“The negligence claim is founded on a novel duty alleged to be owed by each respondent to the group members “to exercise reasonable care and skill and to avoid or minimise the risk of harm.”
The defence by the Department of Health in response to the vaccine injured is an insult to them and taxpayers who funded their egregious behaviour throughout COVID.
When asked in estimates as whether or not the Department of Health has a duty of care to the vaccine injured they of course said it was before the courts and couldn’t comment.
This is a cop out as the documents they tendered are in the public domain and they have commented – they claim they don’t have a duty of care.
The decision is still pending but it is worth adding the fact the decision is still pending is another reason why we need an Independent Judicial Commission including rules around the time it takes for a judge to make a decision.
People can’t be waiting forever for judges to be making decisions. While I accept cases can be complex, an astute legal mind should be able to cut through the legalise and get to the substance of the matter.
In this case it is very simple, the Government claimed it could keep us safe and that the vaccines were safe and effective. They weren’t.
The Government lied and people died and were injured from the vaccines. They need to be held to account.
https://www.covidvaxclassaction.com.au/covid-vaccine-class-action-3/
Community Affairs Legislation Committee
26/02/2025
Estimates
HEALTH AND AGED CARE PORTFOLIO
Department of Health and Aged Care
Senator RENNICK: I would like to raise some questions regarding the court case between Anthony Rose v the Secretary of the Department of Health and Aged Care, Brendan Murphy and others. It was raised earlier this year. One of your defences in the court case was that you believed that the alleged duty of care is novel and that you didn’t owe a duty of care to the Australian people. That was your defence. What do you have to say about that?
Mr Comley : I want to check, because I haven’t got that information in front of me. I am seeing if someone does. I am not sure I know off the top of my head the status of that case and whether we can actually comment. I am trying to check who would be the right person in the room to respond.
Senator RENNICK: This is a public document, as far as I am aware.
Ms Moore : Which case are you referring to?
Senator RENNICK: It is Anthony Rose v the Secretary of the Department of Health and Aged Care, Brendan Murphy, and others in the Federal Court New South Wales registry.
Ms Moore : Sorry, Senator, but what was your question?
Senator RENNICK: Your defence with regard to the applicant—that is, the vaccine injured—was that you didn’t owe a duty of care to him and others injured by the vaccine and to everyone who got the vaccine. That was your defence.
Ms Moore : Senator, that matter is currently before the court, so it would not be appropriate to go into any details. It is obviously the case that we would put forward a quite comprehensive defence that would go into a lot of different details. It wouldn’t be appropriate to comment on something before the court.
Senator RENNICK: We are inside the estimates and we have privilege. Whether I take it outside is up to me. Right here and right now we’re inside Senate estimates. I think you need to justify this to senators who represent the people, particularly after the entire two years people were locked up. The government said that they were going to keep them safe. Premiers, prime ministers and health ministers et cetera did. You have turned around and said to people who were injured and anyone else impacted by this that you don’t owe a duty of care. Is that the stance of the Australian government? Is it: ‘Too bad, so sad. We don’t have a duty of care to the people?’ You are paid taxpayers’ dollars.
Ms Moore : That matter is actually managed through our other legal division, which is the regulatory legal services division throughout the TGA. As a general comment, obviously any matter that is brought before the court—any issues that are up for that—is live. I don’t have the specifics of the pleadings here with me.
Mr Comley : I think the general point Ms Moore is making is that, even if we had those specifics in front of us, rearticulating what is being put by Commonwealth legal representatives in an active court case is something we wouldn’t do.
Senator RENNICK: Let’s drop the court case. Do you think you have a duty of care in your role as head of the department and TGA? You roll out approved medicines on a daily basis. Do you or don’t you have a duty of care to the Australian people when you roll out these medicines to ensure that they are safe and effective?
Mr Comley : I might ask Professor Lawler to comment. I am cautious of adopting the language you have used of duty of care because duty of care has a specific legal meaning. Particularly given that you have raised it in the context of a court case, I would not use that language. Obviously for me as the secretary of the Commonwealth health department, and for the Commonwealth in general, our fundamental mission is to support the health and wellbeing of the Australian people. What we do is put in place policies and processes that seek to achieve that objective. That’s what we consistently do with respect to the processes we have in place for approvals of things such as vaccines, for the funding of vaccines and for campaigns to promote the use of such vaccines. All of those steps are with the fundamental objective of seeking to protect the health and wellbeing of the Australian people. Professor Lawler, do you want to add anything to that?
Prof. Lawler : I don’t think I have anything to add to that, Secretary.
