Russell Broadbent (Monash, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to an article by Tom Burton in the Australian Financial Review of 27 May headed 'Antivax claims flood Senate inquiry. Officials say they're wrong'. I don't believe that Tom would have written the headline, but if he had written, 'Vax claims flood Senate inquiries. Officials say they're wrong', it would be reasonable. The article is quite reasonable. It gives both sides of the argument. It says:

The Australian Bureau of Statistics, the federal Health Department and risk management industry body the Actuaries Institute strongly rejected the claims—

made by the submissions—

saying they are not supported by evidence and COVID-19 vaccines saved millions of lives globally while causing a comparatively tiny number of deaths.

I've disputed that all the way through on a number of occasions in my consideration of these matters.

I've been consistent since 2020 and 2021 in what I've said. My difficulty here is very simple. I deal with the real people that come to me from right across Australia and from other members of electorates when their own member has not received their correspondence or answered their correspondence. The least they could do as members of parliament is further their correspondence on to the minister for an answer, but to ignore them is the worst thing that they can do to these people who are crying in the wilderness for support.

A few weeks ago, I spoke with Raelene about her three-year battle for justice following the death of her 23-year-old daughter, seven weeks after her second Pfizer jab. Three years on, the grieving mum, Raelene, still hasn't heard from TGA. You would think they would at least respond to her calls. Raelene quite rightly told me that her daughter was not an acceptable risk or an acceptable casualty.

There have been bombshell revelations in the UK this week where the Office for National Statistics admitted that some of the excess deaths that occurred in 2021 were misclassified as 'unvaccinated' when they were actually vaccinated and occurred in three weeks following vaccination. What are the implications of this for us and internationally?

I do not dispute the way Tom Burton has written the article—not for a minute. I think he has been reasonable, giving both sides of the argument and explaining exactly what's happening in the Senate inquiry. It's reasonable, very reasonable. The first person who looked at it jumped all over Tom Burton. But I said: 'It's nothing to do with Tom Burton. He's just actually writing about what's happening in the Senate inquiry at the moment and the whole lot of submissions.' I have seen the confidential submissions to this inquiry. From those who are submitting them, the arguments are completely backed up by facts and peer-reviewed processes. I suggest that everybody should take a deep breath and a good look at themselves and address themselves to what's happening in this inquiry.