Problems with health legislation in Australia

This blog considers legislation before Queensland Parliaments (Part 1) before considering legislation before the Western Australian Parliament (Part 2).

It finds significant difficulties and concludes that all legislation relating to COVID-19 currently before any parliament in Australia must be voted down to avoid loss of country, state and individual autonomy/ sovereignty.

This conclusion is based upon the principle that coercive control of one entity by another, whether state, corporate or individual, does not advance the common good and is open to nefarious manipulation by external actors. ‘Common good’ that harms any/ many is not for the common good.

[Note: The Queensland legislation may be voted on in the Queensland Parliament on 11 October. I suggest people throughout the state email the link to this blog to their local member (whatever their party) and make an appointment to go see them about it before then, to bring it to their attention, overviewing it for them and urging them to vote it down.

This is a non-protesting opportunity, simply exercising our democratic rights to influence our representatives. You may well be surprised that they may not be aware of the implications, so please be gentle with and supportive of them in such an eventuality. I suggest a mindset of assisting them with their busy job, rather than attempting to browbeat them from an ideological position that they may not agree with. This is really beyond party politics anyway. Please go to your own local member, as they have a duty to represent you. This is lobbying, not protesting.]

Part 1 Queensland Legislation

There are significant problems with two pieces of health legislation currently before Queensland Parliament, as set out below.

 A) The first is the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. It has two major problems as follows:

 1 Its Nation-wide applicability overrides scrutiny by other parliaments

 a) Governance

Page 31 of the Bill’s explanatory notes states:

If the Bill is passed in Queensland, the changes to the National Law apply automatically in all other states and territories, except for Western Australia, which must pass its own separate legislation, and South Australia, where amendments must be made by regulation. Due to the co-regulatory arrangements in New South Wales, New South Wales does not participate in the health, performance, and conduct process of part 8 of the National Law. Instead, the Health Care Complaints Commission in New South Wales assesses and manages complaints about registered health practitioners in conjunction with the relevant health professional council. As such, the relevant changes to part 8 of the National Law will not apply to New South Wales practitioners.

So called ‘National Laws’ have been passed in each state. For example, the National Law Victoria 2009 Page 2, Part 2, Section 4, Application of Health Practitioner Regulation National Law states: 

The Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, as in force from time to time, set out in the Schedule to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 of Queensland— (a) applies as a law of Victoria; and (b) as so applying may be referred to as the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria); and (c) so applies as if it were part of this Act.  

b) Implementation

This indicates ‘national law’ can be made by proxy in a way that avoids elected representative oversight or influence by any other parliament in Australia. It allows one parliament to alter laws within the jurisdiction of another! This means that the powers of all parliaments in Australia have been usurped/ subverted.

 c) Implementation method

Page 6 of the Bill’s Statement of Compatibility with human rights says that the National Agency i.e. AHPRA is a corporation, i.e. not a Commonwealth Government Body. This means that Government functions have been being outsourced to an unelected private corporation, able to function without accountability to any parliamentary scrutiny. COAG was established in 1992 and was renamed the National Federal Reform Council (NFRC) on 29 May 2020, with National Cabinet at its centre. This seems to have been a takeover by executive officers of governments (Prime ministers and Premiers) acting as National Cabinet, using the mechanism of a private corporation, with the plausible deniability of desire to better co-ordinate outcomes across the country.

 d) Implementation bodies & arrangements

This was explained in a submission by former barrister Julian Gillespie to the Federal COVID 2.0 enquiry, which is summarised in the following three paragraphs.

 The Commonwealth government entered into a treaty in 2007 with the World Health Organisation (WHO) called simply the International Health Regulations, 2005, which are the WHO regulations. The many possible recommendations the WHO could issue pursuant to the International Health Regulations could not be carried into effect by the Commonwealth government as they involved matters that do not lie under heads of power provided by the Australian Constitution. The direct assistance and cooperation of the states and territories was necessary as control of everything from disease surveillance to searching and seizing property rests with them. Thus the National Health Security Act was created to invite the states and territories to provide to the Commonwealth their powers over their populations, with respect to public health, order and governance. In order to achieve this, section seven of the National Health Security Act expressly outlines the creation of a National Health Security Agreement, which was a voluntary step for the state and territories to enter into with the Commonwealth, which all signed in 2011. This enabled the Commonwealth to give full effect to recommendations issued by the WHO under the International Health Regulations to take effect across the entire Australian community. This delivered the Commonwealth government extensive new powers and authority over national health policy by establishing a fourth tier of government composed of the leaders of the states and territories and the federal government, namely National Cabinet, with the Commonwealth Chief Medical Officer as the head of the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee, the AHPPC. This created a new and unelected Australian health overlord, serving essentially as the point man for the WHO within Australia. That health overlord was designated as the Secretary of Health of the Australian Government Department of Health, a position held by Brendan Murphy since 13th July 2020. That position is called the National Focal Point, abbreviated under the National Health Security Act as the NFP.

 The Department of Health is the lead agency in response to a domestic public health incident. The Department of Health gives virtually full control over all matters of response and messaging to the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee, and a subcommittee of the AHPPC, the Communicable Diseases Network Australia, or CDNA, which creates much of its policy and recommendations. The masking, curfews, social distancing, and lockdowns were all recommendations that AHPPC adopted, and consequently the states and territories in turn adopted and implemented. The Department of Health together with the AHPPC, coordinate the "National Health Emergency Media Response Network", the NHEMRN. It is from the NHEMRN that each state and territory receives scripts for public announcements coming from the World Health Organisation, such as the message that vaccines are 'safe and effective'. This ensures all politicians and chief health officers across Australia all give the same message, irrespective of what was actually occurring on the ground.

The WHO published findings in 2019 after extensive scientific studies and reviews concluding that contact tracing was 'not recommended', home quarantine was 'not recommended', the effectiveness of school closures was 'limited', the strength of evidence supporting workplace closures was ‘very low', the effect of measures to avoid crowding was 'uncertain', travel advice had 'no scientific evidence', entry and exit screening was 'not recommended' and border closures were 'not recommended'. However, this was all reversed without provision of any evidence base in 2020 and the Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza, co-authored by the Commonwealth, state, and territories and published in August 2019, which had a substantial scientific basis, was also ignored.

e) Implications and effects

This means there is a big problem with accepting the recommendations of the AHPPC. That is effectively taking directions from the foreign entity controlling our pandemic response, leaving no effective means of response for any elected representative, whether they had trusted the medical profession and the WHO narrative or not. The bypassing/ capture of government by commercial pharmaceutical interests was then complete and was ratcheted up into totalitarianism through the introduction of mandates for ‘the common good’.

In achieving this, significant inducements were afforded by skewed reporting arrangements and medical rebate incentives. The death toll was greatly inflateted by reporting deaths with COVID rather than from COVID, achieving maximum funding through avoiding more accurate attribution to other co-morbidities and unnecessarily exaggerating the fear level. The number of cases was manipulated through the number of cycles in the PCR test, which was never intended for that purpose and has since been abandoned. The all-cause mortality did not rise around the world during the pandemic until mass vaccination started. Now we have children and young people dying uncharacteristically from conditions previously unheard of in young people – heart attacks and strokes. There has been a new ‘disease’ invented to accommodate this called Sudden Adult Death Syndrome (SADS) mirroring/ echoing SIDS. Death by unknown case is now heading towards being the leading cause of death in the world. All this is such a time of technological sophistication? How can this be unknown? What good has all our science done us if our supposedly greatest minds have no clue what is killing so many? With all the resources of Queensland Health, Health Minister Yvette D’Ath has said publicly she has been unable to understand the surge in 000 calls that has occurred post mass vaccination. The medical profession has been torn apart, with any disputing the narrative by following the independently funded medical science rather than the marketing science, being discredited, de-platformed, deregistered and otherwise generally excluded. This is clearly a medical experiment that gone horribly wrong warranting immediate cessation.

 The arrangements transferring medical regulation off to an unaccountable corporation (AHPRA) allows no effective avenue of appeal for practitioners wrongfully suspended. This is not in accordance with our normal principles of justice. The Federal Health Minister has confirmed in writing that he can do nothing as AHPRA is not a government body. That means our elected representatives have handed control to a private organisation that is completely out of control by anybody other than the pharmaceutical industry. It is completely unacceptable that there is no parliament in the country that AHPRA must answer to.

2 It deals with messaging and marketing, not with health, placing the doctor’s relationship with the State above that with their patient 

a) Governance

Its stated objective is to “strengthen public protection and increase public confidence in health services provided by practitioners registered under the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for health professions (National Scheme)”. 

b) Implementation

It does that by making “public confidence in health services” the paramount principle of all our healthcare, overriding the principle of patient-centred care in favour of supporting regulation and enforcement of national agendas. 

c) Implications

This Bill is not about health at all. It has solely to do with ensuring the health messaging remains true to whatever the official narrative is declared to be. It presumes that the medical advice can neither be wrong, nor overridden by pharmaceutical commercial interests.

 In this way, it potentially violates individual rights in supporting mandates of inappropriate/ ineffective/ ‘one-size-fits-all’ treatments. Consequently, the many statements in the Bill’s Statement of Compatibility with human rights saying these clauses “promote” and “do not limit human rights” are patently false.

 The Bill thus adds to the coercive control that can be applied by a corporation (AHPRA) to erroneous medical judgement applied in a ‘one size fits all’ way. This problem is nowhere more evident than in the recent pandemic where the only (patented) medical solution proffered has completely failed to control it and furthermore, has actually made it much worse, with the all-cause mortality not rising until after mass vaccination was introduced.

 COVID-19 vaccination is a medical experiment that has gone very badly wrong and should be stopped immediately. It is now well known in the USA that the ‘safe and effective’ messaging was always false, as evidenced by release of the Pfizer trial data that the CDC tried to prevent release of for 75 years. That showed a 2.7% death rate and a 400% adverse effect rate. The attempted concealment alone was a very large red flag concerning corporate ‘for profit’ interests. That has not been publicised by the mainstream media in Australia, allowing the false ‘safe and effective’ mantra to be just repeated endlessly and mindlessly in this country. This Bill can only further serve private sector sales and marketing at the expense of public safety.

 The following further effects are based upon statements on the QPP.life website by former Dr William Bay, who AHPRA deregistered a few weeks ago.

 This Bill will strengthen the enforcement role of AHPRA, which is already problematic, with it routinely de-registering doctors for telling their patients the truth about medical aspects of the COVID-19 vaccinations. It will also require ‘one size fits all’ treatments, such as COVID vaccination, to be forced upon people who are medically unsuited to receiving it. This will be done for the so called ‘greater good’. It will stop treatment according to patients’ individual circumstances (medical history, medications, allergies etc.). The principle of what makes the Department of Health in each state look most trustworthy will become paramount and inescapable. This puts bureaucrats in charge of medical decisions between doctors and their patients. Mistakes and indeed, incorrect treatments of patients have occurred and are bound to continue. Mistakes in medical treatment will inevitably lead to patient deaths that can and will be directly attributable to passage of this Bill. The RACGP and AMA have expressed concerns over this refocusing of healthcare, and professional indemnity insurance companies like MIGA and the Insurance Council of Australia have agreed that the term ‘public confidence’ lacks a clear definition and scope, and they raised concerns about how courts and tribunals would interpret the term. This Bill imposes bureaucratic control on medical matters that bureaucracy cannot possibly know about. It attempts to make the government the marketing arm of the vaccine manufacturers. The whole Bill is beyond correction by amendment and needs to be rejected in its entirety.

 A petition with 5677signatures objecting to it was organised by former Dr William Bay, submitted to the government on 26/8/2022 and tabled on 30/8/2022.

B) The other problematic legislation is the Public Health Act 2005 and there are again two problems relating to it, one relating to existing provisions and the other to an amendment bill that is in committee stages.

 1 Section 362B suspends democracy in Queensland

This gives the Chief Health Officer unreviewable powers to make any directive he believes is necessary as long as it is connected to preventing the spread of COVID-19. The CHO’s powers are absolute with the Supreme Court and the Premier being unable to review them. 

It can be argued that these powers are unconstitutional, illegal and immoral, because they override all laws and considerations pertaining to due process, human rights, and basic Western freedoms like freedom to transact, speak and move. 

2 The Public Health and other legislation (COVID-19 Management) Amendment Bill 2022 is currently going through committee stages. Public submissions were opened for only a week and closed on 16 September 2022. The short length of time and lack of publicity around this is yet another red flag.

 There are many difficulties with this Amendment Bill, as listed below and it would be far better abandoned. Provisions of the Bill are shown in normal black type face and the summary commentary in blue is based on a submission made by former Dr William Bay that appears on the https://qpp.life/ website. 

 1.      The Chief Health Officer (CHO) will be allowed to retain the power of giving ‘directions’ for another year (to October 2023) and these will continue limiting human rights. Specifically, the CHO will be able to require the 7-day isolation of persons who allegedly have COVID-19 and quarantine their symptomatic close contacts; require masks to be carried or worn in specified settings; and require workers in vulnerable and high-risk settings to be vaccinated. These directions are argued by the Queensland Government to be the most effective way to protect the health system from the uncontrolled and unmanageable spread of COVID-19.         The outcomes obtained from the Queensland Government measures since January 29^th 2020 indicate failure. As of the 15^th September 2022, after 961 days of a State of Emergency which commenced on 29 Jan 2020, we were still having 1000 cases a day of Covid-19 among a population that was 80 to 90% vaxxed. Clearly the Government’s response to the pandemic has failed, and alternative, less-restrictive means of managing this situation should be preferred, if not at least tried. The experience of other countries around the world shows good results in managing the outbreak without compromising individual liberty.

2.      The CHO directions include a direction that may require employers to take reasonable steps to monitor and enforce compliance with vaccine requirements for their workers. Employers will be able to demand private medical information specifically requiring workers to produce documentation of their vaccination status and require operators of workplaces to keep a record of the vaccination status of each worker.   This will continue the infringement of people’s right to medical privacy and provide further coercive pressure on workers to give up their right to informed consent for the sake of retaining their employment or good-standing therein. The unfair pressure placed on Queensland citizens having to choose between their jobs and livelihoods; and their health should not be allowed to continue for another year.

3.      The Bill imposes human rights restrictions on the unvaccinated and under-vaccinated. This is not warranted as it is arguable that people have a greater immunity to all variants of Covid-19 and a longer period of immunity if they are NOT vaccinated with a gene-modifying, immune-system destroying MRNA experimental injection.

4.      This Bill will replace the Queensland Police Service as enforcers of CHO directions breaches with “authorised persons” appointed by a chief executive officer of a local government. Clause 9 of the Bill authorises these local tyrants to enter places, seize evidence, and enforce compliance with public health directions without advance notice, consent or a warrant.  Furthermore, “authorised persons” will be allowed to use reasonable force to make a person go to or remain at a stated place or to leave a workplace.      This is appalling as it creates of a new class of law enforcement in Queensland acting under the directions of an unelected bureaucrat in the Department of Health (the CHO) and outside the traditions and training of the QPS.

5.      This Bill makes it an offence to recklessly spread the newly defined controlled notifiable condition of Covid-19. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 200 penalty units (currently $28 750) or 18 months imprisonment. This penalty is contained in Chapter 3, Part 6 of the Public Health Act 2005 - Section 143 (1).   This means that COVID-19 will be made a notifiable disease. The penalty for failure to comply with measures now known to be completely ineffective is excessive for individuals and not consistent with a free and fair society, especially in the context of a very mild upper respiratory tract disease that has only a 0.27% case fatality rate or lower. 

6.      Part 4 of the Bill amends the State Penalties Enforcement Regulation to make non-compliance with a CHO public health direction an offence for which a penalty infringement notice issued under the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999. This will make it easier for the CHO ‘brown-shirts’ to fine and intimidate Queenslanders. Section 142K of the Bill will make it an offence to contravene public health directions with a penalty of 100 penalty units or $14,375 as of 16 September 2022.            Again, this penalty is excessive for individuals and not consistent with a free and fair society especially when these CHO directions can be enacted for reasons unrelated to the health of Queenslanders but for the purposes of implementing ‘nationally consistent public health response” and decisions by the National Cabinet, the AHPPC and other external agencies. These agencies should not have and do not have any health powers over citizens of Queensland under the provisions of the Commonwealth Constitution. To then fine Queenslanders large sums of money for contravening their “orders” is inviting justifiable dissent amongst the citizenry.

7.      Minister D’Ath states that the impact on the rights and liberties of individuals is justified given the need to protect the health system capacity through the ongoing management of COVID-19. The proponents of the Bill allege that a vaccinated workforce in a vulnerable setting is less likely to experience severe illness, and more likely to remain available to provide care. Data from sources like the NSW Department of Health and various medical journals show that the more MRNA vaccines a person has the more likely they are to be hospitalised, end up in ICU or die. We suggest that health system capacity is better maintained by not medicalising every mild respiratory tract infection and treating asymptomatic cases as actual diseases. Furthermore, with hundreds of nurses and doctors out of work in Queensland due to illegal vaccine requirements, health workforce issues can be ameliorated by more rational and less restrictive means, i.e. re-hiring these discriminated (and most-likely healthier) health professionals.

8.      Minister D’Ath concedes that the proposed direction-making power will leave people with little practical choice but to receive a vaccine, so that while consent is given, that consent may not be full and free for the purposes of section 17(c) of the Human Rights Act Queensland 2019. She erroneously argues that there are safeguards in place that mitigate the human rights impact on workers who are required to be vaccinated under these public health directions and that there are a range of options available to the workers and they will be required to give informed consent to being vaccinated before the vaccination can occur. This is plainly untrue. No human being can give informed consent when their livelihood is being threatened by the State and their employer. Coercion invalidates the doctor-patient relationship which is sacred in law and medical ethics.

9.      Section 142R of the proposed Bill allows for NO entitlement to compensation if a person suffers loss or damage because of the exercise of these unwarranted CHO directives.    Having recourse to compensation and justice in the courts is a feature of a trusted and working democratic Western society. By specifically prohibiting accountability of the Government by this amendment; the Government is exposing itself to righteous accusations of incompetence and disregard for the welfare of its citizens.

 

Part 2 Legislation currently before the West Australian Parliament

This legislation is titled Western Australia Emergency Management Amendment (Temporary COVID-19 Provisions) Bill 2022.

This came to my attention following a Maria Zeee Zero Time broadcast. I have extracted pertinent sections and highlighted the most draconian pieces in yellow, considering that they need no further comment. With the lack of specificity and ability to conscript anyone from anywhere (even overseas? Police? Military?) the “brownshirt” (the facility for which is also in the Queensland Bill) and forced vaccination dangers are obvious. Given the development timeframe, any new “vaccines” can also only be experimental and likely also have disastrous consequences. Furthermore, how could legislation anywhere in this supposedly free country condone such mass ‘legal’ break and entry, as this legislation does?

 

77A. Overview of Part

This Part provides for a temporary scheme, to be in operation for a period of 2 years, under which —

 (a) the State Emergency Coordinator may make a COVID-19 declaration in relation to the whole or any area or areas of the State; and

 (b) if a COVID-19 declaration is in force, powers can be exercised by authorised COVID-19 officers for the purposes of COVID-19 management.

77B. Terms used

In this Part authorised COVID-19 officer means

 (a) the State Emergency Coordinator; and

(b) a person authorised under section 77I;

77I. Authorised COVID-19 officers

(1)   The State Emergency Coordinator may authorise persons to act as authorised COVID-19 officers while a COVID-19 declaration is in force.

(2)   An authorisation under subsection (1) may be given orally or in writing but if given orally must be put in writing as soon as is practicable.

77K. Obtaining identifying particulars

 (1) The office of authorised COVID-19 officer is prescribed for the purposes of the Criminal Investigation (Identifying People) Act 2002 and any holder of that office may exercise the powers in Part 3 of that Act in relation to an offence or suspected offence under this Act while a COVID-19 declaration is in force.

 (2) Without limiting subsection (1), an authorised COVID-19 officer may, where reasonably required for the purposes of COVID-19 management while a COVID-19 declaration is in force, request a person to give the officer any or all of the person’s personal details.

 (3) If, while a COVID-19 declaration is in force, an authorised COVID-19 officer reasonably suspects that a personal detail given by a person in response to a request under subsection (2) is false, the officer may request the person to produce evidence of the correctness of the detail.

77L. Powers concerning movement and evacuation

For the purposes of COVID-19 management while a COVID-19 declaration is in force, an authorised COVID-19 officer may do all or any of the following —

 (a) direct or, by direction, prohibit, the movement of persons and vehicles within, into, out of or around the declaration area or any part of the declaration area;

 (b) direct the evacuation and removal of persons from the declaration area or any part of the declaration area;

(c) close any road, access route or area of water in or leading to the declaration area;

 (d) direct that any road, access route or area of water in or leading to the declaration area be closed.

77M. Powers to control and use property and related powers

 (1) For the purposes of COVID-19 management while a COVID-19 declaration is in force, an authorised COVID-19 officer may take control of or make use of any place, vehicle or other thing.

 (2) The place, vehicle or other thing may be in, or outside, the declaration area.

 (3) For the purposes of exercising a power under subsection (1), an authorised COVID-19 officer may enter, or if necessary break into and enter, any place or vehicle.

 (4) An authorised COVID-19 officer may direct the owner or occupier, or the person apparently in charge, of a place, vehicle or other thing to give the authorised COVID-19 officer reasonable assistance to exercise the officer’s powers under this section.

 (5) An authorised COVID-19 officer may exercise the powers under this section without a warrant or the consent of the owner or occupier, or the person apparently in charge, of the place, vehicle or other thing.

 (6) If an authorised COVID-19 officer takes control of or makes use of any place, vehicle or other thing under this section, the authorised COVID-19 officer must ensure that, as soon as is reasonably practicable in the circumstances and no later than 7 days after the place, vehicle or thing is taken control of or made use of, a notice is given to the owner or occupier, or the person formerly in charge, of the place, vehicle or thing stating —

 (a) that the place, vehicle or thing has been taken control of or made use of under this section; and

 (b) the name of the authorised COVID-19 officer who has taken control of or made use of the place, vehicle or thing.

77N. Powers of officers in relation to persons exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus

 

(1) While a COVID-19 declaration is in force, for the purpose of limiting the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, an authorised COVID-19 officer may direct any person who has been exposed, or any class of person who may have been exposed, to the SARS-CoV-2 virus to do all or any of the following —

(a) to remain in an area specified by the officer for such period as is specified by the officer;

(b) to remain quarantined from other persons for such period, and in such reasonable manner, as is specified by the officer;

(c) to submit to infection prevention and control procedures within such reasonable period, and in such reasonable manner, as is specified by the officer.

77P. Exchange of information

(3) For the purposes of COVID-19 management while a COVID-19 declaration is in force, an authorised COVID-19 officer may request an emergency management agency that holds relevant information to disclose the information to the authorised COVID-19 officer.

(4) An emergency management agency may comply with a request under subsection (3) despite any law of this State relating to secrecy or confidentiality.

(5) If information is disclosed, in good faith, under subsection (2) or in compliance with a request under subsection (3) —

(a) no civil or criminal liability is incurred in respect of the disclosure; and

(b) the disclosure is not to be regarded as a breach of any duty of confidentiality or secrecy imposed by law; and

(c) the disclosure is not to be regarded as a breach 18 of professional ethics or standards or as unprofessional conduct.

 

77Q. General powers during COVID-19 declaration 4

 

(2) While a COVID-19 declaration is in force, an authorised COVID-19 officer may take, or direct a person or a class of person to take, any action that the officer considers is reasonably necessary to prevent, control or abate risks associated with COVID-19.

(3) For the purposes of COVID-19 management while a COVID-19 declaration is in force, an authorised COVID-19 officer may direct a person to —

(a) give to the officer relevant information about the person or any other person closely associated with the person; or

(b) answer questions intended to elicit relevant information about the person or any other person closely associated with the person.

(4) A person is not excused from complying with a direction given to the person under subsection (3) on the ground that giving the information or answering the question might tend to incriminate the person or expose the person to a criminal penalty.

 

Steve McGrath PhD

3 October 2022