A national COVID inquiry is underway, but it will not deliver the accountability that Australians deserve. This is the position of a group of leading Australian academics, medical professionals and leaders who have thrown their support behind a proposed Royal Commission to make a proper review of the national COVID response.
A public declaration circulated by the Australian Medical Professionals Society (AMPS), and with over 40 signatories, lays out complete and thorough Terms of Reference (TORs) for a Royal Commission, leaving no stone unturned.
The far-reaching TORs include examination of human rights issues related to vaccine mandates and lockdowns, conduct of media and nudge messaging units, informed consent, restrictions on repurposed drugs, drug safety monitoring, and a review of the epidemiological evidence and pandemic modelling referenced in government decision making.
“Answers from a Royal Commission created by the Australian people – and not the public servants it is meant to investigate – is what is needed,” says lead author and former barrister Julian Gillespie, who is of the view that the COVID Inquiry, led by an independent panel appointed by the Albanese government, will “only serve to place a gold star on the government’s actions.”
“The current Inquiry has only eight TORs that are too broad and ill-defined,” says Gillespie. “Not only that, but they get to select their own witnesses – they get to choose who they call in, and they get to choose how much detail to go into. The heads of departments will be called in and they’ll say that they did a good job.”
In contrast, the 52 proposed TORs assembled by a team of lawyers, with input from decorated academics including Professor Wendy Hoy (AO), Professor Philip Morris (AM) and Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy (AM), are “very precise,” says Gillespie, leaving no wiggle room for omitting unpalatable aspects of the COVID response.
Additionally, “if properly empowered, a Royal Commission will have the same powers as a court of law,” Gillespie explains. These powers include ordering discovery of internal records and compelling witnesses to attend and answer questions.
Economics Professor Gigi Foster, of the University of New South Wales, is one of the proposed expert witnesses on the impacts of COVID lockdowns. Last year, she told Jan Jekielek on American Thought Leaders: “After tabulating, calculating, and quantifying all of the various dimensions of the costs of the [pandemic] lockdown policies, we found that lockdowns are about 30 to 35 times more costly than what they could possibly have delivered in benefits… in terms of human life.”
Prof Foster, who is a signatory of the proposed TORs, says that participating in this submission is an opportunity to “band together to demonstrate solidarity in our outrage and to push for a full and comprehensive reckoning” for the failures of Australia’s COVID response.
“We need to show solidarity with the people who are trying to fight for change,” says Prof Foster. “Unification is the name of the game. If you want to change society, you’ve got to organise, so that’s what we’re trying to do.”
AMPS Secretary, Kara Thomas, emphasises that conducting a full and thorough Royal Commission of Australia’s COVID response is crucial to prevent “a recurrence of what Professor Jay Bhattacharya has termed ‘the greatest public health mistake in human history.’”
“Scrutinising the imposition of unjustified and unscientific policies on Australians, devoid of a thorough risk or cost/benefit analysis, is essential for the health and safety of all citizens. This scrutiny is particularly significant in the context of stringent government-imposed censorship, which has contributed to untold harm.”
AMPS has campaigned heavily to stop medical censorship since the national regulator, AHPRA, cracked down on “anti-vaccination” messages and claims in health practitioners’ professional practice and social media, with the release of a position statement in March 2021 threatening regulatory action.
This position statement was superseded in December, however an AMPS spokesperson says,
“There has not yet been a real reckoning for the way in which the 2021 position statement and regulatory actions of AHPRA impacted on the free speech of doctors, the doctor-patient relationship, and informed consent,” and that, “there are still substantial concerns about the regulatory environment in Australia, which remains hostile to individualised care.”
AMPs and over 40 other signatories are now inviting all members of the public to read and co-sign the proposed TORs, which will be submitted on Friday 12 January 2024 to a Senate Committee inquiring into appropriate TORs for a COVID Royal Commission.
Senator Malcolm Roberts of One Nation, who initiated calls for the Royal Commission, has slammed the Albanese Government’s COVID inquiry as “toothless,” stating: “Anything less than a COVID Royal Commission is a betrayal of everyday Australians and small business who were badly affected by our COVID response over the last three and a half years.”
Senator Roberts invites anyone who wants to share their lived experience of Covid measures confidentially to make a submission to the Committee before Friday 12 January 2024.
Rebekah Barnett reports from Western Australia. Follow her work on Substack at Dystopian Down Under.
