No Requirement for Medical Treatment (Including Experimental Injections) Without Consent (Implementing Article 6 of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights) Bill 2021

Source: Hansard


Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (10:24): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Firstly, I’d like to thank Carston, the truck driver who drove me to Parliament House this morning. God bless the truck drivers of Australia. I dedicate this bill to them.

Fifty-eight years ago, when I was born, I won one of the greatest lotteries in life because I was born in the free and democratic nation of Australia. I was bestowed, as my birthright, as an Australian, freedoms and liberties that have only ever been enjoyed by a small percentage of people throughout human history. Those freedoms that were my birthright did not come for free. They were fought for and won in places with names such as Beersheba, Fromelles, Pozieres, Bullecourt, the Coral Sea, Tobruk, Kapyong, Long Tan and thousands of others.

As politicians, we are reminded every single day when we come to this place. We look out the main entrance and we see in perfect alignment across Old Parliament House, across Lake Burley Griffin, up Anzac Parade and to the War Memorial. It’s a reminder that the freedoms and liberties that we enjoy have been won by the sacrifices of over 100,000 Australians who have given their lives in war to protect and safeguard those freedoms.

One of the great things about our nation is that we have extended those freedoms to others that have come across the seas. So when someone is a new migrant and decides to take an oath of citizenship and declare their allegiance to our country, they obtain the same birthrights that I have as an Australian—the same freedoms and liberties. As a nation, we work hard to bring those same freedoms and liberties that are the birthrights of every single Australian to others around the world. We participate in and we sign and commit to international treaties such as the Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights.

Article 6.1 of this treaty, to which Australia is a signatory, provides:

Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.

That is what we as a nation have signed up to in an international treaty, yet we find here in 2021 that the freedoms and the birthrights of Australians have been stolen—stolen mostly by unelected bureaucrats and cowardly politicians that are violating human rights and that are violating the principles of the Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights.

Let’s be absolutely clear about this: New South Wales Premier Berejiklian and health minister Hazzard, with New South Wales parliament suspended, are engaging in conduct which is a violation and abuse of human rights.

The coercion and the bullying of Australians to undergo any type of medical intervention is a violation of human rights in a violation of the principles of Australia’s international human rights obligations. Domestic passports are a violation of human rights, and yet we stand here in this parliament today with medical apartheid being enforced across the nation.

‘Submit or you will never get your freedoms back. You will be excluded from society, denied the freedom to travel, denied access to our beaches, denied access to our national parks.’ This should outrage every single one of us. ‘Also, you’ll be prevented from opening your business. We will deny you the freedom to earn a living. You will lose your job. You will lose your family home, unless you submit to taking a medical intervention.’ This is something that we have fought against. This is something against the Anzac spirit. What is wrong with you people? And this is from a party in New South Wales that on their website boasts that they supposedly believe ‘in the inalienable rights and freedoms of all people’? What a fraud!

This statement is a fraud upon the electorate of Australia, a betrayal of Liberal Party values and a betrayal of everything it means to be an Australian.

Shame on you, Berejiklian. Shame on you, Hazzard. Shame on you, Palaszczuk, Shame on you, Andrews. Shame on the lot of you.

When you use threats of inflicting disadvantage or inflicting prejudice on Australians because they don’t submit to your demands for medical intervention, you are engaging in abuses of human rights. History will condemn you for eternity as violators of human rights. Shame on every member of this House that cowardly hides under their desk and refuses to speak up to defend the freedoms and liberties of Australians.

Some may argue it’s okay to abuse human rights in these circumstances. That appears to be the formal position of the Liberal Party, the Labor Party, the Nationals and the Greens. Firstly, this position relies on the Doherty modelling; however, this modelling is fundamentally flawed. It uses assumptions that are both out of date and erroneous. Just look at the data out of Israel, and it will show you that the Doherty modelling’s assumptions are dodgy at the best. Remember, we’re not just talking about any old medical intervention; we are talking about a medical intervention that has zero long-term safety data. If you don’t believe me, I will quote directly from the TGA’s recent report, dated July 2021. I go to page 30 of 37. It talks about Pfizer’s application, and it says:

… the submitted data have the following limitations: The long-term efficacy and safety is not known.

But it’s even worse than that. It goes on. They admit here:

The VE—

which is the vaccine efficacy—

against variants of concern—

which of course would be delta—

has not been assessed.

These are the TGA’s own documents. This means it hasn’t been assessed against delta, and we have no idea what the long-term safety data is. And yet we are mandating this upon millions of Australians and forcing them with the threat that they will lose their jobs, they’ll be unable to put food on the table for their family and they won’t be able to pay their mortgage. What is wrong with you people? Seriously! It even gets worse.

Therefore, the purpose of this bill is to incorporate the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights into Australian law, to hold those that violate and abuse human rights to account, and to bring them to justice. I commend this bill to the House, and I call on the government to urgently bring it up for debate and for a vote and let history record where every member of this parliament sits on this issue.

The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?

Mr Christensen: The motion is seconded.

Demand Early Treatment! – All questions Covid with Dr. Al Johnson and Dr. Peter McCullough

The Early Treatment of Delta: Part 1 – Dr Ryan Cole

Far-Reaching Interview with Nick Hudson from Pandemics Data & Analytics (PANDA)

Chairman of Tokyo Metropolitan Medical Association Declares During Surge, Time for Ivermectin is Now

The Steve Kirsch Interview

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on whatsapp
On Trend

Latest Stories

Dr. Harvey Risch: Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, and Other Therapeutics Highly Effective in Early COVID Treatment

I’ve railed against this in the media that we are a part of, and the way that the propaganda reacts to this is, “Ignore it. Ignore all of this.” I’m saying this now because the general public has to be the one that gets angry. The general public should be furious at the way people have been treated in the country by suppression of these drugs, by that kind of website that suppresses the ability of doctors to practice medicine.

Read More »

A Judge Stands up to a Hospital: “Step Aside” and Give a Dying Man Ivermectin

The judge’s finest moment may have been when he dashed the most glaring myth about ivermectin—that it is not safe, despite decades of use that shows otherwise. Noting that all drugs have side effects, Judge Fullerton listed ivermectin’s effects from a government website.
“(N)umber one, generally well tolerated; number two, dizziness; number three, pruritus; number four, nausea/diarrhea. These are the side effects for the dosage that’s being asked to be administered,” he said. “The risks of these side effects are so minimal that Mr. Ng’s current situation outweighs that risk by one-hundredfold.”

Read More »