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes: (1) that the price of the drug Ivermectin in Australia under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) is significantly higher than reported elsewhere in the world; (2) that on 10 September 2021, the TGA placed new restrictions on prescribing Ivermectin through the PBS for COVID-19, denying sick Australians access to a medicine that many medical experts believe could save lives, and this denial of Australians' access to a medicine through their doctor was described by experts as 'a sad and shameful day for Australian medicine'; (3) recently published Australian data provides evidence that Ivermectin prescribed under the PBS in Australia (prior to the TGA's ban) combined as part of a 'triple therapy' including Zinc and Doxycycline (also prescribed under the PBS) has been highly successful in reducing hospitalisations and death; (4) that the TGA noted on 10 September 2021 there had been a 3 to 4-fold increase in dispensing of Ivermectin prescriptions through the PBS in recent months, however the TGA Database of Adverse Events records no increase in adverse events; (5) that a reason for denying Australians' access to Ivermectin through their doctor and the PBS to treat COVID-19 included the reason of 'national and local shortages for those who need the medicine for scabies and parasite infections', however medical regulators failed to take steps to overcome this shortage; and (6) that this denial of Australians' access to this medicine through their doctor and the policies of other nations to adopt widespread use of Ivermectin to tackle COVID-19, have created a black-market for the drug undermining Australia's PBS". I commend this amendment to the House.
Personal Explanation | Statements | House debates
I will conclude with the misrepresentation that the rallies featured Nazis. On Saturday the rally featured Uncle Max, an Indigenous elder, who gave a magnificent speech and led the protest. Such...
I will conclude with the misrepresentation that the rallies featured Nazis. On Saturday the rally featured Uncle Max, an Indigenous elder, who gave a magnificent speech and led the protest. Such media reporting, resorting to Nazi slurs, slanders everyone who attended these rallies and it also slanders great men like Uncle Max.