Government puts boot into the AVN, Democracy and the Truth

face

As many of you would have seen, the NSW Department of Fair Trading has announced that they want the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) to change its name because of concern from within the community. Yet in their response to the media, the only one who complained was the Australian Medical Association – an industry lobby group who obviously feels threatened by the idea that parents might choose not to vaccinate – costing them money. Is this not anti-competitive behaviour on the part of a government department? Should government bodies really be cooperating so closely with those who hold strong vested interests in opposition to the interests of the public – interests which they are supposedly meant to protect?

The Department’s open cooperation with the AMA is analogous to them responding to complaints by mining companies about Greenpeace’s name. After all, Greenpeace is not green, nor do they go around looking for peace, therefore, would the Department tell them to change their name too? How about the Cancer Council? Couldn’t someone be misled into thinking that they are FOR cancer? And the Department of Health? Don’t get me started! The Department of Ill-Health would be more accurate in my opinion.

Community concern?

The saga started back in August of this year when the Department sent the following letter to the AVN’s office (please click on the image below to view it at full size in your browser)

photo

On September 7th, I sent the following response to Mr Jones at the Department of Fair Trading and, having never received a response from him, I assumed that this government body realised how misguided it was to try to stop our group based solely on our name (which had been registered with them since 1996). It seems however, that I overestimated the maturity of government agencies!

Don Jones 07 09 12 re Name Change

Yesterday, the following letter was hand-delivered to my home by two Department of Fair Trading officials. I was not home to accept the letter since I was attending a conference on bullying at the time – pretty ironic, don’t you think? They had come to our home about 2 hours earlier looking for a different address – and it took them almost 2 hours to find the correct location. This is despite the fact that the Department of Fair Trading has had our physical address on file for many years.

In this letter, the Department is ordering the AVN to change our name or they will deregister us come February 2013, effectively closing our organisation down – apparently a long-time goal of government departments, the Australian Skeptics and Stop the AVN as well as the AMA and the pharmaceutical industry.

Hand-delivered letter re-name change

What’s in a name?

As I said in my letter of September 7th:

The Australian Vaccination Network has been registered with the Department of Fair Trading since 1996 and at no time until the present has our name been called into question. We represent a group of Australians who discuss the issue of vaccination and we are also a network of like-minded individuals who have banded together for mutual support and for the dissemination of information on the issues surrounding vaccination in Australia. Can you please inform us which of these words – Australian – Vaccination – Network, could possibly be considered to not represent our organisation? Which of these words does the Department consider to be misleading and why? Also, can you please inform us of what name the Department would consider to be appropriate for our organisation?

To date, I have not received an answer to any of my questions nor has the Department acknowledged the AVN’s concerns in any way.

In newspaper articles which have appeared in today’s papers, the Minister for Fair Trading (perhaps they might consider changing that name because at least in the present situation, it is extremely misleading!), Mr Roberts, stated that, ”People do not have the freedom of choice when it comes to endangering others … it’s the equivalent of saying a bloke can speed down the road and endanger others,” So I ask – is Mr Roberts saying that vaccination is not a choice anymore and does he have any evidence to back up the claim that freedom of choice when it comes to vaccination is endangering others?  The outbreaks in highly vaccinated communities seems to say otherwise. In addition, it might appear that the Minister is be calling for vaccination to become compulsory in Australia when he states that people “do not have the freedom of choice”. This is an issue that should concern all of us – whether we choose to vaccinate fully, selectively or not at all.

The minister then goes on to state that he, “has warned other states if the AVN tries to register elsewhere.” We regularly hear of scam businesses and dangerous medical doctors who, being shut down in one state, immediately register in other states to continue practicing. Does the Minister for Fair Trading send the same APB out in these cases? Since they do this successfully time and time again, I would think he does not. Why the ‘special treatment’ for the AVN?

Whose pain and suffering are they talking about?

In the same article, it is stated that:

NSW Fair Trading Minister Anthony Roberts fired a broadside at the AVN, saying the information it provided was a public safety issue of “life and death”.

“This is not a victimless issue, it’s about the ability to stop pain and suffering,” he said.

It’s great that Mr Roberts wants to stop pain and suffering, but where is his concern for those children and adults who have suffered as a result of vaccination? And is his Department really supposed to make their decisions based on medical information or simply based on whether or not our name is considered to be misleading in some way by some unknown and unstated measure? If they based their decision on medical information, what was the source of this data and did they seek a range of opinions?

Rights? What are these rights of which you speak?

Most frightening of all – to anyone who is interested in issues of human rights and freedom of speech, is the fact that the Assistant Commissioner for Fair Trading is actually proposing changes to the legislation based solely on their desire to be given more power to force organisations like the AVN to change their names:

Mr Vellar said the NSW Government was working on changing definitions in the Associations Act to include group names that were in conflict with the group’s charter.

Two very important points to make here:

1- This is the second government body which has proposed changes to government legislation in order to better attack the AVN. The HCCC, who we bested in the Supreme Court earlier this year, is trying to change the legislation which allowed us to win against them. Astoundingly, they want complaints to be valid no matter who files them – and the person complained about would not have to be a practitioner or to have treated or advised the complainant – they simply would need to have made a statement which ‘affected’ the complainant in some way. Such legislation would be so open for abuse it would leave every Australian at risk of being the victim of one of these complaints. The only exception proposed to this legislation would be medical practitioners. So the government body which was set up to protect Australians from dangerous practitioners seems to instead want to protect practitioners from Australians!

2- Mr Vellar says that our name is in conflict with our charter, but I believe that Mr Vellar has never even read our charter (I am assuming he means our publicly posted constitution and code of ethics since we don’t actually have a document called a charter) because if he had, he would see that our name is absolutely representative of what we stand for. Here is a link to our constitution and here is our code of ethics.

Blog overlap

The letter from the Department was handed to my daughter at approximately 11:45 AM and the first article appeared in the Australian media approximately 10 hours ago. But Skeptic blogs started to announce this information approximately one hour before the media did. How do you think they came by this information? I really do wonder. Is there a direct line of communication between the Australian Skeptics, Stop the AVN (SAVN) and government departments? There is a long and open history of collusion between media outlets and various ‘skeptics’ so it is not impossible that they heard about this letter before the AVN had even received it. Is this collusion one of the reasons why these departments have been ‘putting the boot’ into us for the last 4 years at an apparent cost of millions of dollars to the taxpayer? Is the fact that many SAVN members are actually employed by government departments – and use their government email addresses when writing about the AVN and wanting to close us down – cause for concern? I will leave those questions with you to ponder.

Abuse of process

According to Section 11 of the Associations Incorporation Act 2009,  the Director General must specify why a name is unacceptable in order to force an organisation to change it. As far as I have been able to determine, he has not done so in this case. In addition, despite our asking what name or names the Department would consider to be acceptable, we have been left in the dark. We have also never been told what part of the words “Australian Vaccination Network” are considered to be misleading. This puts the AVN and our 2,000 members in a difficult – even impossible position – in regards to complying or negotiating with the Department.

In addition, the Director General has not responded to the AVN’s submission of September 7th regarding the reasons why we believe that our name should not be changed. Not allowing us to communicate with them on this matter is, we believe, an abuse of process and evidence of procedural unfairness.

It’s not about health or fairness

This struggle has never been about something as ridiculous as our name. Instead, it concerns the right for an organisation to provide information to the public that government has neglected or refused to do. Why won’t the government exercise its duty of care and fully inform Australians about both the benefits and  the risks of this medical procedure? And  when will this policy of information suppression and suppression of dissent change? If the AVN is fully dismantled, access to full information and support for families whose children are vaccine injured is even less likely or possible. But does the government truly think that shutting down the AVN will stop parents from questioning? Questioning vaccination has been going on for over 200 years – closing down one small group will not change that. And surely the parents of Australia deserve better than that from their government departments!

Since winning our case in the NSW Supreme Court in April of this year, the AVN has been targeted on more than 10 different occasions by 7 separate government departments. It is hard to see how this can be anything but a blatant attempt by these departments – working closely with industry groups – to suppress dissent on a health issue. Forcing the AVN to close or change its name is not in the public interest – it is only in the interest of pharmaceutical companies, government policy and mainstream medical organisations.

About these ads

About nocompulsoryvaccination

Public Officer - Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network, Inc.
This entry was posted in Accountability, AVN, Medical Bully-Boys and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Government puts boot into the AVN, Democracy and the Truth

  1. Bryan says:

    Governments around the world have been co-opted by corporations and influential organizations with money. In short, governments are now fully corrupt! Keep fighting back and if you must change your name, perhaps “Vaccination Information Network of Australia” would be a suitable replacement that cannot be disputed.

  2. Kits against poison in Kits says:

    The TRUTH be damned! These lackies need to be whipped back into the caves they crawled out of, . An interesting tidbit – The American Academy of Pediatrics just reversed their longstanding decision against mercury in vaccines, saying that there is no evidence that it causes harm, even though a full vaccine schedule exceeds the EPAs limits for exposure (which is itself qustionable). Keep up the good fight and never give up!! Sounds like the Aussie Govt is every bit as fascist as the American Control Machine or government as it is so loosely referred to.

  3. ned kelly says:

    post the address of all these paper pushers and we the people can ask them questions to fill up their day .

  4. Tom says:

    Section 18(1)F is quite broad, they have not indicated in this letter WHY the name is “undesirable”, other than that they have received complaints that the name is confusing and misleading.

    He has stated that the name has mislead the public as to the operational intention of the organisation, shouldn’t he have to provide some evidence to support this claim? Or can public servants just make wild claims and accusations without having them questioned now? You have the right to review the complaints made against you and the information used in making this determination, I am not a lawyer but I remember something from school about natural justice. If I am not mistaken everything the Commissioner says at the end of the letter about being able to refuse to give the reasons would be found to violate natural justice.

    The issue has clearly been escalated, from the Assistant Commissioner to the Commissioner. The SAVN rascals have been hard at work, this is probably coming to a head because the department is sick of them and just wants them to go away. I would request a face-to-face meeting with the Commissioner, not anybody else, you should have a right to meet with the Director-General or anybody with the delegation to make the decision the Commissioner has made. Meanwhile the Commissioner has failed to answer any of the questions you posed to, or considered any of the information you provided to the Assistant Commissioner.

    The internal review process is just going to be a waste of time, who else can review it? You are at the top of the food chain here, you have the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner who will be unable to review it, anybody else will be subordinate to them and not at all likely to come back with a different decision. You should check with a legal professional or the Tribunal whether or not you actually have to wait out an internal review before proceeding to the Tribunal. Unfortunately with the negative publicity campaign, the tribunal isn’t going to be a walk through the park either.

    I see nothing wrong with “Australian Vaccination Network”, but I know which side of the fence I sit, so maybe just ask them to choose from a list of names like “Australian Vaccination Facts” (AVF) or “Side Effects Include Death” (SEID). Turn the SAVN victory on their head. They wont choose a name though, what they will probably do is refuse to register a new name. If you do manage to get a good outcome at some point, you should get a letter confirming that the name, new or old is determined not to be “undesirable” under the act. Check that if you are in some kind of dispute about the name that your registration cannot lapse while it is being sorted out, otherwise expect them to screw you around until the registration lapses.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s