Ralph Babet (Victoria, United Australia Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise here today to speak on the COVID-19 Response Commission of Inquiry Bill 2024, a bill that I proudly co-sponsored with Senators Canavan, Antic, O'Sullivan, Rennick and Roberts. This bill would not have been necessary if this Labor government had just done the right thing. This Labor Party, this Albanese government, should have initiated a full royal commission to investigate the response of federal and state governments to the COVID-19 pandemic. I and many other Australians expected no less than that, but, instead, the Australian people got a narrowly scoped, watered-down 'wish.com' COVID-19 inquiry, which barely touches the big issues.

It's August 2024, well after our health bureaucrats got together and decided it was time to call off the so-called pandemic, but we are still none the wiser about what really went on during those COVID years. The entire country was shut down, and we still can't really explain why. Nothing that was done made any sense. We threw out the pandemic handbook, and we made decisions that were frankly crazy. The government spent hundreds of billions of dollars, and the RBA did everything it could to flood the country with cheap cash. The banks loved it, obviously, but the Australian people continue to pay the price of high inflation and unaffordable housing to this day, with no-one taking real accountability or giving no real answers. People's civil liberties were restricted in a way that would have made a communist dictator blush, and yet I still, for the life of me, cannot pinpoint the exact reasons why.

We have real-world evidence from countries like Sweden and from states like Florida, where the worst of the draconian restrictions were not implemented—like what we had in my home state of Victoria—or were quickly rolled back. They didn't have rings of steel. They didn't have full-on curfews, and their police officers definitely didn't shoot people in the back with rubber bullets. They arguably fared better than we did.

Yet our government's response has been to shrug, sweep it under the carpet and just insist 'nothing to see here'. I am still waiting to find out why I was made to stand 1.5 metres from someone else. On whose advice was that? On what scientific basis was that decision made? On what scientific basis could I go to a restaurant and sit down and have dinner but not stand up? On whose advice and on what scientific basis? How was it that one hour of exercise outside was okay but not 1½ hours? On whose advice and on what scientific basis was I forced to keep within five kilometres of my house but not six kilometres? How did any of this keep me safe from a virus with a near 100 per cent survival rate for most healthy people.

In New South Wales people were told, 'It's not safe to talk to your neighbour.' Can you believe that garbage? In South Australia, people were locked down without the right to exercise or even walk their dog. Whose idea was it to lock us down and on what scientific basis? We were like prisoners in maximum security. Playgrounds were closed. Sport was banned. Why were children kept from going to school when they had an almost zero per cent chance of dying from COVID and bounced right back? Most of the kids who caught COVID recovered very quickly or showed no symptoms at all. Who made that decision? What data was used to inform that decision? How was it that Victorian bureaucrats decided that it was too dangerous to play golf or that a curfew was the most effective way to fight COVID? Which health expert came up with the idea that I could have one friend come to my house and visit me but not four?

I could go on and on, listing all the outrageous impositions that destroyed businesses and families and kept people from being by the bedside of their dying loved ones. The maddening thing is that we are still, for the most part, completely clueless as to who decided what and exactly how those decisions were made during that time. As for the cost of those decisions, we can only guess, but it is in the hundreds and hundreds of billions. The Albanese government won the last election, promising Australians answers. The Prime Minister stood up and he told Australians, 'If you put me in the Lodge, I'll hold a royal commission or some other form of similar inquiry.' Like I said before, I just didn't imagine that it would be the wish.com or Temu version of an inquiry. Australians trusted Mr Albanese, just as we trusted our state premiers and our health officers during the pandemic. Well, I didn't trust them, actually. I didn't trust them because I could see through their lies. But, sadly, most Australians did put their trust in these people, and they have been made to look like fools—like fools!

The Prime Minister has announced, in my opinion, a sham inquiry that would address everything except the things Australians were demanding to know. Where were state premiers getting their advice from? Were decisions to lock down based on science or perhaps on polling? Were restrictions on people's movements based on data or focus groups? Were the public being protected or being played? What is in the vaccine contracts? Where did all the money go? Where did COVID come from? Was COVID a bioweapon? Was it a mistake? Was it bat soup? Was it released on purpose? Was it an accident? The Prime Minister promised responsibility, accountability and transparency. But no sooner had he unpacked his bags than he gave us a weak inquiry that will provide neither responsibility nor accountability nor transparency. Australians just want the truth. When will we get it? Australians want some accountability.

So many lives were destroyed by the pandemic response. Will anyone admit fault? Will anyone put their hand up and just say they got it wrong? To simply move on, as if nothing ever happened, would be an outrage greater than the multiple outrages perpetrated during the pandemic itself. This commission of inquiry bill will finally give us the best chance to forensically examine how government and public institutions handled the COVID era. To deny Australians that opportunity would represent an epic failure of curiosity, a dereliction of public duty and heap insult upon injury onto the millions of Australians whose lives were devastated not by the virus but by the government's response to the virus.

University of New South Wales professor of economics Gigi Foster analysed the economic, health and social impact of government imposed COVID lockdowns and estimated that the cost was 68 times greater than any benefit provided. If she's even half right, just half right, we need to investigate that. A panel chaired by former top bureaucrat Peter Shergold found that the government response to COVID smacked of overreach; lacked compassion, consistency and clarity; and actually worsened inequalities. If this is even partly true, then decency, let alone duty, demands a full and frank inquiry.

I could stand here all day and give you examples of how state and federal governments, first driven by fear and then drunk on power, hurt and harmed citizens with their manic COVID response. All of this demands a full investigation, and that's to say nothing of vaccine mandates, which threatened free men and women with punitive measures, effectively turning them into second-class citizens by destroying their livelihoods and breaking up their families if they declined a drug that has since proven to be, shall I say, less safe and less effective than what was promised. Worse, there's now overwhelming evidence of vaccine injuries and deaths. Are we not the least bit curious? Do we not care even a bit? Are we really going to tell Australians that we're just disinterested? If there is any truth at all to these reports, should we not investigate to ensure that lessons are learned and mistakes are never again repeated?

A once-in-100-year pandemic demands a once-in-a-lifetime commission of inquiry, and that is why the COVID-19 Response Commission of Inquiry Bill 2024 is not something which we should merely consider; it is something that we should approve—and with haste.

To the Liberal Party, you were in power for most of the pandemic, and, if you have nothing to hide, just support this bill. To Labor, you were not even in power for most of the pandemic and your Prime Minister didn't wear five ministry hats at that time. Crossbenchers, you've got nothing to lose by pushing for transparency and accountability. My Senate colleagues, support this bill. It is the least that we can do for those that we represent.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One Nation strongly supports the COVID-19 Response Commission of Inquiry Bill 2024, which I've proudly co-sponsored. To use the words of a former prime minister, 'It's time.' It's time to accept our duty is to the Australian people, not to ourselves and our colleagues. It's time for courage and for truth.

My Senate office held the first inquiry into COVID and response measures, called COVID Under Question, on 23 March 2022; a second was held on 17 August of the same year. Witnesses included Australian and international experts on health and the relatives of people that the COVID vaccine injections killed or maimed. All aspects of Australia's COVID response were questioned. Several political parties participated, making it a truly non-partisan, cross-party inquiry. Because of the two full days of testimony at these hearings my decision-making has been better informed ever since. And that's what senators must do: inform ourselves.

The increasing interest from mainstream media in reporting the harm our COVID measures have caused indicates time is running out for those engaging in a cover-up. The public remains deeply dissatisfied and gravely concerned about state and federal governments' COVID response. The people have many questions to be answered before trust can be restored in federal and state governments, politicians, health departments and agencies, medical professionals, medical professions, the media and pharmaceutical companies.

I find it surprising our health bureaucrats and politicians oppose a judicial inquiry into COVID. After listening to their responses in Senate estimates hearings over the last four years, it's clear they do not want to admit to a single mistake. In fact, their answers suggest they consider their performance exemplary, worthy of medals and parades. The United Kingdom even called upon the whole country to stand every Thursday evening on their front doorsteps and applaud their health professionals. Can you believe that? The inventor of the Moderna vaccine was given a stage-managed standing ovation at Wimbledon.

Certainly, big pharma thought so highly of the head of our TGA, Therapeutic Goods Administration, Professor Skerritt, that they offered him a thankyou job on the board of Medicines Australia, which, despite the grandiose name, is the main pharmaceutical industry lobby group—heady days, indeed. Those days are over. That's it! To those in this place fighting a rearguard action against the tidal wave of knowledge and accountability, it must now be clear to you that the battle is lost. Public anger is not going away; it's here to stay until you restore trust. Trust in the medical profession is lower than at any time I can recall, and I fear where that will lead if not corrected.

Every new unexplained death and every new heartbreak increases public realisation of what was done to our people in Australia. Despite the statistical sleight of hand, excess deaths are not falling. The genetic timebomb of mRNA vaccines is still ticking. More people are dying and more will die. The failure of our regulatory authorities to protect us is a crime. Approving a novel vaccine that killed people is a crime—homicide. Banning existing products that had proven efficacy and safety in order to drive sales of the so-called vaccine is a crime. Finally, covering up this corrupt process is a crime.

Those who approved the vaccine knew, or rightly should have known, it was a gene therapy of a type which has failed a generation of safety testing. Five United States states—Texas, Utah, Kansas, Mississippi and Louisiana—are currently suing Pfizer for knowingly concealing vaccine caused myocarditis, pericarditis, failed pregnancies and deaths. The complaints allege Pfizer falsely claimed that its vaccine retained high efficacy against variants, despite knowing the reverse to be true—that is, protection dropped quickly over time, and the vaccine did not protect against new variants. Marketing the vaccine as safe and effective, despite its known risks, is a violation of consumer law in these five states.

The lawsuit alleges that Pfizer engaged in censorship with social media companies to silence people criticising its safety and efficacy claims, proof of which has been public knowledge since Elon Musk released the Twitter files in December 2022. The lawsuit charges civil conspiracy between Pfizer, the US Department of Health and Human Services and others 'to wilfully conceal, suppress or omit material facts relating to Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine.' Under America's PREP Act, Pfizer has indemnity for injuries. That indemnity is invalidated through making false and misleading claims.

The reason this relates to Australia and to Australians is our contract with Pfizer, which provided indemnity against injury, can be negated through Pfizer's misconduct, and misconduct there was, as I'm sure this commission of inquiry will discover. To taxpayers wondering why the expense of this inquiry is needed, here's a thought: if we have a chance to move the cost of vaccine harm from the taxpayer to the perpetrator, we must take that opportunity. The guilty should pay; taxpayers should not pay.

The grand jury evidence gathered to prepare the United States court case from the five states that I mentioned earlier applies to Australia as well. It makes for horrifying reading. First, Pfizer's chairman and CEO, Dr Bourla, a veterinarian, not a doctor, declined government funding in order to prevent the government's ability to oversee the vaccine development, testing and manufacture. That's not something one does with a safe and properly made product.

Second, Pfizer's independence from Operation Warp Speed allowed it to demand a 'tailor-made contract' that did not include the normal clauses protecting taxpayers' interests.

Third, the investigation found Pfizer wilfully concealed, suppressed and omitted safety and efficacy data relating to its COVID-19 vaccine and kept them hidden through confidentiality agreements.

Fourth, Pfizer had a written agreement with the United States government that Pfizer had to approve any messaging around the vaccine. I suspect the inquiry will find the same arrangement applied in Australia. In effect, Pfizer told our regulators what to say about their product.

Fifth, Pfizer used an extended study timeline to conceal critical data relating to the safety and effectiveness of its COVID-19 vaccine. The study timeline was repeatedly pushed out to avoid revealing the results of the clinical trials until after billions of doses had been given. I'll say that again: they avoided revealing the results of the clinical trials until after billions of doses had been given.

Sixth, instead, Pfizer submitted a Hollywood version of the safety trials, which showed efficacy and safety that their real trials did not have—and our state and federal health authorities bought it.

Seventh, we're three years into COVID and scientists still can't review Pfizer's COVID-19 raw trial data.

Eighth, so, when Professor Skerritt said in Senate estimates hearings that the TGA, the Therapeutic Goods Administration—his Therapeutic Goods Administration—had analysed all of the trial data, that was a lie. They used Pfizer's special data.

Ninth, Pfizer kept its COVID-19 vaccine's true effects hidden through destroying the trial control group, invalidating the whole study. This was not gold standard research; this was dangerous and fraudulent behaviour.

Tenth, Pfizer rigged the trial through excluding individuals who had been diagnosed with COVID-19, who were immunocompromised, pregnant or breastfeeding, or who were simply unwell. Why did the TGA claim the vaccine was safe for these very people when the vaccine was not tested on these people?

Eleventh, the statement that the vaccine worked even if you already had COVID is therefore a lie, and yet that lie was used to expand the market and make more money.

Twelfth, Pfizer maintained its own secret adverse events database, which was obtained in court process, and showed that, in the first three months of the rollout, 158,893 adverse events resulted, including 1,223 deaths.

Thirteenth, Pfizer was receiving so many adverse event reports that it had to hire 600 additional, full-time staff. It hired 600 extra people to monitor the adverse event reports.

And, finally, while Pfizer tested its COVID-19 vaccine on healthy individuals in 2020, Pfizer and its partner, BioNTech, quietly tested its COVID-19 vaccine on pregnant rats. Test rats produced foetuses with severe soft-tissue and skeletal malformations or failed to become pregnant and failed to implant embryos at more than double the control group rate. That's amongst other side effects. Some rats lost their entire litter. Pfizer did not issue a press release announcing the rat fertility study's findings. And, when they were asked, they lied about the outcome. I can't help but think about women, humans, suffering as a result of this. We know that.

The United States is achieving what Australia is not—rigorous inquiry and testing of the law. What are you afraid of? In Australia, this is behaviour which, under normal circumstances, would already have resulted in a commission of inquiry. Our delay in calling that inquiry damns us. Other nations are now ahead of us. South Korea has produced a study which analysed 4.3 million individuals—4.3 million!—comparing the rates of various new medical conditions in vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups over three months. The study revealed that the vaccinated experienced a 138 per cent increase in mild cognitive impairment, a 93 per cent increase in sleep disorders, a 23 per cent rise in Alzheimer's disease, a 44 per cent rise in anxiety and related disorders and a 68 per cent rise in depression.

In Australia, following my questions to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare at the inquiry into excess mortality in Australia, evidence was presented that the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare could have done this same research. It chose not to. Our health authorities are not conducting this research because they don't want to know the answer. They want to hide from the truth, hide from the homicide that's been caused in this country. I ask the Senate to pass this bill so we can get the answers ourselves, which is, as senators, our sworn duty.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

COVID-19 was, and continues to be, deeply impactful for the community. Government decisions had deep and significant consequences on the lives of all people in Australia and, for many, including our disability community, the impact of those decisions continues today. We must ensure that governments are better prepared to respond in the future to pandemics and other health emergencies, and the only way to do this is to have a frank and transparent look at the decisions that led us here.

Now, we acknowledge that there is currently an independent inquiry into the government response to COVID-19 that is being undertaken by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The Greens are eagerly awaiting the recommendations of this inquiry. The Australian Greens have clearly expressed previously that we support the establishment of an inquiry into COVID-19 and that it has the powers of a royal commission. A royal commission would provide the powers to compel; it would ensure states' and territories' decision-making processes and the decisions that they made are reviewed and it would allow our community to share the impact that government decisions had on their lives.

Lastly, the Australian Greens are calling once again for the Australian government to hurry up and meet their election obligation, their election promise, to fully fund the Centre for Disease Control. We need a coordinated and comprehensive approach to managing future pandemics, and a fully funded CDC is a key milestone in achieving that goal.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government doesn't support this bill. There's already an inquiry into the COVID-19 response, and it's motivated very much by the public policy concerns that Senator Steele-John just alluded to. The Prime Minister announced the independent—

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

Where are the public hearings? None.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We'll get to you in a minute. In September, the Prime Minister announced the independent inquiry. Ms Robyn Kruk, Professor Catherine Bennett and Dr Angela Jackson were appointed as the inquiry's panel members, and the inquiry will go on. The panel members have heard from thousands of Australians in consultations and are due to report to the government shortly. It's reviewing what worked well and what we can do better to improve Australia preparedness for future pandemics. More than 2,000 people and organisations have taken the time to share their insights and experiences with the inquiry, ensuring that the inquiry will be informed by a substantial evidence base. It will consider the findings and work of other relevant inquiries and reviews and identify knowledge gaps for further investigation. It is founded in a proper public policy purpose: how is it that governments, the Australian government and the states and territories, and our public institutions respond in the event of future pandemics? That is a good motivation for a response. That is not what this proposal is founded in.

There is a sort of fetid wellspring of COVID conspiracy theorists, and some of them inhabit the benches over there. We know that Senator Babet comes from the outer reaches of some of the more kooky conspiracy theorist views. It is obvious. The One Nation party have always sought to manipulate these kinds of conspiracy theories for their own purposes. That is well known. There is, of course, and always has been, a group of people in the community who are mobilised by concerns about chemtrails, lizard people or fluoride conspiracies. Some of these characters are also attracted to the fluoride conspiracy theory. They're on the pizzagate material. They're on all of these things and on the drip for every internet conspiracy theory that there is—the JFK stuff, the Roswell stuff. You're all into that stuff. I get it.

Senator Rennick thinks that the CSIRO is part of some global conspiracy. You don't have to reach too far from these—

An opposition senator interjecting

You sook!

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, I've a point of order on relevance and also on reflecting on senators. This bill is about establishing a commission inquiry into COVID-19. I would ask that the senator come back to the topic of the bill and also just keep in mind when reflecting on other senators. We're getting into some pretty ridiculous statements about other people in this chamber.

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Canavan. Senator Ayres, I've only just come into the chair. I will listen carefully to your contribution.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The truth is, in the history of these kinds of conspiracy theories in Australia, which are mobilising on the fringes, there's always an element of antisemitism that's not too far away. That's always been the truth.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, I ask that that be retracted. That's an outrageous slur.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was not a reflection—

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ayres, please resume your seat. I don't believe that the senator was directly speaking about an individual senator in the chamber. I heard an assertion that was general in nature. I will continue to listen.

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

On a separate point of order, if I could, there seems to be something wrong with the clock. The minister's clearly been going for longer—

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Canavan. Senator Ayres.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are always grandiose claims being made by these people. At the heart of conspiracy theories, including the COVID conspiracy theories that mobilise this lot, there is an attempt to undermine confidence in science, rationalism and public institutions. It is a key tool of the far right. They're marshalled historically, as I've said, by people like the League of Rights, who used to hand out theories about antisemitism to dodgers at the country shows, but now these pseudoscientific claims are made about the COVID pandemic.

There's always the pseudoscientific language. They always resort to things that sound important but aren't. There are always discussions about gene therapies and if something is really going on here, when something is different and new. They're always used. If you can encourage people to believe this set of conspiracy theories, they're part of the radicalisation pathway that is designed by people who sit at the heart of these, and sometimes people don't know that they've been engaged in a radicalisation pathway. If you can encourage people to believe this nonsense, to accept the set of premises that underline the fetid swamp of conspiracy theories that these come from, you can get them to believe anything.

The radicalisation pathway that is engaged here by these propositions is a pathway to violence and social disharmony. It is a deliberate pathway engaged on sometimes knowingly, sometimes not, because the unwitting dupes of this kind of conspiracy theory often don't realise that they are on a conspiracy pathway. These are the kinds of ideas that mobilised the recent terrorist incident in Wieambilla. They were attracted to COVID conspiracy theories. It was a core part of what they believed. We need to be very careful indeed.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order: the senator has drawn a very serious and disgusting imputation in relation to the most heinous crime in Queensland. I would ask him—

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Henderson, that's not a point of order. He was not impugning a senator. It's not a point of order. If you would like it referred to the President, we can do that, but I was listening and I don't believe it's a point of order.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, please. If you could, refer it to the president. Think about the words he was using—

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn't hear anything then that was impugning anyone in this place, but I will refer it to the President, and they can make an alternative ruling if they think that's what they should do. Senator Ayres.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's my point exactly, Senator Henderson—people should think about the claims that are made and think about who else is making them and think about the motivation behind these claims that are being made. The truth is that this motion emerges from that same swamp. It emerges from that same swamp. What should be of more concern is not that the extremists are the only ones engaged in this; it's that they have support within the alternative party of government. The extremists are developing relationships and support amongst a party that tries to position itself as the alternative party of government. We know that Senator Antic and Senator Rennick and Senator Canavan are all on board for the conspiracy theory stuff. We know that they are.

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rennick, you have a point of order?

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Imputation: he's named names there. By doing that, he has just imputed everything he had prior to that, and that is completely outrageous, and I call on this man to be censured. He is a disgrace to the Senate.

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rennick, I think your point of order potentially crossed a line there. But, Senator Ayres, I do believe that was an imputation, and I am going to ask you to withdraw.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. Senator Rennick is often in estimates and often in here repeating those same conspiracy theories. The other senators who I referred to do the same thing. Interestingly, this is not just—

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ayres, it might be helpful to the chamber if you direct your remarks through the chair.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The interesting thing about this is not that these senators are the only people within the Liberal and National parties who support these propositions; the interesting thing is it accretes its way across almost all of them. So few now are prepared to call this nonsense out for what it really is. So few are brave enough. So few have the moral character and moral fibre that is required to stand up to the far right and conspiracy theorists. So now what does the Liberal and National Party do? They accommodate it. Previous serious conservative leaders—Mr Howard, Mr Fisher, former senator Ron Boswell and others—understood the danger of far-right extremism, particularly in the bush. They took a hard line against the League of Rights characters and all of the other kooky conspiracy theorists, but no longer. It's part of the political strategy. Mr Dutton supported Senator Rennick's ill-fated bid for preselection, despite his obvious extremist tendencies and behaviour.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, we are continuing to hear the most outrageous imputations from this senator. If he cannot comply with the rules of the Senate and the standing orders, I would ask him to sit down. But could you please rule again that he cannot make imputations against any senator? What he is doing is just absolutely disgraceful.

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Henderson. I don't believe that there have been continuous ones. However, I do believe that last comment did cross a line, and, Senator Ayres, I would ask you to withdraw.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to withdraw. The problem here is that propagating these extremist views could lead one to think that the propagator of extremist views is indeed an extremist, and accommodating extreme views and conspiracy theories is a sign of the ill-health of the political institution that allows it to happen. It is a sign of their unfitness to govern. It is a sign that they don't take the relationship between public policy and their role seriously and that they engage the most loopy, far right, extremist and kooky views in order to suck up to an emerging and stronger group within their political party.

I understand that is uncomfortable. I understand that people don't want to hear it, because they want the easy ride in politics. They don't want to have to call out extremism. They don't want to have to call out bad behaviour, because it is so much easier to do the back slapping, to say, 'She'll be right mate; don't worry about that,' and to surf in on the support of some of the nastiest, extreme and kooky elements in Australian politics. The problem is that it then infects other areas of public policy. You can see it in the way that not just the small group over here but almost all of them approach questions on climate and energy policy—the kind of grandiose claims and wild assertions made, for example, by Mr Joyce in his quixotic tilting-at-windmills campaign against sections of the energy industry. He engages in the same wild rhetoric and the same conspiracy theory behaviour.

You talk about pandemics; this is a pandemic of kookiness that has taken over the thinking of Liberals and Nationals not just in Queensland but right around the country. If Mr Dutton is ever to be taken seriously as a leader of an alternative government, he needs to take seriously his responsibility as a political leader, and that is that you don't back the cranks. You don't back the conspiracy theorists. You draw a line. This political party should stand condemned for its incapacity for party discipline and a focus on the public interest and for instead engaging in some of the worst and nastiest elements of Australian politics. Their conduct makes them utterly unfit to stand in the mantle of what was a once proud set of conservative parties. Now it is a conspiracy theorist rump, and Mr Dutton stands condemned for his incapacity to lead.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I raise a point of order about the last few words of the senator's contribution on this bill and the imputation that he has made against Mr Dutton. He has tried to sneak that in at the last moment—

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And you'd never do that to the member for Corangamite, would you!

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Watt, it would be very helpful if you could just hold fire.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Watt, would you mind? Show some respect.

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Henderson, can you resume your seat please?

I've heard your point of order. I'm not going to ask the senator to withdraw, because I don't believe that there was an imputation in that last sentence. Senator Rennick.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to the COVID-19 Response Commission of Inquiry Bill 2024, which simply recommends a COVID-19 royal commission. The 15 minutes of diatribe and vitriol from Senator Ayres there was one of the most disgusting speeches—actually, it is probably the most disgusting speech—I've ever heard in this chamber. This is a genuine attempt at dealing with and looking at the way the COVID pandemic was handled. All we're recommending here today and supporting is that we have a thorough inquiry to look at how the consequences of that pandemic can be dealt with—in particular, of course, the people who have been injured by the vaccine—and ways in which, going forward, we can also be better prepared for whatever may happen next.

I just want to point out the sheer and utter hypocrisy of the Labor Party. Under the government led by former prime minister Scott Morrison, there was a select committee on COVID, and the recommendation of that select committee, led by none other than Senator Katy Gallagher and comprising Labor members Senators Murray Watt and Tony Sheldon, was that a royal commission into the handling of COVID be held. Yet, today, when we tried to move a bill that the Labor Party themselves supported—it was a recommendation by the Labor Party themselves when they were in opposition—we just copped some of the most outrageous accusations and slurs of antisemitism. Somehow we're tied up with the horrendous murders that occurred in Chinchilla.

The Labor Party really needs to have a good look at the way it conducts itself in the chamber and in general. There has been an uplift in the last few weeks by the Labor Party members of calling anyone that disagrees with them 'cookers' and 'conspiracy theorists'. And you know what? The general public is waking up to this. The general public don't condone this sort of schoolyard bullying. That's what it is. It's a reflection of the low intelligence of the people that represent the Labor Party, who are incapable of actually (a) treating other people with respect, which is extremely important—we are serving the people here—and (b) being able to engage in a rational debate about the facts of the matter. That is what this chamber is about. It is about having rigorous debate, talking about different ideas and being able to find a middle ground, compromise or whatever. But, instead, what we have is just day after day of name-calling, deflection, censorship and propaganda.

I admit, when I first became a Senate candidate, I was bullied relentlessly by the ABC for four days. It rattled me. I'll admit it rattled me. But I've grown a thicker skin. And Muz—I well remember my first TV interview with Senator Murray Watt and Tom Connell, where they had a go at me over my allegations about the Bureau of Meteorology homogenising data. I've gone back to Tom Connell many a time with the documentations. I'll quote the paper. It's Blair Trewin's paper of 2017, which shows that homogenisation has lifted the weather records by 0.6 degrees. It's all there, Senator Watt, so, if you ever want to debate me with Tom on Sky again, I've got the records to prove that what I said was exactly right. But, of course, they won't actually engage in debate. They would rather hide in the shadows or hide behind thugs like Senator Ayres. We've just spent—

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rennick, can you resume your seat. That was a personal reflection. I'm going to ask you to withdraw.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sure. That behaviour we saw by Senator Ayres is the behaviour that the CFMEU goes on with. In this chamber we've just spent most of the last two weeks calling out bullying behaviour. It doesn't matter whether you're in the workplace or on the building site or wherever—it also occurs in here. The fact that the Labor Party sit there and grin and smirk and Senator Ayres's colleagues think that this is all a big joke is an absolute insult to the people that had their lives destroyed throughout the COVID pandemic.

For the Australian people, many are still suffering, and it's not just vaccine injuries. There are people that didn't get to see their loved ones. I've got a very good friend whose sister died in New South Wales—her younger sister, I might add—and she died prematurely. She died in her late 40s. My friend could not be there when her sister died. I copped heaps of stories, way before the vaccine injuries ever occurred, of people who were locked out of their homes, couldn't afford the hotel bill, were worried about losing their jobs, couldn't go to their loved ones' funerals and couldn't be there when their loved ones died. We know the story of the mother in New South Wales who wasn't allowed into Queensland to give birth. These things deserve a voice. These issues deserve a voice.

We had thousands of Queenslanders locked out of Queensland, living in tents in Murwillumbah. Some of these people, ironically enough, were vaccinated and didn't have COVID, but the Queensland Premier wouldn't even let them back into the state. So these people were roughing it in the back of their cars or wherever they could find accommodation. Why does the Labor Party not take this seriously? Surely the biggest disruption to our lifestyle and country, outside of war, warrants a proper investigation.

Look, I'll be honest here. I am not necessarily convinced we'll get that from a royal commission because I'm not convinced the judges necessarily have their head around the biochemistry of a virus and things like that, but I'll take it if I can get it. I'm also not convinced, if we were to get a royal commission up—we've just seen the motives and intentions of the Labor Party; they're clearly not interested in being completely open and transparent about this—that the terms of reference would actually go to the heart of the issue.

The other thing that I think we really owe the Australian people is public hearings, the ability to hear from the people themselves who suffered as a result of government decisions. I get it; when COVID first came out, in March 2020, we didn't know what it was and people were understandably concerned and cautious. I didn't speak out in the first year at all. I was sceptical that it was being used for political purposes: 'There's COVID in the sewage. If you don't line up to get a vaccine, you're going to line up for a machine to help you breathe.' There were all of these ridiculous, outrageous statements being made by the state premiers. But I admit we had to display caution early on.

But where I really want to start seeing accountability taken is for when it became apparent that those vaccines were causing injuries and when those people who were injured were being gaslighted—and the mandates as well. We were told for almost 18 months that you weren't going to be mandated to take it, and then, bang, we were. Those mandates were being implemented at the same time that people were becoming injured, and the government just turned—all governments. I've been very impartial about this, and I did lose my Senate pre-selection because I withheld my vote from a party because Greg Hunt didn't take my concerns about those vaccine injuries seriously. I'm happy to lose my position in this party over that because that's what representing the Australian people is all about: putting the people first. Listen out for that phrase in the future: putting the people first. I make no apologies for doing that.

I come in here as a genuine, impartial person who cares deeply about the Australian people, and I would ask that the chamber support this, or some sort of Senate inquiry, so that we can give the people of Australia a chance to say how they suffered under COVID and the management of COVID and a say in how they want future pandemics—whatever they may be, government contrived or not—to be dealt with.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the COVID-19 Response Commission of Inquiry Bill 2024. Firstly, I want to thank Senator Canavan for putting this bill together and Senator Ralph Babet for bringing it before the Senate today. I do support this bill and I want to outline my reasons, and it's certainly not for the reasons that Senator Ayres, in his atrocious contribution, laid out.

I'm rising and supporting this for a number of reasons. Firstly, it's for those people that, throughout the pandemic, contacted me—and I'm sure they were contacting everyone here, particularly those in Western Australia—those people that couldn't make a funeral and those people that couldn't go and see a loved one in hospital. I dealt with hundreds of people that were dealing with those situations. I know of one person that was not able to go and sit beside the bed of someone that they cared for because they were from interstate and they couldn't get into Western Australia.

What we need is proper evidence. To date the Western Australian government has not revealed the medical advice that they were relying on. There were different decisions that were made across the country. We were seeing medical data here that prompted the federal government to make the decisions that it made, but then you would see different states and jurisdictions make completely different decisions with completely different advice. That sort of information should come out, and it's not about the conspiracy theories and the rubbish that Senator Ayres was talking about. This is about real people and the anxiety that was caused during that time, and many people are still living with it today.

I would say that probably 99 per cent of the population just want us to move on. When you go to the barbeques and you sit around the pub and say, 'Remember those COVID years?' people laugh about it and say, 'How crazy was it that we had to do all those things.' Most people have moved on; that is true. I think most people do just want us to move on, but we owe it to the next generation—it could be 10, 20 or 50 years time when we face a similar situation—that we have the evidence of what went right. A lot went right. We did a lot right as a country. I think we fared better than most countries in the world, so we should be recording that. We should be looking at what went right, but there were some things—there are some questions over whether the decisions made were entirely correct, and I think there are many instances where they weren't.

I will give you an example: in Western Australia, we had a vaccine mandate that applied essentially across the entire working population. Almost every occupation was in a category that required you to be vaccinated. There were people like farmers, for example, who were driving a tractor in the middle of a field on their own and who were in contact with nobody, who had to be vaccinated. There were people that didn't want to be vaccinated, and I believe that is their right, particularly when there was no evidence anywhere to say that the vaccine was going to reduce transmission. Their decision to not be vaccinated was simply just about themselves, because it wasn't about a community benefit. There was no community benefit to it because there was no evidence to show that it was reducing transmission, and, at that time, when the mandates were implemented in Western Australia, we had the omicron variant, which was a much less lethal and serious strain of the virus, so it wasn't clogging up our hospitals. It's not like there were a bunch of people that were getting sick that were clogging up our hospitals.

There was no evidence to show that it was required then, but decisions were made, and those decisions were made on the eve of an election. The Premier was riding extremely high in the polls, so there are criticisms or suggestions that the decisions were made on a political basis. The point that I'm making here is that we should get the proper evidence. We should get the proper evidence in an independent way, have public inquiries and have public hearings so that that evidence can be heard to check whether or not there was undue political influence over decisions that were made. We owe it to the next generation to support this. We owe it to the next generation to ensure that we have a proper inquiry with public hearings, a commission of inquiry. That is essential to get to the bottom of what was happening at that time.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the second reading on the private senator's bill be agreed to.