Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak about mandatory vaccination and vaccination passports. I have been consistent in raising my concerns about these matters since they were first mooted. This, coupled with the sheer multitude of emails and communications I have received from the Australian public, prompted me to vote for the COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill yesterday. I state from the outset that I am not opposed to vaccination. I am fully vaxxed. Indeed, I'm the holder of an International Certificate of Vaccination or Prophylaxis, issued under the international health regulations and referred to commonly as the yellow book, for obvious reasons. As Minister for International Development and the Pacific, I did about 50 trips overseas, so you can appreciate that my yellow book is actually quite full.

The opposition that we have witnessed regarding mandatory vaccination and vaccination passports is a culmination of the slings and arrows Australians have faced since of the beginning of last year. Since April last year I have been saying that, when people lose their jobs, lose their livelihoods, lose their businesses and suffer the mental anguish that goes with all of that, they will look for someone to blame, and they will blame the politicians. There is no doubt that problems with the vaccine rollout and the issues with the AstraZeneca vaccine resulted in vaccine hesitancy. Regrettably, the positive benefit of the vaccine in saving lives was lost.

The former Deputy Chief Medical Officer Dr Coatsworth stated in an op-ed in the Sydney Morning Herald on 24 July that dishonesty by 'risk-averse academics' armed with webcams overstated the devastation likely to be wrought by clotting. Furthermore, there was a perception that there was no real choice available to people. It was clear from the beginning of the pandemic that some in the community did not want to be vaccinated or could not be vaccinated. At that time it was important that all options, including complementary choices, should have at least been made publicly available. Instead, the messaging was confused and disjointed. Credible experts like Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy, an immunologist at the University of Newcastle, and emerging data from other countries were dismissed, notwithstanding credible trials showing alternative and complementary medicines were reducing the duration and infectiousness of COVID.

I come now to the national cabinet. It was supposed to facilitate cooperation. Australians are not interested in the bickering between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. However, there has been a growing perception that the Commonwealth has forfeited control. The states and territories are doing what they can but the Commonwealth is bearing the brunt of the blame for failures, including quarantine and vaccination. In an article in the Australian on 28 July titled 'National cabinet "not fit for purpose"', Paul McClintock, who led the COAG reform council for Prime Minister Howard, noted:

Ad hoc meetings of federal and state leaders is no way to run an effective federation. It is a questionable use of the word cabinet. The term cabinet sets up an image of collective responsibility. This body has none of that.

He further noted:

The national cabinet has seen premiers split on lockdowns, vaccines and border closures, and its members have attacked each other's governments multiple times throughout the pandemic.

Despite supposedly agreeing to the national plan, it is clear that the premiers are not following the script.

I now turn to lockdowns. The disquiet and anger at lockdowns has progressively increased. In the beginning, there was greater understanding, but now people are fed up. Australians have seen liberties taken away and draconian measures imposed which were not scrutinised by parliaments around Australia. As someone who manages her own email account, I have watched the stridency of communications increase markedly since last year. The disquiet has now grown to red hot anger. Constituents are very critical of lockdowns and the long-term effects. Many businesses will not survive the stop-start conditions they have faced for almost two years and the economic consequences which will take years to recover from. On the social front, we have heard about increased suicides, more domestic violence and child abuse, loneliness and people forgoing medical treatment. What is the long-term cost of this? Will the cure be worse than the disease?

Last year I saw a video of about 20 residents in a nursing rehab facility in the US who were protesting against COVID restrictions. Many residents in wheelchairs were holding up signs saying, 'I'd rather die from COVID than loneliness.' I am especially concerned about the long-term effects on our children and young people, with studies showing that school closures have done more harm than the virus. The Daily Telegraph of 1 August reported the number of 12- to 17-year-olds presenting to New South Wales emergency departments with self-harm or suicidal ideation was up 47 per cent in July 2021, compared with July 2019. Mental health became the shadow pandemic.

Whilst the language of the premiers was that we needed to live with the virus, they acted to the contrary. It was about suppression, eradication and zero cases. Lockdowns became the default. We became 'Fortress Australia'. Sadly, we lost perspective. We forgot that, sadly, every year there are approximately 170,000 deaths in Australia, with flu and pneumonia being the ninth leading cause of death. The statistics indicate the overwhelming majority of people who got COVID recovered, and deaths were mainly of the elderly, who often had other complications. For most it was a mild illness. There has also been increasing anger that the benefits of lockdowns have outweighed the costs—the costs to our Australian way of life across a whole range of different areas, especially the deprivation of civil liberties; it deteriorated the longer lockdowns went on. Many saw firsthand the heavy-handedness in lockdowns, such as police brutality, curtailment of religious practice and other things, all resulting in civil disobedience and criticism of those who chose to voice their concerns in a peaceful and democratic manner, who were faced with hatred and vilification and tagged as antivaxxers. Many who protested were not antivaxxers; they were opposed to people being forced to get vaccinated.

On the issue of vaccine passports, many agree that this is a further erosion of liberties, especially given that fully vaccinated people not only can get COVID but also can transmit the virus. Indeed, unvaccinated people may never get the virus and accordingly never transmit it. So, forcing people to be vaccinated or requiring people to disclose their medical information is a dangerous precedent. It threatens fundamental freedoms and the potential to create a multitiered society where people are denied basic access to what they need. Most importantly, let's keep in mind that The Australian Immunisation Handbook sets out procedures including what constitutes valid consent for treatment and says that it must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.

Whilst the national cabinet and the Australian government has pronounced that vaccination must be voluntary, the directions given have been confused and unclear. In the absence of clear leadership, businesses and organisations have struggled unfairly because national cabinet failed to provide a clear and defined protocol for all Australians to follow. Yes, I appreciate that vaccination levels are high, but, judging from the volume of correspondence, many got vaccinated not because they wanted to but because they felt compelled to. Hence the term 'medical apartheid', which has continued to cause resentment.

Many of the people who are protesting are ordinary Australians, although there have been some people amongst them who are using the events for their own purposes, and we have to understand what's driving people to go into the streets and protest. We can't just dismiss them, or we will risk seeing their resolve hardening and others joining them. We need to understand the insecurity that results when livelihoods are taken away and people feel compelled to take action.

There has been a lack of parliamentary scrutiny afforded to pandemic measures. At the federal level, over 500 COVID instruments have been made, many of which were not scrutinised. The states, using their own powers, have also imposed draconian measures, the latest of which is the pandemic bill in Victoria from Premier Andrews. I note that there's been very little criticism of the bill from the federal government, which is obvious, given that it is mirrored on the provisions of the federal Biosecurity Act. Indeed, we became somewhat of a laughing-stock overseas, and report after report outlined how one of the world's freest societies had become the hermit continent. I have no doubts, as I stated back in April last year, that we as politicians will shoulder the blame because, sadly, we failed to scrutinise the measures we were imposing on Australians. I believe that, had we done so, many of the draconian measures imposed would not have been approved.