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