Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Hansard source

In my introductory remarks I would like to say how much I deeply admire the commitment that my friend Senator Rennick has made to discuss with people and to be there for people who have suffered vaccine injuries. I doubt if there's anyone in this place who has spent more time talking to some of Australia's most vulnerable Australians who have gone through very, very difficult personal times because they're in that cohort of Australians who have suffered from the side-effects of vaccines. When Senator Rennick speaks on these issues, he speaks with a good heart and from a place of deep conviction. Others may disagree with him, but in the best traditions of a representative democracy, Senator Rennick, I believe, has made sure that he's always been available to people in need and people who have sought to tell their story, and I really, deeply applaud Senator Rennick for that. I consider Senator Rennick a dear friend and I greatly admire the time and effort he's put into that.

Australians have suffered from vaccine injuries; there's no question about that. The objective evidence is to that effect, and the whole purpose as to why we established a vaccine claims scheme was to provide those Australians with a simple and easy process to claim compensation as a result of that. When this country was facing the circumstances that we were facing during the COVID-19 pandemic, the vast majority of Australians decided to become vaccinated, and those Australians who suffer injuries as a result of that vaccination are entitled to a no-fault compensation scheme which recognises any injuries they've suffered.

In a response to a question on notice, the TGA reported that, 'as at 31 August 2023, there had been 3,805 claims submitted to the COVID-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme: 199 claims had been approved, 1,252 claims had been deemed not payable, 729 claims had been withdrawn, 1,625 claims were in progress'. The fact that, as at 31 August 2023, nearly 200 claims had been approved through the process is objective evidence that there is a cohort of Australians who have suffered from vaccine injuries and a cohort of Australians who've already had their compensation claims recognised. But there are hundreds and hundreds of other Australians who are still in the process, so there is an issue with respect to vaccine injuries and there are people seeking assistance through the no-fault compensation scheme. The objective evidence is to that effect. It can't be disputed.

Two things drew my attention, and I say this as someone who practised as a lawyer before coming into this place. Firstly, it takes 297 days for a claim to be processed. That is nine, nearly 10, months for a claim to be processed. Secondly, it says 'including up to six months for claimants to consider a deed of settlement'. That immediately raises the concern in my mind, which I would take the advantage of looking into if this reference was approved, as to what is in that deed of settlement. To what extent are people forgoing rights? To what extent do they have to commit to confidentiality obligations? I don't know, but it does make me somewhat concerned that vulnerable Australians in this position are being required to enter into a deed of settlement, a formal legal document, when they are in a very grave position of vulnerability, be it because of their health or their financial situation.

The objective evidence is that there is a need for this scheme and that is why it was established under the previous government. Senator Rennick did have an input into some of the financial thresholds. There are people who have suffered vaccine injuries who are having recourse to the scheme. But 297 days for claims to be processed causes me some concern, and the whole concept of a deed of settlement being required to be entered into by Australians who are in desperate straits in some instances it also causes me concern, so I think that merits an inquiry.

Also we do have to appreciate that when we look at this proposed reference, it is extraordinarily objectively worded. It is not pre-guessing or assuming what the results of the reference will be. I will read the terms of the reference so those in the gallery can hear the terms of what is being proposed for a Senate inquiry to look into this.

It says:

The current Federal Government's COVID-19 Vaccine Injury Claims Scheme, with reference to:

a. the eligibility criteria—

so is the scheme making sure that we capture everyone who is legitimately suffered a vaccine injury—

b. the time in processing the claimants' applications—

I have spoken about the 297 days—

c. differences between Therapeutic Goods Administration assessments and specialist assessment reports included in vaccine injury claims—

so to what extent does someone who makes a claim with the support of a specialist report having their claim rejected because of another medical specialist having a different view and how is that all working in practice—

d. the adequacy of the compensation in relation to the person's injuries, mental health and lost earnings;

e. the risks that inadequate support and compensation for vaccine related injuries may exacerbate vaccine hesitancy; and

f. any other related matters.

These are quite fair and objective terms of reference. They don't pre-judge the findings. Based on the objective evidence, I can't see why we would not have this inquiry, especially—and I emphasise this—because we are dealing with a cohort of Australians who have heightened vulnerability health-wise and finance-wise, and I think that places greater obligation upon us to consider this reference.

I am chairing an inquiry by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee into proposed terms of reference for a COVID-19 royal commission referred by Senator Roberts. We have heard during the course of that inquiry from different stakeholders, including those representing people who have suffered vaccine injuries. I want to commend in this debate the work that is being done by Dr Rado Faletic and Ms Rachel O'Reilly. Dr Faletic shared his experience of his vaccine injury. Dr Faletic has a PhD in hypersonic physics, so that makes him a rocket scientist, and a smarter man than I would ever hope to be. He had a vigorous professional life. He had side-effects after the first vaccine he received. When he got the second one, he said: 'Over the following months I experienced many disabling and painful neurological, cardiac and systemic symptoms, affecting my capacity work and even just getting through the day. I could not walk for more than a few metres without feeling like my body was about to shut down. I was constantly bumping into things on my left-hand side. I could not recall words. I could not engage in conversations for longer than two minutes before my brain could no longer process what was being said to me. My emotions became unstable, fluctuating from the inability to feel any emotion to extreme emotions like suicidal ideation and intense rage, and, no, this was not due to the stress of my situation.' This is a highly trained professional who has shared his story and has opened up about the vulnerability he's now suffering as someone who's gone through a vaccine injury. He's now advocating on behalf of other Australians who've suffered vaccine injuries.

I say to the senators: this isn't about Senator Rennick. It's not about Senator Scarr, Senator Roberts, Senator Cadell, Senator Brown, Senator Grogan, Senator McDonald or Senator Sterle; it's not about any of us. It's about the Australians who've suffered a vaccine injury and it's about making sure that the no-fault vaccine compensation scheme is working as we intended it to work. When objective evidence is presented that talks about delays and that talks about denials of claims—we're receiving reports from Australians who are vulnerable in terms of health and finances, asking us to look into this—I think we've got a positive duty to do that. I think that's the job of this place as a house of review. I'm very happy to support this motion and commend this reference to the Senate.