Alternative News of Shepparton | Other
Alternative News of Shepparton
Reviews
to load big map
24.01.2022 THE HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE SCARE CAMPAIGN HAS BEEN TORPEDOED AND SUNK Medical fraudsters have tried their best to scare the public into believing that Hydroxychlor...oquine, a 60 year drug with a long history of safety was now so dangerous, the government health bureaucrats must ban doctors prescribing it. And to achieve this they even fabricated data, and overdosed patients with toxic levels of HCQ - and then claimed ‘’look how dangerous it is. However in the past few days 2 new studies - from North America and Europe have found HCQ safe. https://academic.oup.com//10.1093/europace/euaa216/5910968 The first study published on September 25, 2020 in EP Europace, a journal of the European Society of Cardiology . The studies lead author Dr. Alessio Gasperetti of Monzino Cardiology Centre, Milan, Italy and University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland said; This was the largest study to assess the risk of dangerous heart rhythms (arrhythmias) in COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine.’’ And the study concluded that ‘’HCQ administration is SAFE for a short-term treatment of patients with Covid-19 infection ... https://www.medrxiv.org/conte/10.1101/2020.07.16.20155531v3 The second study was carried out by researchers from the University of Minnesota - Vanderbilt University Medical Center,Nashville - Department of Internal Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitob - Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton - Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal and was published 21 September 2020. This study was an Analysis of 2,795 outpatients, which did not show any significant safety concerns with HCQ. No deaths were related to HCQ. There was one serious event requiring hospitalization, identical to the frequency with placebo. The study concluded: ‘’Randomized clinical trials can safely investigate whether hydroxychloroquine is efficacious for COVID-19.’’ https://www.medrxiv.org/conte/10.1101/2020.07.16.20155531v3
23.01.2022 In the last Parliament sitting week, I asked the Police Minister who authorised the kettling tactics and water buckets at the cup day protest. I didn't quite ge...t the response I was after. However, this response raises even more questions: - If water bottles were there for protesters, and they were concerned about them being thrown at police, why didn't they just fill the cups from the water bottles? Why were buckets even necessary? - I didn't witness water bottles being handed out to protesters. Did this happen? - I also didn't witness water bottles being thrown at police. Did this happen? - If the response was to stop people congregating in groups of 10, why were people forced into close proximity in groups of 100+ against their will? This doesn't make sense at all.
22.01.2022 This is about 3 mins, 49 sec. I HAVE NO WORDS. None. Every day I think nothing could shock me any longer & then... this will probably not last long as will likely get censored or pulled quickly.
21.01.2022 It’s International coffee day! Why not celebrate with a cup of coffee and our homemade cakes ?
20.01.2022 OPEN LETTER CENSORED Yesterday North Queensland’s champion George Christensen, the Member for Dawson and I penned an ‘open letter’ to Queensland’s Chief Health... Officer, calling on her to not extend her ban on and criminalisation of Queensland doctors’ freedom to prescribe hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, if in the TREATING DOCTOR’S OPINION it might assist in saving a patients life. This ban and criminalisation automatically expires on this Friday, 2nd October 2020, unless an active step is taken to extend it. It is our view (as we express in the open letter) that actively engaging in conduct that prevents sick people accessing either; food, water or medicine - is both a violation of Human Rights and also constitutes a Crime Against Humanity. We had arranged for this open letter to be published in full pages in major newspapers today in Queensland, NSW and Victoria. However at 6pm last night, we were advised that all newspaper were now refusing to publish this letter as it mentioned Hydroxychloroquine. There are forces at work, that don’t want the public to know or even debate the facts.
20.01.2022 This was supported by the Member for Shepparton, Suzanna Sheed.......
19.01.2022 Andrew Bolt - Herald Sun Multicultural Victoria is insane. The Premier has said yes to handcuffing protesting grannies in a park, but no to fining Afghans actually spreading the virus. In an extraordinary press conference on Saturday, Daniel Andrews said his police would not charge the 34 Afghans from five families who’d just got and spread the virus by breaking social distancing rules....Continue reading
16.01.2022 NO, THIS IN NOT A JOKE Under s124 of the Public Health Act 2016 (WA), you can be detained, restrained and your underwear forcibly removed, and ‘medical treatme...nt’ to carried out upon you. And no, I’m not making this up, read it for yourself ..... http://classic.austlii.edu.au//consol/pha2016126/s124.html
15.01.2022 GAME CHANGER : US Senate Committee on Homeland Security to conduct hearing into Early Outpatient Treatment (with Hydroxchloroquine). Dr. Fareed is one of the w...itnesses. He believes that many more people will die 75,000 to 100,000 more in the United States alone unless doctors on the ground, outside the controlled environment of hospitals, can openly prescribe the HCQ regimen. The intent here, Fareed said, is for the HCQ cocktail to be administered within the first five to seven days after an initial COVID-positive test to keep someone out of the hospital and off a ventilator. He added it can be useful further into the illness as well, but it’s all about early intervention. He knows what works and he knows why, and he is disgusted by the politicization of HCQ and what he sees as wanton criminality yes, he said what has been done to cut off access to HCQ is criminal that has resulted in the death of tens of thousands of people. https://calexicochronicle.com//fareeds-hcq-crusade-contin/ I wonder if The Guardian and our ABC will be listen in ?
13.01.2022 The Covid-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) and Other Amendments Bill 2020 is something you'd expect to find in a tinpot dictatorship, somewhere in Sth America. B...ut, in Daniel Andrews Victoria, this outrageous insult to individual liberty is becoming increasingly common. The Liberals Nationals opposed this in the Lower House, it goes to the Upper House in a few weeks time.... See more
13.01.2022 NOTHING BUT A SMOKE & MIRRORS TRICK TO VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION All heil the great dictator’s benevolence - he is permitting his subjects to go fishing, but on...ly for 2 hours and only within 5km of your home !! Thank you oh great ruler !! But where is the science underpinning this ? How many people have contracted covid-19 out in the fresh air while fishing ? And what are the ‘’health reasons’’ behind a decision that you can go fishing for 2 hours only ? Do you set your alarm, at 1 hour, 40 minutes and then rush home like an obedient child to comply with the dictators rules because it’s keeps you ‘’safe’’ ? It’s all a complete absurdity - nothing but smoke & mirrors, designed to distract attention from away from the dictators true motivations - which are to violate the Constitution by preventing people protesting his wicked Omnibus Bill. In today’s announcement, the dictator has increased the fine for ‘’outdoor gatherings’’ (which includes public protests) to $5000. Why ? What’s the reason ? Is there any evidence that people are being infected AND DYING because of outdoor gatherings - and therefore the penalty needed to be increased ? Of course not. It’s all a complete sham. The increasing of the fine to $5000 for protesting (outdoor gatherings) is for the sole reason of taking away people’s Constitutional freedom of political communication, the right to protest against a government policy. A $5000 fine is simply to much for the average citizen to risk having to pay, and the dictator is using it to terrorise people into compliance, so they won’t protest against his wicked, evil and un-Australian Omnibus Bus. It’s nothing other than the action of a sociopath and psychopath who governors by terror and fear. Yet what the toadies in media lap it up, and praise the Dictator.
09.01.2022 In store now! Fresh Locally Grown Cherries! #shopherefirstsavemoney #cleverpeopleshophere #cherries #locallygrown
08.01.2022 RESIST JUDGEMENT OF OUR ADF The show trial of Australia’s elite Special Air Service Regiment (SAS) will mar the decades of valiant service these countless perso...nnel have given to help protect this country and our allies following today's report handed down by the Chief of Defence. I visited troops in Afghanistan for a week in 2018 and have nothing but admiration for the devotion they have given this war that started in 2001, following the attack on the World Trade Centre in New York on September 11. Its duration has spanned three American Presidencies, seven Australian Prime Ministers, and 19 long years. The report recommends that the Chief of the Defence Force refer 36 matters to the Australian Federal Police for criminal investigation. This involves 23 incidents and 19 individuals. While the nature of these allegations are just that, allegations, no government or media outlet have a right to pre-empt a judgement by a jury for the actions taken during the theatre of war. This Afghanistan war is no pantomime. It is a daily case of life or death for our Defence Personnel who must make extraordinarily quick decisions. Decisions I hope you and I will never need to make in our lifetimes. The way this announcement has been handled is wrong and I greatly trust that the majority of Australians look past some of the vitriolic comments made towards our ADF veterans and acting members. #Auspol #OneNation #PaulineHanson #ADF #Report #Defence
08.01.2022 Daniel Andrews’ indefinite detention plans and yet more questions Ian Hanke The Spectator Australia 22 September 2020 The lack of specificity in the Covid-19 ...Omnibus (Emergency Measures) Bill raises critical questions on which the Bill is mute but which need to be answered. To recap: The Bill allows the Secretary who administers the Public Health and Well Being Act 2008 to appoint any public servant as an authorised officer. It also provides for the Secretary to appoint as an authorised officer a person the Secretary considers appropriate for appointment based on the person’s skills, attributes, experience or otherwise. It further states: This will expand the persons who may be appointed as authorised officers. It is intended to include additional public sector employees from Victoria as well as such employees from other Australian jurisdictions, and individuals with connection to particular communities to ensure that certain activities, such as contact tracing, can be conducted in a culturally safe manner. The lack of specificity as to who can be appointed as an authorised officer is genuinely concerning as the Secretary can appoint absolutely anyone given the words or otherwise are so broad and non-specific. Anyone can be appointed. Yesterday morning on Neil Mitchell’s 3AW programme the Victorian Chief of Police, Shane Patton, reportedly said that he wanted more former police as authorised officers but nowhere in the Bill is this stated. It sounds more like deflection rather than an explanation as to the need for the Bill. In any case the CoP should not have to give an explanation for this egregious Bill when not one has not been articulated by any state government minister. But even if CoP Patton wants more retired officers appointed as authorised officers a mechanism already exists. On the VicPol website it states: Former Victoria Police officers wanting to return to the organisation are invited to register with the PRS Board prior to being considered for re-employment with Victoria Police. If you are a former police officer of Victoria Police and are interested in applying to return in a policing role, then you must register with the Police Registration and Services (PRS) Board). Upon registration, the Chief Commissioner or their authorised delegate will consider the advice of the PRS Board in determining your appointment. This process could quickly be streamlined under existing State of Emergency or State of Disaster declarations. Clearly the Omnibus Bill is not necessary to recruit former police. It is unnecessary and unjustified given Victoria already has 21,500 police including 3300 civilians. And why do we need more ex-police or others as authorised officers given that yesterday the infection rate fell to just 11 new cases and restrictions are due to be eased, in theory, over coming weeks? So it is hard to see why we need more ex-police officers let alone a gaggle of other authorised officers. Critically, the appointment of authorised officers by the Secretary raises serious concerns about public safety and administration of these authorised officers The first question that raises its head is under whose aegis these people would be operating? The Secretary has been given the power to appoint people of almost any ilk. Under the Bill the Secretary appoints authorised officers, but Section 200(1) of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 sets out the emergency powers that may be given to authorised officers by the Chief Health Officer during a declared state of emergency their power would seem to stem from the CHO. But would the authorised officers be employed by the Secretary, if they are already public servants would their department pay, or would they be volunteers? Would they report to the Secretary, their department head or to the CHO, none of whom have any experience in policing? The Bill is silent. And if they are not being paid by a Department, who will be paying these new authorised officers who are not public servants? Who would be responsible for WorkCover premiums, who would be responsible for OHS? And, this being in Victoria, who would be responsible for their social inclusion training? Again, the Bill is silent on these issues. If these newly-minted authorised officers are not paid by the Secretary or a Department will they be paid by their current employers? Could you imagine the righteous anger if a union official or the local council by-laws officer was made an authorised officer and was given extraordinary powers: to detain any person or group of persons in an emergency area for the period reasonably necessary to eliminate or reduce a serious risk to public health; to restrict the movement of any person or group of persons within an emergency area; to prevent any person or group of persons from entering an emergency area; to give any other direction that the authorised officer considers is reasonably necessary to protect public health. Yet that is entirely possible. Under this Bill, no-one knows who these authorised officers would report to. Their employer; the Secretary; the CHO; or some other authority? The Bill is silent. Then there is the issue of training. Who would train these people before they exercised their sweeping powers of arrest and detention? What sort of equipment would they be issued with to exercise their emergency powers as delegated by the CHO? There is no mention of whether these people would be uniformed; if they would have to carry identification; if they would have to identify themselves to people arrested and detained? It could give rise to a level of anonymity, which is important of they exceed their powers, or use excessive for in exercising their power. And it is worthwhile recalling these officers, under the proposals in the Bill, would be able to co-opt citizens to assist them in their duties who would also be unidentifiable. The potential for abuse of civil rights and liberties under these proposals is extreme. These potentially anonymous officers could be issuing fines, detaining individuals or groups, preventing freedom of movement all without training or accountability. The Bill is so sweeping and lacking in any specificity that this is entirely possible. The rights and liberties of citizens would be trammelled if this Bill were to pass. It is unjust, unnecessary, and an attack on democracy. It should be rejected out of hand by the Legislative Council when it is considered next month.
07.01.2022 The Andrews Labor government caused the second wave. And it’s now clear how it happened when you see the calibre and character of the people in charge. They reflect the character and calibre of the bloke who put them there. My column in today’s The Australian
07.01.2022 HOW CHINA AND THE MARXISTS AT THE W.H.O CREATED MASS VENTILATOR HYSTERIA AND KILLED THOUSANDS And how many people died because the social media giants cancelle...d anyone that dared questioned the authority and wisdom of the Marxists that run World Health Organisation? Advising against HCQ, but pushing mechanical ventilators is great plan if you wanted to kill people - but that exactly what the ‘’experts’’ at the W.H.O did. https://jordanschachtel.substack.com/p/first-choice-how-chi Mechanical ventilators have long been considered a last resort solution for treating patients with respiratory illness. The exact percentage varies, but the studies are unanimous in concluding that the vast majority of people who are put on a mechanical ventilator never make it off of one. In treating respiratory ailments, the highly invasive, high-risk maneuver that is mechanical ventilation is usually prefaced by less invasive measures, such as positive airway pressure machines like CPAP or BiPAP devices, or simple oxygen delivering nose prongs. But when COVID-19 hit, the long established scientific guidance on proper patient care was tossed out the window, along with other established norms, in the face of this much-hyped When the COVID-19 pandemic hit full swing, this learned and phased approach to ventilator use was nowhere to be seen. Doctors in Italy, Spain, and New York City in particular were rushing to mechanical ventilation early and often, thanks in part to a fear-based transmission threat and an expert consensus that originated in China & was broadcast far and wide by the World Health Organization (WHO). In early March, when COVID-19 was ravaging western Europe and sounding alarm bells in the United States, the WHO released COVID-19 provider guidance documents to healthcare workers. Citing experience based on current knowledge of the situation in China, the WHO recommended mechanical ventilators as an early intervention for treating COVID-19 patients. The guidance recommended escalating quickly, if not immediately, to mechanical ventilation. In doing so, they cited the guidance being presented by Chinese medical journals, which published papers in January and February claiming that Chinese expert consensus called for invasive mechanical ventilation as the first choice for people with moderate to severe respiratory distress. The WHO further justified this approach by claiming that the less invasive positive air pressure machines could result in the spread of aerosols, potentially infecting healthcare workers with the virus. Seeing the situation in Wuhan unfold, and evaluating the guidance passed on from China and the WHO, U.S. public health experts became convinced that ventilators were an absolute necessity, and that we needed tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands more of these devices, to stave off the disease. Hysterical epidemiological modelers, the same ones that had just claimed millions of people were about to die from COVID-19 in the United States, took to claiming that there was a mass ventilator shortage in the United States. Governors across the country were now demanding ventilators by the boatload. After much bipartisan insistence from Congress, the president ordered U.S. manufacturers to build ventilators under the Defense Production Act. Based on the Wuhan experience, the United States was taking China and the WHO at its word, and reorienting some of our private industry economic engines towards building medical devices. Meanwhile, China, strangely, did not have much use for its ventilators anymore. China was now exporting ventilators in incredible quantities. Under the guise of humanitarian behavior, China was making a fortune off of manufacturing and exporting ventilators (many of which did not work correctly and even killed patients) around the world. Mindray, China’s biggest publicly traded ventilator-producing company, saw an explosion in growth thanks to ventilator sales. The market cap for the business is up 100% since the beginning of the pandemic. Meanwhile, as COVID-19 case growth exploded in New York City, some doctors began to notice that something was horribly wrong with the way patients were being treated for the disease. The COVID-19 guidance coming out of China, and being distributed in english by the World Health Organization, wasn’t working. In New York City, early and often ventilator use became a common theme, and it had devastating consequences for infected patients caught in the middle of the hysteria. On March 31, Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell, who had been caring for ICU patients at one of the hardest-hit hospitals in the city, sounded the alarm about the ventilator issue. He took to YouTube and became something of a ventilator whistleblower. We are operating under a medical paradigm that is untrue, Dr. Kyle-Sidell explained. I fear that this misguided treatment will lead to a tremendous amount of harm to a great number of people in a very short time. I don’t know the final answer to this disease, but I’m quite sure that a ventilator is not it, he continued. This method being widely adopted at this very moment at every hospital in the country is actually doing more harm than good. An April Reuters interview with dozens of medical specialists made it clear that mechanical ventilator overuse had become a global issue. Many highlighted the risks from using the most invasive types of them - mechanical ventilators - too early or too frequently, or from non-specialists using them without proper training in overwhelmed hospitals, the report said. By May, it was common knowledge in the medical community that early ventilator use was hurting, not helping COVID-19 patients, and that less invasive measures were in fact very effective in assisting recoveries. However, by then, the damage had already been done. The WHO recommendation has opened up a continuing conversation in the scientific community about the medical ethics of potentially unnecessarily harming a patient to hypothetically protect one’s colleagues from a virus (And one that is simply not that lethal. Although, in hindsight, it was difficult to be sure of this in early 2020). The early action ventilator guidance from China, which was distributed to the world by the WHO, very likely resulted in many lives taken from us far too soon. To my knowledge, neither WHO nor the Chinese government (which controls its medical associations) has acknowledged this catastrophic misstep.
05.01.2022 ALL SOCIALIST DICTATORS ARE EVENTUALLY HOIST ON THEIR OWN PETARD Are we seeing history repeating ? For throughout history, all socialist dictators are eventual...ly ‘hoist on their own petard’ - and it’s looks like the same thing will happen with the Victorian dictator. Three months ago I wrote about how Andrews and his henchmen would face prosecution under Victoria’s industrial manslaughter laws for their bungling mismanagement of the Covid situation - the very same laws brought in by Andrews and his extreme left-wing government to supposedly go after the ‘capitalist bosses’. And those very same laws could now possibly see Andrews and members of his politburo arrested and charge. Here’s Robert Gottliebsen further detailing the case ....... https://www.theaustralian.com.au//c7ecf7ca85d0e753867358ab The Victorian politicians and public servants caught in the hotel quarantine saga do not have amnesia but rather have a genuine fear that any admission of liability will cause them to be prosecuted under Victorian law. If found guilty they face a potential jail sentence of up to 25 years and/or a fine of $16.5m. Never before in Australian history have so many cabinet members and senior public servants faced such a danger so it’s no surprise that they all keep saying I don’t know. The weekend resignation of former health minister Jenny Mikakos’s included a statement that she strongly disagreed with the Premier’s evidence. She has not admitted accountability. Some of those involved in the quarantine fiasco were actually part of the plotting that designed one of the most vicious industrial manslaughter acts in the Western world. The legislation aimed to jail corporate boards for long periods if there was a death in their workplace or it could be linked to actions that took place in their workplace, irrespective of their responsibility or control. The legislation was passed in November last year and its wide powers and severe penalties have not been tested. But the Victorian public servants and politicians know its power intimately and have every reason to be scared because they are set to be the test case. And public servants and politicians around Australia are suddenly alarmed at what appears set to happen in Victoria, so are checking their own vulnerability. First to react are the WA government politicians and public servants, who are planning Victorian-style industrial manslaughter laws to jail boards and executives. Suddenly the WA politicians and public servants realise they could be jailing themselves, so they have moved to exclude government actions from the proposed law’s ambit. It makes what the WA government is looking to do a national joke. The general view in the Victorian community is that the senior politicians and public servants will never be prosecuted despite what legislation might say their mates will look after them. In theory that might seem right, but the legislation is clear and the high calibre of the people who will make the decisions means that the vulnerable public servants and politicians are right to warn their families of what might be ahead. Jenny Mikakos has resigned from her role as Victorian Health Minister, after Premier Daniel Andrews named her as the person responsible for the state’s hotel quarantine program. I must emphasise that it is one thing for a public servant or politician to be prosecuted and another to be convicted. It’s important for all Australians, and certainly Victorians, to understand just how the Victorian occupation and health/manslaughter system works. When Steve Bracks was Victorian premier, he passed some of the best occupational health and safety (OHS) rules in the country. The first part of the Bracks OHS legislation was that he made it easy for ordinary people to alert the head of WorkSafe Victoria and the Director of Public Prosecution that an OHS offence may have taken place. And once such notification is made to the WorkSafe chief he must either prosecute or publicly give good reasons for not prosecuting. If the WorkSafe chief rejects prosecution the case can be submitted to the director of public prosecutions, who again must either proceed with prosecution or publicly explain why. The head of WorkSafe Victoria is Colin Radford and the Director of Public Prosecutions is Kerri Judd. Clearly they must assess the situation but, given the enormous amount of damning evidence uncovered in the Jennifer Coate inquiry, for Radford and Judd not to launch prosecutions is almost inconceivable. Under the OHS Act it is the responsibility of the public servants and politicians to provide a safe workplace not just for those in the workplace but for others who might be impacted by what happens in that workplace. Hundreds of people died as a result of the events in the hotel workplace. This is almost certainly the nation’s biggest OHS catastrophe. I should emphasise a prosecution does not mean that the person charged is guilty but an OHS offence is a criminal offence. But to be convicted under Bracks’ OHS it must be shown that the person had some form of control and/or responsibility for what happened. For the recently passed industrial manslaughter laws to be triggered, there must first be a conviction under the OHS Act. The actual OHS Act is fair and allocates blame on the basis of control and responsibility. Accordingly, if you are a director of a company that, say, operates a farm and you made sure that all equipment was properly maintained, the staff were properly trained and the right safety rules were set in place, then if a staff member behaves badly causing a death or serious injury board members would not be liable under OHS. But under the industrial manslaughter Act the board members who acted properly are still likely to face long jail sentences. The WorkSafe chief, Colin Radford, has rightly launched an inquiry into the quarantine affair. In normal circumstances his inquiry would be the only one undertaken (apart from the coroner) but, in this case, a separate public inquiry has taken place and a vast amount of evidence has been publicly assembled so there is no way there can be a cover-up . Part of the problem facing Victorian ministers and public servants is that under Daniel Andrews the Victorian public service administration was vastly increased in size and sets of complex interrelated responsibility networks were set up to cover many issues. All around the state, in areas outside of those raised by COVID-19, people dealing with the Victorian government find it incredibly difficult because responsibility is divided into so many departments and committees. Very often only the Premier can sort through the morass. When this system was applied to a crisis, instead of responsibility being concentrated, it was spread over a large number of people, which greatly widens responsibility, firstly under the base OHS Act and then under the industrial manslaughter additions. Those who have studied the Victorian situation believe that the only way widespread prosecutions can be avoided is for Radford and Judd to give reasons for non-prosecution that will create precedents that destroy both the industrial manslaughter and the OHS rules. The government and public servants have been trapped by their own actions and that is why they are so scared. You could see the fear in their eyes when they gave evidence to the Coate inquiry.
03.01.2022 We have received communication from many HAP supporters who are concerned about the COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2020". ...This Bill has been described as one "of the most horrific attacks on democratic freedoms introduced by a Western government" and rightfully so. The HAP is deeply concerned by the implications of this Bill and will be launching a campaign in the coming days to encourage Victorians to engage with their political representatives in the Legislative Council to express their concerns. The Bill gives the Department of Health & Human Services power to appoint "Authorised Officers" to arrest and indefinitely detain anyone they deem to be a high risk or anyone they "reasonably" believe is "likely" to refuse to follow a directive. The definition of Authorised officer is so broad that anyone, whether having any formal qualification or training, could be appointed. The Bill brought to the Legislative Assembly (Lower House) was introduced by the Labor Party and was supported by the Greens and Independents Ms Suzanna Sheed & Ms Ali Cupper. It was rejected by the Liberals & Nationals and Independent Mr Russell Northe. The passage of the Bill now rests with members of the Legislative Council (Upper House) who are due to debate the Bill in mid October. It is expected the Greens will support the Bill with possible amendments if Samantha Ratnam returns from her maternity leave to vote yes as she did with the State of Emergency extension. Animal Justice Party's Andy Meddick and Reason Party's Fiona Pattern are likely to be the deciding vote. The HAP will continue to communicate with our supporters about the progress of the campaign and Bill.
02.01.2022 The wether looks pretty nice today. Perfect for one of our Berry Bliss iced teas topped with fresh strawberries and lemon. Or maybe even a cold beer from our bar !
