Craig Kelly's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
type: channel
language: en-gb
creator: OpenAustralia.org, mprss.php script
date: 2022-07-06T23:05:41+00:00
items: Data Availability and Transparency Bill 2020, Data Availability and Transparency (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
items: Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2021-2022, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2021-2022; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
items: Parliamentary Precinct | Questions to the Speaker | House debates
items: Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2021; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
items: g25.56
items: g25.2
items: g23.1
items: Religious Discrimination Bill 2021, Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021, Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
items: COVID-19: Vaccination | Motions | House debates
items: National Health Amendment (Enhancing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2021; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
items: National Health Amendment (Enhancing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2021; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
items: Personal Explanation | Statements | House debates

Data Availability and Transparency Bill 2020, Data Availability and Transparency (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
type: item
description: 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...
encoded: 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 orga…
date: 2022-03-30T18:19:00+00:00

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2021-2022, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2021-2022; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
type: item
description: 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...
encoded: 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. W…
date: 2022-02-17T12:20:00+00:00

Parliamentary Precinct | Questions to the Speaker | House debates
type: item
description: 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...
encoded: 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?
date: 2022-02-17T15:19:00+00:00

Parliamentary Precinct | Questions to the Speaker | House debates
type: item
description: I do, Speaker.
encoded: I do, Speaker.
date: 2022-02-17T15:19:00+00:00

Parliamentary Precinct | Questions to the Speaker | House debates
type: item
description: 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...
encoded: 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—
date: 2022-02-17T15:19:00+00:00

Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2021; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
type: item
description: 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...
encoded: 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 ki…
date: 2022-02-16T19:09:00+00:00

g25.56
type: item
title: 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
description: 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...
encoded: 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.
date: 2022-02-16T12:52:00+00:00

g25.2
type: item
title: 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
description: 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...
encoded: 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 e…
date: 2022-02-16T12:52:00+00:00

g23.1
type: item
title: 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
description: 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...
encoded: 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 …
date: 2022-02-16T12:33:00+00:00

Religious Discrimination Bill 2021, Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021, Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
type: item
description: 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...
encoded: 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 j…
date: 2022-02-09T01:44:00+00:00

COVID-19: Vaccination | Motions | House debates
type: item
description: 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,...
encoded: 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 m…
date: 2021-12-01T15:15:00+00:00

COVID-19: Vaccination | Motions | House debates
type: item
description: 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...
encoded: 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—
date: 2021-12-01T15:15:00+00:00

COVID-19: Vaccination | Motions | House debates
type: item
description: I have two more points, Mr Speaker.
encoded: I have two more points, Mr Speaker.
date: 2021-12-01T15:15:00+00:00

COVID-19: Vaccination | Motions | House debates
type: item
description: 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...
encoded: 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—
date: 2021-12-01T15:15:00+00:00

National Health Amendment (Enhancing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2021; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
type: item
description: 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...
encoded: 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 se…
date: 2021-11-30T12:37:00+00:00

National Health Amendment (Enhancing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2021; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
type: item
description: I seek the call again.
encoded: I seek the call again.
date: 2021-11-30T12:37:00+00:00

National Health Amendment (Enhancing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2021; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
type: item
description: 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...
encoded: 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 …
date: 2021-11-30T12:37:00+00:00

National Health Amendment (Enhancing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2021; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
type: item
description: 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...
encoded: 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 administ…
date: 2021-11-30T12:37:00+00:00

National Health Amendment (Enhancing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2021; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
type: item
description: 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...
encoded: 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 somet…
date: 2021-11-29T19:12:00+00:00

Personal Explanation | Statements | House debates
type: item
description: 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...
encoded: 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.
date: 2021-11-29T16:08:00+00:00