Senators Try to Wake Up the Corrupt Hive-Mind we call ‘the government’

  • Updated:1 year ago
  • Reading Time:16Minutes
  • Post Words:3960Words
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Senator Gerard Rennick’s best, most passionate speech trying to reach the hive-mind of the mind-controlled, corporation-controlled, agenda-controlled government to take the jab-injured seriously and calls out The Greens specifically for laughing, mocking, and interjecting his speech, as well as the TGA and other Health Authorities for ignoring all the published evidence.

YouTube | Telegram | Transcript | Senator Gerard Rennick | ParlInfo

Senator RENNICK (Queensland) (17:17): Here we are at the end of 2022, and we’ve had over 10 million cases of COVID. The Australian health department, of course, stopped counting around September sometime because, I think, it was getting too embarrassing to admit that, despite over 20 million people having been vaccinated, over half the country had caught COVID. Whatever happened to protecting you? But we don’t want to talk about that anymore. We’ll just pull it off the website and we’ll not discuss it.

Then we’ve got the excess deaths that Senator Babet talked about before. (Parlinfo-link) We had 8,706 extra deaths last year, despite the fact that New South Wales locked down for three months. So, in theory, the deaths should have been lower, like they were in 2020, but let’s not count 2021 in the ABS figures—sorry, it’s 2020 they’re not counting. Let’s pretend nothing happened there.

There were almost 140,000 jab injuries—more than all the injuries reported from vaccines since 1971 and more than all the injuries put together. You’ve got an injury rate that’s three times higher, yet the TGA don’t want to look at the signal. The whole point of having a database where doctors report these injuries, where they tick the box ‘suspected’—and, as the doctors say, they don’t fill these forms out because they don’t have the spare time. They don’t have a lazy 20 or 30 minutes sitting around, filling these forms out, if someone fell off a bike. No, no—they’re ticking these boxes because they believe that the vaccine caused the injury that they are reporting. Yet the TGA want to pretend that there’s nothing to see here. And why wouldn’t they? Professor Skerritt is head of an organisation that is funded by big pharma. If you want to talk about a conflict of interest, that’s it. These guys have no idea what they are talking about.

I asked Professor Brendan Murphy, who was the chief health officer at the time, whether or not he’d actually read the non-clinical report into the Pfizer vaccine. Guess what? He hadn’t read it. Despite that, he had been saying for a couple of days prior to that that the spike protein wasn’t in the blood. Had he read the report, he would have known that they never even tested the spike protein.

And they would have also known that, when they did the animal trials, that the report said there was no difference in lung inflammation between the placebo group and the vaccinated group after nine days. There was not one skerrick of evidence that showed that that vaccine was effective. But did anyone in this chamber right here, right now, actually read that report?

I bet not, but you all went out there and said it was safe and effective, when you didn’t have a clue what you were talking about. Shame on you. Because the law in this country, in the Australian Immunisation Register, says, No. 1, you cannot be coerced into taking a vaccine, and, No. 2, you need to be properly informed about what is in the vaccine.

You’ve got to dig very far to get to the bottom of this stuff, but that spike protein in the vaccine isn’t even the same as the spike protein in the virus. No. They’ve actually changed one of the nucleotide and they’ve actually got a synthetic gene in the vaccine. They’ve added 17 nucleotides to the poly(A) tail, which is designed to make it last longer—it’s designed to last longer.

The mRNA in the trials was shown to last for up to nine days. The lipids were shown to last at least two days, and they stopped the trials. Despite the fact that it doubled—

Senator Sarah Hanson-Young interjecting— (Young Global Leader (WEF) Puppet)

Senator RENNICK: Listen to this, Senator Hanson-Young: despite the fact that the concentration of the lipids that are cationic would double in the ovaries from day one to day two, do you know what they did? They stopped the trial—They stopped the trial, and they went and told everyone that it just stays at the site of injection. That was a blatant lie.

If you want to talk about misinformation, go and check out page 44 of the Pfizer non-clinical trial report. It was released on the TGA FOI disclosure log 239-6. I’ve read it numerous times. Guess what, you should also read the top paragraph of page 8, that says, ‘The study suggests that the spike protein can be either inserted into the membrane or secreted from the cell.’ What does that tell you? I’ll tell you what that tells you. It tells you that rather than killing the actual pathogen, which is what a normal vaccine would have done, this particular vaccine goes inside your cell, takes over the reproduction—the ribosomes, which are what produce the protein—and then starts producing more of the toxic substance. That is not the name of the game. You want to actually kill the virus; you do not want to reproduce it. And, of course, Brendan Murphy, the then chief health officer, claimed that there was nothing to worry about. He never read the document.

Then we’ve got Professor Kelly. He came out and made the bold statement that it stops transmission. He was lying, because the FDA came out in December 2020 and said that there was no evidence that the vaccine stopped transmission. When I pressed him on it, there are no trials to show that there’s any IgA in the mucosal system. You don’t have to take my word for it. Go and speak to Robert Clancy, Australia’s foremost immunologist and vaccinologist. He’s retired. You can trust this guy. He’s not on the take from big pharma or the big universities that aren’t actually interested in research; they’re just interested in lining their own pockets.

Then, of course, we’ve got the vaccine injury scheme, which is just a joke. Today, and last night, and day after day for the last 15 months, I get contacted by people who have had their lives destroyed by this vaccine—a vaccine that the government said was safe and effective. And if it isn’t bad enough that these people—I’m looking at you people in this chamber here today—didn’t read the documents, this took over someone else’s body because it suited your narrative, your command-and-control narrative. You showed no humanity—no humanity. There are people out there who are not only injured; they have lost their jobs, and they cannot get medical support to help them. There are husbands and wives who had to quit their jobs to stay home and look after those people who are injured and are in an incredible amount of pain.

Senator Sarah Hanson-Young interjecting— (WEF Puppet)

Senator RENNICK: The fact that you’re interjecting, Senator Hanson-Young, just goes to show the type of person you are.

The CHAIR: Senator Rennick!

Senator RENNICK: How dare you come into this chamber and start mocking the vaccine injured!

The CHAIR: Senator Rennick, please sit down.

Senator Larissa Waters: My point of order: reflecting on another senator, as well as being odious and tedious.

The CHAIR: Not the second part. Senator Rennick, just withdraw to the extent that you made an adverse inference.

Senator RENNICK: I withdraw. The fact is that the Greens Party can sit in that corner over there and mock and laugh at the vaccine injured. These people aren’t antivaxxers. They believed what the government told them, as I did when I first came to this place. But I can tell you what: there’s nothing but a cesspit of lies in this place. The fact is that the Greens Party think that they can just sit there and mock the injured. These people believed in the government.

Senator Larissa Waters interjecting—

Senator RENNICK: You want to talk about trust and transparency. Oh, yes, there’s Senator Waters again, mocking and going, ‘Come on.’ Maybe you should pick up the phone. Maybe you people should pick up the phone and talk to some of these people who have been injured.

When we go to the basis, the substance, of this act, the Fair Work Act, this is a public health issue. The idea that businesses in this country can be responsible for the transmission of an airborne virus is just as absurd as the billions of dollars that are getting wasted on the idea that you can control some tiny trace gas in the atmosphere. We are living in the land of the unicorn farmers and intellectual pygmies who are just chasing the impossible dream. Like Sancho Panza chasing the windmills, it is absurd. Yet we stand here today, almost three years after the virus broke out in China or whatever, and we still have these ridiculous mandates in so many places, particularly in private industry, which is what this amendment will address.

They are still being coerced into getting a vaccine. I’ve literally had three messages in just the last hour about people who are losing their jobs, not in the health sector but in sectors that are outdoors—they have nothing to do. It is absurd, and it needs to stop, because the state of emergency, even at the state government level, has been retracted, yet these people here today do not want to grant people their autonomous right to control what goes into their bodies.

And I might remind members of the LNP that one of our values is the dignity and worth of every individual. We don’t believe in multi-patent bargaining, because we recognise that every business is unique, and we think that the employer and the employee should have the first right in deciding what’s best for them. That is what we believe in. We believe in empowering individuals to make the decisions that suit their needs the best, and only the individual or the parent of the child can make that decision.


But what we’ve got here today is typical command and control. We’ve got the Labor Party and the Greens protecting their own narrative that the government can save us. ‘Govern me harder, Daddy!’—that is what these people believe in.

Senator Sarah Hanson-Young: (WEF Puppet)
To stop this rubbish, I move: That the question be put.

The CHAIR: The question before the committee is that the question be put.

The CHAIR (17:35): The question is that the amendments on sheet 1768 moved by Senator Roberts be agreed to.

Senator Roberts explaining proposed amendments

Senator Roberts moved the following amendments on sheet 1768 together by leave:

(1)—Schedule 1, item 426, page 116 (before line 10), before the definition of gender identity , insert:

COVID-19 vaccination status means the status of a person relating to whether, and to what extent, the person has been vaccinated against the coronavirus known as COVID-19 (including any subsequent variants of that virus).

(2)—Schedule 1, item 427, page 116 (line 17), after “intersex status,”, insert “COVID-19 vaccination status,”.

(3)—Schedule 1, item 429, page 117 (line 3), after “intersex status,”, insert “COVID-19 vaccination status,”.

(4)—Schedule 1, item 432, page 118 (line 3), after “intersex status,”, insert “COVID-19 vaccination status,”.

(5)—Schedule 1, page 118 (after line 3), after item 432, insert:

432A  Paragraph 351(2)(a)

Before “not unlawful”, insert “for action taken other than because of a person’s COVID-19 vaccination status—”.

(6)—Schedule 1, item 433, page 118 (line 6), after “intersex status,”, insert “COVID-19 vaccination status,”.

(7)—Schedule 1, item 436, page 118 (line 23), after “intersex status,”, insert “COVID-19 vaccination status,”.

(8)—Schedule 1, item 437, page 119 (line 23), omit “or intersex status,”, substitute “, intersex status or COVID-19 vaccination status”.

Sheet 1768

Vaccine mandates are still in effect across the private sector even though we know they do not stop transmission. To ensure job security, my amendment on sheet 1768 ensures that unjustified vaccine discrimination is stamped out in employment

YouTube | Rumble | Senator Malcolm Roberts | Transcript | Fair Work Act Bill | Sheet 1768 | Parlinfo

Minister, you look like you need a break, so I will give you a break from your legal jousting and setting up definitions of terms for the future. In proposing this bill, the government says the bill aims to secure jobs. My amendment on sheet 1768 goes to the heart of ensuring job security and protecting workers’ rights.

To ensure job security, my amendment on sheet 1768 ensures that unjustified vaccine discrimination is stamped out in employment. The original bill inserts breastfeeding, intersex status and gender identity as attributes that the Fair Work Act protects from discrimination. This amendment copies that approach and simply adds COVID-19 vaccination status as an attribute protected from discrimination. The protection is still subject to the limits imposed on the other discrimination grounds in the Fair Work Act.

An employer will not be in breach of the antidiscrimination grounds where the employer can prove, as they should have to, that it is a genuine and reasonable requirement of the position. This amendment is reasonable in its approach. It is not radical, because it uses and simply extends the existing mechanisms in the Fair Work Act.

We’ve long known that COVID vaccines do not stop transmission. Before this came apparent, however, getting vaccinated to ‘protect others’ was the justification many businesses used to roll out vaccine mandates.

As a condition of keeping their job, many employees were coerced and still are being coerced into receiving COVID injections and boosters they do not want. The vaccine mandates cannot be justified, given the fact that vaccines do not guarantee protection from transmission.

The New South Wales Personal Injury Commission agrees with this view, with workers compensation being awarded for psychological distress stemming from mandates in the determination of Dawking and the Secretary of the Department of Education, handed down on 3 November. Sometimes the wheels of justice turn slowly, yet we are happy that judicial bodies are taking up this self-evident position that broad vaccine mandates cannot be justified.

Despite this, mandates are still in effect across much of the private sector. It’s clear that further legislative action must be taken. Businesses are simply ignoring the evidence against unjustified vaccine mandates. A clear message needs to be sent that unreasonable directions that infringe on workers’ rights have no place in Australian workplaces.

Often mandates do not even account for Australians that have accepted medical contra-indications to vaccination. The Australian newspaper reports that Qantas sacked a pilot for failing to comply with a vaccination mandate while he was off work in a serious health condition: being treated for bowel cancer. Separately, I’ve met a Qantas employee who, after being injected with the first COVID injection, was rushed to hospital with severe disability—possibly life-threatening—due to the COVID injection. After hospital care and partial recovery, he returned to work, where Qantas insisted he get the second injection. He contested it and is on a vastly reduced pay on workers’ compensation. He fears his career with Qantas is finished. How can this be in this country?

This amendment seeks to reinforce workers’ rights to refuse a workplace direction where it is not a reasonable and justified requirement of the job. It leaves no doubt for employees and employers that vaccine mandates must not be in place unless there is a reasonable and justifiable need for them. Minister, given that businesses continue to ignore workers’ rights in this area, will the government support this amendment to reinforce the decisions of the Fair Work Commission and codify protections for workers against unreasonable workplace directions?

Senator Matt Canavan

Senator Matt Canavan | Website | Parlinfo

Senator CANAVAN (Queensland) (17:11): I’d like to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Roberts and indicate to the chamber that I will be supporting his amendments because I support workers’ rights. A fundamental right of every Australian should be to earn a livelihood to support their family. That should be a basic right. In fact, it’s a right we have signed up to in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. One of the enshrined human rights that we as a country have signed up to is the right to work to provide for your family. With the introduction of vaccine mandates last year, we denied that right to thousands of Australians who were thrown out onto the streets and had no way to provide for their families, in the short term at least.

The mandates were never justifiable. Even I thought at the time that there was no evidence that the vaccine stopped transmission. Really, the only justification you could have to overturn and override that fundamental human right would be if somehow getting the vaccine protected a third party. I said at the time, and I’ll say now that if we had a vaccine that could stop COVID in its tracks and prevent that death, I would consider some limitations on other rights. That’s the way rights work. There is a right to life, as well. Sometimes we have to weigh these different human rights up. But if it wasn’t apparent a year ago, it is clearly and starkly evident today that, for whatever the merits of the coronavirus vaccines, they do not stop transmission. Someone’s else not having the vaccine is of no risk to you or anybody else in our society, and we know that now because we’ve largely got rid of mandates, in any case. They’re gone, largely, but they are not completely removed. They still exist in the resources sector, where I come from in Central Queensland, where people have been locked out from their jobs because some companies have dug their heels in, if you like, and are maybe embarrassed to back down on the very strong stances they took a year ago that have proven to be wrong.

We have an opportunity, when we’re debating this type of legislation, to protect the rights of workers and to protect the rights of individual Australians to provide for their families. There can be no justification now to continue these mandates. Keep in mind, too, that even if you supported the mandates—I’ve never seen a mandate for a booster; I actually don’t know. I think some health authorities might, but all of the mandates I’ve seen in private companies are for the original two shots. For anyone who took the original two shots on the timeline for most of us—that is, by late last year—they’ve already worn out. We know that from the science. The science says that, after 12 months—well, after six months really, but after 12 months definitely—there is no more impact of those first two shots.

So, if you thought this was an issue or if these private companies thought there was a risk, why aren’t they mandating the third shot—the booster—or a fourth shot? They’re not doing that because they’d lose a lot of their workers if they did. These have no basis in science. All they are doing is hurting Australian families—admittedly fewer than last year. Thankfully, most of these mandates, as I say, have gone. The state governments have largely got rid of them in their laws, but there are still people being hurt by this. There are still people being harmed by it. They have no justification. I will once again stand up for the right of all Australian workers to make decisions about their health care when it doesn’t affect the health of others.

Senator Alex Antic

Senator Alex Antic | Website | Parlinfo

Senator ANTIC (South Australia) (17:15): I want to make some brief comments in support of this, and I thank Senator Roberts for bringing this important amendment to the chamber. To add to Senator Canavan’s comments on the subject: I think this is a topic which has picked up some acceleration over the last period. We’re not in December 2021 anymore. A lot of the stuff we actually did know at this time last year—or that many of us knew—is now plainly evident. And as Senator Canavan said, the science is now settled on this issue. Transmission of the COVID virus is not affected by the use of these therapies. They are experimental therapies, and, at the end of the day, people have to accept that. I know there’s a degree of cynicism in this room and there has been a period of 12 to 18 months of name-calling—antivax and this, that and the other—but the reality is that people have been forced into a very difficult decision over the past 12 to 18 months in order to keep their livelihood or take a risk on this therapy, and that has been wrong.

What we have seen in the last two years, in my view, is one of the greatest scandals in Australian history—certainly in Australian medical history. This parliament and this Senate need to take the opportunity now to support this amendment—I support this amendment—and allow people the opportunity to return to work without the fear of losing their job because of a medical choice. There is no risk to the public. We have got private companies that are still engaging in this, and we need to set the tone here now. We hear a lot about the party of the workers: the Australian Labor Party. Let me tell you: the trade union movement bailed out on Australian workers on this issue.

Senator Canavan: CFMMEU did.

Senator ANTIC: Well, that’s true. It would be very interesting to be where I’m standing in defence of the CFMMEU, but, in any event, that is a very fair point and I’ll take that from Senator Canavan. But there are workers out there. If you’d seen the emails that come through my office and no doubt Senator Rennick’s office on a daily basis—surely there is some humanity left in this place. It’s time for us to support this. I support it and I ask that others do.

How they voted

How they voted: ParlInfo

Posts tagged:
Senator Gerard Rennick | Senator Malcolm Roberts | Senator Alex Antic | Senator Matt Canavan
Australian Government | Vaccine-Injured | Conflict$

Penny... on Health
Penny... on Health

Truth-seeker, ever-questioning, ever-learning, ever-researching, ever delving further and deeper, ever trying to 'figure it out'. This site is a legacy of sorts, a place to collect thoughts, notes, book summaries, & random points of interests.

DISCLAIMER: The information on this website is not medical science or medical advice. I do not have any medical training aside from my own research and interest in this area. The information I publish is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease, disorder, pain, injury, deformity, or physical or mental condition. I just report my own results, understanding & research.