Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

The government's justification for not supporting this bill, the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Vaccine Indemnity) Bill 2023, does not stack up at all. The argument we just heard from Minister Watt is that somehow we need ministerial approval for an indemnity to respond in an emergency to a pandemic. He didn't; he failed to in any way outline the time line of this emergency and apparently how urgent it was. Keep in mind that we did not have this vaccine for almost a year after the pandemic began in February/March 2020. In fact, it didn't really start getting rolled out in Australia for more than a year. All this bill does is remove one man's or one woman's ability to indemnify and affect the whole country through the stroke of a pen.

I support this bill because I don't think that power should be placed in one individual. If a future Australian government wants to provide an indemnity to a large pharmaceutical company—or, sometimes, as we heard in Senator Babet's speech, even a small one like Moderna, one without any record at all—it can bring legislation to this parliament and have the people's representatives debate and inquire into whether such an indemnity should be given. They had ample time to do that during the coronavirus pandemic, more than a year, and almost certainly any future pandemic would play out the same way. A vaccine won't be ready straightaway; it will take time to develop. There's plenty of time to call the parliament and have a proper inquiry on whether an indemnity should be provided. I'm not so ideological about this that I don't believe there may be some circumstances in a pandemic where there's a virus killing fatality rate of 50 or 60 per cent—with, say, yellow fever or smallpox—where maybe we need to provide something like an indemnity. But it shouldn't be done without proper parliamentary scrutiny and oversight, because we've seen so many mistakes made here. The system we've got right now, where we almost provide blank cheques to large companies with, at best, spotted corporate histories, is a complete undermining of the trust of the Australian people and it transfers enormous risk to them.

Let's be very clear what an indemnity does. An indemnity doesn't remove the risk. It doesn't take the liability away. All the indemnity does, through the stroke of a pen of a government minister, is transfer that risk and that liability—which should naturally be with the company selling a product—to the people. The people are the ones who are left picking up the bill. The people are the ones, through these government decisions, who are left with the liability and risk of any pharmaceutical product that gets the benefit of an indemnity. That's what happens.

Under natural law, tort law, the common law that's been established in this place—that we adopted from Britain—a company selling a product is liable if their product is defective. Generally, courts over the years have applied a strict liability test, which is that you do not need to prove intent on behalf of a company. They are responsible for their product. If their product is defective then a consumer who may have been harmed by that product has the right to take them to court and seek compensation for it.

What these indemnities do, at the very least—and I might come to more of the details—is remove that strict product liability, that natural justice that should be provided to a consumer in a country of laws like ours. They remove that. They do not transfer it. And get this, right? This is what really bugs me. If a government did want to provide an indemnity to a company why wouldn't the government take on the liability? Why wouldn't they do that? They could do that. Why wouldn't the minister say: 'We think we need this company to have an indemnity so it can roll out its product and not have to bear the risk itself on a small balance sheet.' Why doesn't the government take on the risk? If the government was so confident in the safe and effective language a company was using about the coronavirus vaccines, why wouldn't they take on that liability? They could do that, and they could let any consumer who was ultimately harmed, and could prove such harm in a court of law, sue the government for that liability and for that harm and still receive compensation.

That's not what your government does. For anybody listening here, the government doesn't do that. They don't take on the risk themselves. They try to present themselves, as we just heard, as angels and saints responding to a pandemic, but they don't take on that risk. They transfer it to you. And you and your family, who might be affected by any defective pharmaceutical products, are left to pick up the pieces.

What is worse is that you, the people, do not even know what those risks are. You're not even allowed to know because apparently it's commercial in confidence. I don't know why it's commercial in confidence, because the government doesn't take on any liability. The government doesn't accept any commercial risk here. You, the people, take on that commercial risk, as I just outlined. Don't you deserve to know what risks your government is imposing on you? Why shouldn't you have that knowledge?

As I have outlined, a large pharmaceutical company is definitely absolved from the product liability risk here through these indemnity arrangements that remain secret and hidden for many decades, as Senator Roberts said. I want to know, and if there are any further government contributions on this I might ask further questions at an appropriate stage, what other liabilities these companies are absolved from. For example, are the companies still liable for misleading and deceptive conduct? Are they indemnified from that? I'm very concerned not just about the possible defective nature of some of these products, which are rushed out under an indemnity blanket and not necessarily properly tested, but about whether a company is also absolved from any risk of any statements it might make publicly about the safety and effectiveness of its product which, again, would normally be illegal or provide the ability for you to take them to court without such indemnities.

For example, and other senators have mentioned this, last week we finally got Pfizer and Moderna along to a Senate committee. It took a while for us to do that, but we got them along to a Senate committee to answer some questions. I raised with them the fact that the Pfizer CEO and the Pfizer company itself had made a number of public statements early on in their vaccine rollout that their vaccine could stop transmission, that their vaccine with 100 per cent effective. In fact, one time Pfizer said their vaccine was 100 per cent effective at stopping you from getting coronavirus. They made that statement. In fairness to them, they said, 'A study in South Africa has shown that our vaccine is 100 per cent effective against you getting coronavirus.' Putting aside all the debates about adverse events, we can probably all agree that that statement is a big fat lie. That's a massive lie. Does anybody here think that the vaccine has stopped them from getting coronavirus? Has that happened? That is just a total lie from a big corporate entity that's seemingly gone unpunished. I don't know why the ACCC's not onto it. They have said that. It's out there.

I put to them that they made that statement and that I could not find a single statement from Pfizer—a professional statement, a tweet or whatever—since mid-2021 which clarified the effectiveness of their vaccine against you getting coronavirus, not a single extra thing. Obviously, all the evidence since that time has completely undermined what Pfizer had to say in early and mid-2021, but they have failed at any point since then that I could find to tell us—and they couldn't point to anything; I think they took it on notice, so we'll wait and see what comes back—where they have clarified the record to fully inform the customers of their product that perhaps their vaccine wasn't 100 per cent effective against you getting coronavirus. I really want to know here: can I take Pfizer to court for misleading and deceptive conduct? It seems like a pretty open-and-shut case to me here: they have engaged in what any other company in this country would be done for. Misleading and deceptive conduct is a key part of our consumer law, but are they indemnified against that as well? Can they just say whatever they like about it? I think that's very important because we must keep in mind the records of these companies. Sometimes it's almost presented as if they're not really companies, they're somehow modern-day saints, all helping us extend our lives, when most of us who have looked at this in any sort of detail know that these are some of the most fraudulent companies that have ever graced this God's earth.

In fact, Pfizer themselves in 2009 had to pay the largest settlement in history at that time for fraud, a $2.3 billion fine for corporate fraud, to the US Department of Justice. They were there for corporate fraud was because they were misrepresenting the approval of certain pharmaceutical products—obviously, these didn't have an indemnity; they weren't vaccines. Certain pharmaceutical products were being misadvertised to American consumers, and they were ultimately fined $2.3 billion. These are the companies that we provide a full indemnity to, and we put that risk onto Australian consumers. This is completely beyond the pale, and there is no justification for the lack of transparency, for the lack of parliamentary oversight, for the lack of oversight from general people that goes into the conclusion of these vaccines.

The other point I'd like to make in closing this debate is that this debate has evolved a lot in a short space of time. I do want to give credit to Senator Babet for bringing this particular bill forward and also to many of my other colleagues—Senator Roberts, Senator Hanson, Senator Antic, Senator Rennick; I hope I'm not missing some—who, over the past year and a half, almost two years now, have raised these and related issues. A lot of senators have brought these issues up. I don't know if some of my colleagues remember but when we first brought these issues up—we brought up a bill to end vaccine mandates—we struggled to get a word in because on the other side there were others wanting to jump up and call us antivaxxers and say how ridiculous we were, say that we were QAnon conspiracists and label us with all these epithets. There were multiple speeches from the other side condemning us as almost evil for even suggesting that somehow the products of the saintly Pfizers or Modernas of the world could be in any way questionable.

Well, it's very different today, isn't it? It's very different today. We had a half-hearted attempt there from Minister Watt to rebut this particular bill, but he actually didn't give any real time to it. The words 'safe' and 'effective' didn't even go past his mouth. People have completely surrendered on this issue. But now the problem is they are too embarrassed to admit their mistakes and they won't correct them on behalf of the Australian people. It's about time some humble pie is eaten in this debate and we actually make decisions in the best interests of the Australian people, not try to protect our parliamentary record or previous statements. As I said, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Who is taking a booster now? Who is getting a booster? Does anyone want to put their hand up as getting it? No-one is doing this anymore, right? Hardly anyone is doing it.

Alright, Murray. Good on you for having the courage! I think the latest stats out of the US show that 12 per cent of people are doing it.

I think there are still some ads from the Commonwealth government promoting this vaccine. Not once in these ads do they refer to the fact that there are actually side effects from it. We know that there are cases of myocarditis, pericarditis and others, particularly for young males, and they never mention it in the ads. It is totally irresponsible. I have great faith and trust in the Australian people and, fortunately, they have worked it out for themselves. They are not listening to the ads, because hardly anyone is getting it. But at the very least the government could be upfront with them and say: 'If you are young, fit and healthy, you probably don't need this vaccine. Don't get it.' Hardly any young and healthy people are getting it, but it would be good to have full disclosure here because we constantly seem to be trying to dupe the Australian people on these issues when it would be much better to explain all of the problems with any particular drug or pharmaceutical products, which are always legion. There are always side effects from pharmaceutical products.

So we will keep fighting on this issue even though it seems the other side have effectively surrendered on this. We will keep raising these issues on the behalf of the Australian people. They have worked it out. They understand what is going on here. They understand the great swindle that these pharmaceutical companies get away with constantly. As I said at the start of my contribution, what should happen here is that any future indemnities are done with full parliamentary oversight and approval such that they bring legislation into this place. If the government wants to do that, there is plenty of time during a pandemic to do it, as we saw with the coronavirus. Don't give us that rubbish that it has to be done overnight. Let's not have these kinds of deals done in back rooms by one particular minister at the time who has all the power to impose all the risk of a pharmaceutical product onto you, the people. We will keep fighting for you. Once again, I give credit to Senator Babet for bringing this forward.