Covid inquiry and Covid19 Royal Commission Terms of Reference Submissions
My submissions outlining harms caused by government Covid19 measures and the markets they are creating
My first blog is to outline attempts made to communicate with government regarding their dangerous Covid19 measures, which detrimentally effected most of us (unless you are a large global corporation- then you did very well).
My post touches on future pandemics, gas lighting, and markets being made from government Covid19 measures ($$$ going upwards).
Covid-19 Response Inquiry
In December the government called on the public to provide submissions and evidence to the COVID-19 Response Inquiry to help the government plan for future pandemics. Australian Prime Minster Anthony Albanese stated the inquiry would not be looking at anything that fell under State government responsibilities, i.e. where the majority of harms were caused to the Australian people. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-21/inquiry-to-be-announced-into-aus-government-covid-19-response/102882616
https://www.pmc.gov.au/resources/commonwealth-government-covid-19-response-inquiry-terms-reference
This inquiry is an obvious step in lining Australia up with the WHO International Health Regulations. https://consultations.health.gov.au/health-systems-policy-division/preparing-for-pandemics-and-health-emergencies/user_uploads/consultation-paper_3-august-upload-version.pdf
The commission tasked with overseeing the Inquiry is led by economist Angela Jackson, epidemiologist Catherine Bennett and public administration expert Robyn Kruk.
Warren Ross has documented the three women and their adherence to “Vax to the Max” “Lock them Down”, “Zoonotic Pandemics”, “Mask them Up” narratives.
Social Impact Bonds
I want to focus on economist Angela Jackson (one of the three women on the committee) as she is involved in Social Impact Investing. Dr Angela is lead economist with Impact Economics and Policy. This is of utmost relevance because the government is ushering in Social Impact Investing, which is making markets from vulnerable people (we are all rapidly being made more vulnerable through government measures).
In a nutshell, welfare programs, public housing etc. were previously funded through the government. Social Impact investing calls for private funds (corporates and wealthy individuals) to put forward capital, Non government organisations tender for this money and then when the program “delivers” the government pays the wealthy individuals and corporates their initial funds plus interest. It is the highly problematic Public Private Partnership model.
This means we, the tax payers, pay more for welfare programs than if the government funded the non government organisations directly. It also means that all the harms caused through government Covid19 policies; mental health issues, suicidal ideation, increased drug and alcohol usage, effects of inflation, instability of employment, children’s learning difficulties, domestic violence, vulnerable children and families etc. are a lucrative market for investors.
In two interviews with Taschi from Taschi Talks we unpack the social impact bond market and its implications.
Treasurer Chalmers is heavily ploughing in to social impact bonds and has created an Investment Roundtable with the big banks, investment firms and superannuation funds. https://ministers.treasury.gov.au/ministers/jim-chalmers-2022/media-releases/treasurers-investor-roundtable
You can check out how Chalmers wants to funnel the tax payers money here. Could a photo scream Narcissist more than this one?
https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2023/february/jim-chalmers/capitalism-after-crises.
I submitted a video for the Covid inquiry, I did not adhere to their Terms of Reference to only focus on increasing government spending, quarantine, and purchasing equipment and vaccines. I instead focused on first hand accounts of harms caused, the nastiness, vitriol and “othering” encouraged by politicians towards anyone questioning the vaccines, lockdowns or mandates and the changing messages delivered by government regarding their handling of Covid.
Government Covid measures creating social disadvantage
At the end of 2022 I was working in Welfare, I had a twenty plus year career. I worked with many individuals and families over the years who were struggling and I tried to assist and support the best I could. When the government started locking people down and threatening everyone with “Get vaccinated, or else!!!” rhetoric I could see through it. I was horrified by the harms they were causing to families already on the brink and I was aware that these harms would be with us for generations.
I was very lucky to meet a whole bunch of ethical welfare workers who were similarly concerned and we created a group called Community Services Speak Out, where we documented the harms (46 worker testimonials) caused to vulnerable clients through the government Covid measures. We wrote sector letters (Domestic Violence, Alcohol and Other Drugs, Disability, Out of Home Care, Vulnerable children and families) outlining all the specific harms caused to these groups. We sent the letters off the Ministers in charge of the portfolios. Then we submitted the testimonials and letters to the vast majority of government officials in Australia, asking them how they risk assessed Covid was more dangerous then the measures they were implementing. Not surprisingly, we were mostly ignored and when responded to we were fobbed off. You can find the testimonials and letters here https://t.me/communityservicesspeakout
Officials have ignored any responsibility for the harms caused by their government measures. If you read documents they state that Covid caused these harms, Covid showed up the “cracks in our society”; and their solutions are Social Impact Bonds, further digitising services (taking them online), and tracking and tracing measures. You can see where we are heading in my video documenting the Fault Lines Report released in 2022, funded by three “independent” “philanthropists”, who are all own companies who make money off increased surveillance and Social Impact Bonds.
Terms of Reference for a Covid19 Royal Commission
In January the public was called on to submit their Terms of Reference for a Covid19 Royal Commission. My submission focused on Terms of Reference which would identify the social harms caused to the people by the government Covid measures. The Terms of Reference must focus on a rigorous and transparent cost/benefit analysis on the societal vulnerability (cost) created vs the benefit, due to government Covid19 measures.Here is my submission:
Re: The appropriate terms of reference for a COVID-19 Royal Commission that would allow all affected stakeholders to be heard.
I am writing on behalf of welfare workers and their vulnerable clients who were affected detrimentally by the government’s Covid19 response.
Included in my submission are 46 testimonials from welfare workers collected at the end of 2021, early 2022, which detail first-hand account of the harms caused by coerced and mandated vaccinations and lockdowns. As well as 6 sector letters outlining the harms caused by the government covid response in the following sectors:
1. Domestic Violence
2. Disability
3. Out of Home Care
4. Alcohol and Other Drugs
5. Youth
6. Vulnerable Children and Families
The testimonials and letters outline the increase in severity of domestic violence, suicidal ideation, isolation, emotional and mental distress, children’s education failing, vulnerable families falling through the cracks, distress regarding coercion to be vaccinated, children in foster care traumatised, generational vulnerability exacerbated, parent’s losing children due to service closures and court hearing time lags, effects of service closures and/ or client’s having to access services online, people losing work due to mandates and facing subsequent socio-economic issues, numbers of people struggling with drugs and alcohol rising, people losing long term (irreplaceable) trusted workers due to the mandates, and more. These harms are further outlined in the following video where workers testimonials are documented, this video forms part of my submission.
I concur with Professor Gigi Foster (School of Economics -University of NSW) analysis, which details the cost of Australia’s Covid lockdowns has been at least 68 times greater than the benefits they delivered (according to a recent analysis of the societal, economic and health merits of lockdown policies enforced through the COVID pandemic). Do lockdowns and border closures serve the “greater good”? A cost-benefit analysis, https://www.businessthink.unsw.edu.au/articles/covid-lockdowns-government-policy-analysis
The Terms of Reference must focus on a rigorous and transparent cost/benefit analysis on the societal vulnerability (cost) created vs the benefit, due to government Covid19 measures.
To analyse this cost/benefit analysis I recommend the following focus areas:
1. An investigation into the number of Australian workers who were fired or resigned due to the vaccine mandates.
2. An analysis into Australian workers losing jobs due to vaccine mandates and housing/ homelessness vulnerability.
3. An analysis into the correlation between mandates and subsequent worker shortages, with a focus on the harms caused for vulnerable client groups through losing trusted workers.
4. An analysis of all press conferences held by Premiers, Chief Health Officers and government officials speaking about Covid and vaccination; to ascertain whether directives included vaccine coercion, societal division, and segregation between those who were vaccinated and those who weren’t. Including, an analysis of the data that the officials were relying on to make their statements, and the subsequent accuracy of this data. I have documented some of the divisive and coercive statements made by government officials here (Covid19 Inquiry Government Submission Youtube video)
5. An analysis of Premiers, Prime Minister and Chief Health Officer’s statements about the safety and efficacy of vaccines, the data relied upon to make these statements, and the subsequent accuracy of these statements. I have documented some of the changing statements here (Covid19 Inquiry Government Submission Youtube video)
6. An analysis of the outcome of children’s educational accomplishments and capacity pre government Covid response to end of year 2023.
7. An analysis of reported mental health issues pre government Covid response to end of year 2023.
8. An investigation into psychiatric prescription medication prescribed pre government Covid response to end of year 2023 (including breakdown of ages).
9. An analysis of Risk of Serious Harm reports to FACS pre government Covid response to end of year 2023.
10. An analysis of Drug and Alcohol support enquiries pre government Covid response to end of year 2023
11. An analysis of suicide rates and suicidal ideation pre government Covid response to end of year 2023.
12. An analysis of Domestic Violence reports pre government Covid response to end of year 2023.
13. An analysis of numbers of Children in Out of Home Care placements collapsing pre government Covid measures to end of year 2023.
14. An analysis of the total government spending attributed to their Covid response, and the relationship between this spending and the inflation issues Australian’s are now facing.
15. An analysis of government Covid measures and their effects on small business, to ascertain how small business is faring in 2023 compared to pre Covid measures.
16. An analysis into funding sources to Australian media which promoted vaccines, mandates, lockdowns; including where the money came from and if there are there any connections to those making money from the vaccines or the effects of lockdown measures.
17. An analysis into the ABC’s membership of the Trusted News Initiative which involves Google, Meta, Microsoft etc. and if there are any conflicts of interest inherent with these companies benefiting financially from vaccines and/ or flow on effects from government Covid19 measures.
18. An analysis into the funders of the WHO, and partners of the United Nations to ascertain whether there are any inherent conflicts of interest. I.e., any individuals and corporations who stand to financially benefit from the measures that the WHO and the United Nations endorse regarding pandemics.
19. An analysis into any conflicts of interest inherent in the Social Impact Bond initiative endorsed by Treasurer Chalmers, where wealthy individuals and corporates can invest and make a profit off the following markets: homelessness, mental health, learning difficulties, alcohol and other drugs, vulnerable children and families and more. The same issues which were exponentially exacerbated by the government Covid19 measures. Social Impact Bonds and their correlation to government Covid 19 measures are explored here
and
20. An analysis of the wealth transfer which occurred due to government Covid19 measures, and the flow on effects of this.
21. An analysis of the data relied upon to determine the necessity of vaccine mandates, different rules for the vaccinated and unvaccinated, and lockdowns. This includes the data currently being relied upon to justify mandates which are still in place in many industries, including Welfare. if Covid19 vaccines do not stop people getting or transmitting Covid what data is being relied upon to justify ongoing vaccine mandates.
22. A comprehensive analysis of who benefited financially from Covid and who was detrimentally affected. An analysis of the “winners” and their relationship with government and global decision-making bodies, and any inherent conflicts of interest.
23. An analysis of the data used by the Australia government relating to numbers of hospitalisations and deaths from Covid with an emphasis on any skewering of data. The data was used to justify the government Covid19 measures and so it is important that this is transparent.
24. An analysis of why all data relied upon by government to inform their Covid19 response is not available to the public. Additionally an analysis of the contracts the government entered into with vaccine manufacturers, and any other industries which benefited from the government’s Covid19 measures.
25. An analysis into the appropriateness of nudge units and where the Australian government sourced its nudging framework. Examination as to whether the source has any conflict of interest with corporations who make money from- services, vaccines, online services, tracking and tracing measures, internet usage, data storage, including any industry which benefited and continues to benefit from the government Covid measures.
https://news.yale.edu/2021/11/03/appeals-community-spirit-shame-most-likely-shift-vaccine-attitudes
https://www.un.org/en/delegate/secretary-general-launches-guidance-behavioural-science
I created a video which outlines worker testimonials and mainstream media reports on the harms caused by the government response to Covid. Additionally, I have included examples of government official’s statements showcasing mixed messaging, encouragement of “othering”, discrimination, and coercion. This video can be found here (Covid19 Inquiry Government Submission Youtube video)
Newspaper articles documenting the harms caused by government covid19 measures:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4114879
https://info.primarycare.hms.harvard.edu/review/sexual-violence-and-covid
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-01/escaping-family-violence-children-during-lockdown/100040326
I support the Terms of Reference submission submitted by Julian Gillespie, and the endorsed key witnesses. I submit my name to be a key witness for the societal harms caused to the most vulnerable members of Australian society, due to the government Covid19 measures.
Please find 46 workers testimonials and 6 sector letters attached in two separate documents, included in my submission.
Sincerely,
Kate Mason
Julian Gillespie’s submission can be found here https://8630368.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/8630368/AMPS%20-%20Proposed%20Terms%20of%20Reference.docx.pdf?
I am not naive enough to think that the government has any interest in actually grappling with the information outlined above, and the harms they’ve caused. Instead they are misusing these harms to create markets off people’s vulnerability and justify increasingly dystopian surveillance, quarantine, and control solutions. All whilst virtue signalling about how they are “good” “benevolent” government and investors looking out for the people and common good (the abhorrent common good narrative will be unpacked in another post).
Though I am aware that the government is not working for the normal person (by this I mean people who are not filthy rich) I still believe it is important to document concerns, so we can keep people’s voices being heard and recorded. Otherwise all we have is government and private body gas lighting narratives that they are benevolent and that their Covid measures, and the subsequent ushering in of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (merging human with technology), was done for our benefit.
Thank you for the good research and the documentation of harms that you have carried out with other concerned folk. So glad you are here on Substack and hope it goes well for you. Nice for Australians to have a resource that is focused on our country. (-:
https://www.theglobalfund.org/en/government/profiles/australia/