September 5, 2012 – Ms Dorey filed three applications for APVO against me, [Dan R] and [Dan B].

September 20 – Ms Dorey went on radio and described all three defendants as criminals and implied that we emailed pornography to her.

September 27 – First mention for all three applications in Ballina Court. Interim orders were placed on [Dan R] and [Dan B]. No order was placed on me. Applicant was to provide personal and witness statements by October 11, defendants to respond by October 25. [Dan R] had his mention adjourned to October 11.

September 27 – Ms Dorey published a blog post in which she said: "The judge (sic) declined to grant an interim AVO against the third defendant, Peter Bowditch". There can therefore be no doubt that she was at all times aware of the fact that there was no interim order applying to me. http://nocompulsoryvaccination.com/2012/09/27/interim-avos-granted-against-savn-founder-and-member/

September 28 – Ms Dorey approved the following comment and allowed it to be published on the AVN's blog: "Congratulations! Well done! As it concerns Bowditch, check out Auslii database. You will find that he has a criminal record and was incarcerated for aggravated assault. You may already have done so, but providing the justice with examples of Bowditch's internet criminality might prove to helpful". I have never been convicted of any crime, and it was this very lie that initiated the context in which I made my supposed "threat" to Ms Dorey in April, 2012.

October 11 – Ms Dorey attended Ballina courthouse to file her statements but was asked to make some corrections and resubmit them on October 15.

October 11 – [Dan R] attended Ballina court but Ms Dorey failed to appear, so the application against [Dan R] was dismissed. Ms Dorey subsequently successfully applied to have the dismissal annulled. The grounds for this appeal are not clear, as Ms Dorey had been present at the court house on the day.

October 14 – The day before they were submitted to the Court, Ms Dorey's three statements were published on Tim Bolen's web site in an article titled "Australian Skeptics Dragged into Court over Rape, Mutilation,  and Death Threats Against the Australian Vaccination Network Leadership" http://www.bolenreport.com/skeptics/Skeptics2/Meryl%20Dorey%20death%20threats.htm

October 15 – Ms Dorey submitted her statement to Ballina Court.

October 25 – I submitted my response.

November 15 – Mention in Ballina Court. As I had requested that the full hearing be conducted in a convenient place for me (I live in Wentworth Falls) the matter was adjourned to Lismore Court on December 10 to set a date for my attendance at a hearing by video link. (Ballina has no video facilities).

December 10 – Mention adjourned to January 15 to set a date for hearing by video link.

January 15, 2013 – Mention to set a hearing adjourned yet again to February 26. Ms Dorey was given permission to provide the Court with a supplementary statement. (The statement when supplied contained no relevant material that could not have been included in her October, 2012, submission.)

February 6 – Ms Dorey failed to attend a mediation session with [Dan B]. As she could not be contacted the mediation had to be adjourned to a later date.

February 26 – Date of April 26 set for full hearing by video of the application against me. The Notice of Listing included a hand written note from the Court staff instructing me to arrange for my end of the link.

February 27 – The April 26 date was vacated and the matter adjourned (presumably at Ms Dorey's instigation) to a sixth mention on March 5 to consider either extending the non-existent interim order on me or to place such an order.

March 5 – The April 26 date for a full hearing was reinstated, and no interim order was placed on me.

April 8 – Seventh mention – this was an administrative hearing to record in the court records that I would be appearing by video link from Parramatta Court on April 26.

April 23 – Ms Dorey published a comment about the AVO proceedings on Facebook in which she again used the word "criminal" and announced her imminent victory in court.

April 26 – Case dismissed. And she cried.

AUSTRALIAN VACCINATION NETWORK

Mr JOHN FLOWERS: My question is addressed to the Minister for Fair Trading. What action is the Government taking to protect the community from being misled by the Australian Vaccination Network?

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: I thank the member for Rockdale for his question and applaud his determination to ensure that the people of New South Wales are not misled by false claims emanating from fringe groups such as the Australian Vaccination Network Inc. As members of this House know, the Australian Vaccination Network [AVN] actively advocates against the use of vaccinations and denies that immunisation is responsible for a dramatic reduction in many serious diseases in the past century. It does this despite overwhelming evidence that vaccination is a safe, effective and rigorously studied practice that provides people with a high level of protection against numerous diseases, including several that can be fatal.

It is incredibly irresponsible for an avowedly anti-vaccination group to advertise itself as a balanced source of information on vaccination. Such action is not only misleading to the public but also dangerous to those who believe they are referring to evidence-based medical advice. This danger is further highlighted by recent comments by the head of this group, Mr Greg Beattie, who stated, "Don't trust your GP." The Australian Vaccination Network does not provide comprehensive or credible information on vaccinations. Nor does it offer a balanced view on immunisation.

The Government, the medical community and the Australian Medical Association led by Associate Professor Brian Owler are in agreement that the name "Australian Vaccination Network" is unacceptable. To address this issue in the public interest, in December last year the O'Farrell-Stoner Government introduced the Associations Incorporation Amendment (Unacceptable Names) Regulation 2012. This amendment expanded the classifications of unacceptable names to include any name that is likely to mislead the public in relation to the nature, objects or functions of an association. Following the commencement of this amendment, on 14 January this year Fair Trading issued the Australian Vaccination Network with a direction to change the name of its association. This was done on the basis that the name was undesirable because it had the potential to cause confusion, mislead the public and, most importantly, it was against the public interest.

On 8 February 2013 the association sought an internal review by Fair Trading of that decision. The internal review was completed by the principal solicitor of the Department of Finance and Services on 19 February and affirmed our original decision. The review found that the Australian Vaccination Network does not provide a balanced view of the processes, benefits and risks involved with immunisation and that, "Its views are anti-vaccination, and it advises against being vaccinated or taking part in immunisation programs." The review went on to comment that when issues have two sides the Australian Vaccination Network takes just one of them. On 8 March the association put forward some alternative names and Fair Trading responded to the association on 12 March.

I and, I believe, this House and the Government are of the opinion that the names proposed do not accurately reflect the true nature, objects or functions of the association.

At the eleventh hour, the association lodged an appeal in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal against the name-change direction. At the most recent hearing of the tribunal on 22 March this year, the president of the tribunal placed conditions on the organisation, including that a prominent consumer warning be published on the association's website and its Facebook page by 26 March this year. This warning states that Fair Trading has directed the association to change its name because it regards the name as misleading, and that the direction is currently being challenged in the tribunal. The warning will reduce the chances of consumers being misled while the tribunal proceedings are finalised. I inform the House that this matter is currently listed for hearing on 13 and 14 June this year. The Liberals and Nationals are determined to safeguard public health and have acted decisively to do so. Associate Professor Owler stated:

The State Government should be commended on its efforts to improve the health of children through its support of vaccination and its stand against the anti-vaccination lobby.

He added that the Government has shown a strong commitment to children's health. The recent introduction of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, which I can proudly say has been supported by both sides of the House, is further evidence of the action the Government is taking in this space. Two members of this House to whom I wish to pay tribute are the Minister for Health, and Minister for Medical Research and the shadow Minister for Health. Through their strong cooperation and hard work in this area, they have united in a common cause. [Extension of time granted.]

The people of New South Wales may rest assured that the Government and this House stand firm in their commitment to protecting our community. I thank all members of the House for their continued support as this issue is being tackled. On behalf of this House, I give notice to the Australian Vaccination Network that we are united in our stance to protect the most vulnerable in our community. The best way to do that is to ensure that we have a vaccination program that increases our level of herd immunity.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [6.25 p.m.]: The Health Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 proposes several amendments to the Health Care Complaints Act. As a member of the Parliament's Joint Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission, it is those issues to which I wish to address my remarks. The new provisions will allow the Health Care Complaints Commission to initiate and investigate on its own motion. This addresses a disappointing situation concerning an organisation known as the Australian Vaccination Network, which is a Bangalow-based organisation that is opposed to childhood immunisation that has successfully undermined many parents' confidence in the benefits of immunisation. The Australian Vaccination Network's former director and founder, Meryl Dorey, has undertaken extensive media interviews across Australia using free national media, radio and print to promote her claims that vaccines are toxic and harmful to children. Ms Dorey claims:

Passing through measles infection is sometimes required, for whatever reason, to strengthen some part of a person's vital force.

Ms Dorey insists that highly infectious childhood illnesses such as measles, mumps, rubella and chicken pox are benign. There are many good reasons to spare our children the illness and scarring that can result from these diseases. The foremost in my mind is to protect unborn children who are exposed to horrific consequences in the event that their unprotected mothers are exposed to and catch rubella. Ms Dorey reportedly insists that whooping cough cannot kill children. Whooping cough is an horrific disease that causes immense distress and suffering to babies and their tiny lungs.

In addition to all the media coverage, there is a website and a quarterly magazine called Informed Voice. The zeal and success of the Australian Vaccination Network accumulating scientific fact and truth about immunisation is, sadly, having deadly effects. The Australian Vaccination Network's campaign has been rampant in my community of Northern Rivers, and childhood immunisation rates have fallen below 70 per cent compared with 90 per cent for the rest of Australia. In the Byron shire, which is home to the community of Bangalow, the rate has fallen below 50 per cent.

In 2009 tragedy struck in my community of Lennox Head when four-week old Dana Elizabeth McCaffery died of whooping cough. By all accounts, this newborn baby fought bravely, but in the words of my local paper, the Northern Star, she never had a chance. The standard schedule of immunisation at that time was two months, four months and six months. The Northern Rivers Health Service, given the appalling immunisation rates in the region, has brought forward the first round to six weeks, but because Dana was four weeks this would not have saved her life. Her parents support immunisation, but they never had that chance.

The only things that could have prevented her death would have been if there had been no whooping cough outbreak in the region and if the disease had not been rampaging through the community. That is why our low immunisation rate can be held directly responsible for this tragedy. Following Dana's death responsible and qualified members of the medical and scientific communities formed an organisation called "Stop the AVN". However, the network lodged a complaint about the organisation with the Health Care Complaints Commission. The commission's investigation concluded:

• A Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) inquiry into Bangalow-based Australian Vaccination Network has found the organisation provides misleading and inaccurate information on vaccinations.
• The network has been given 14 days to comply to the following recommendations:
• There should be prominent statement on the network's website explaining its purpose was to provide information against vaccinations;
• The information provided on the network should not be taken as medical advice; and
• A decision about vaccinations should be made in consultation with a health care provider.

In addition, the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing investigated and cancelled the network's charitable status. The network appealed against the Health Care Complaints Commission ruling and the Supreme Court found deficiencies in the authority of the commission to investigate. That was a disaster. The network had shielded itself from the commission's orders by the clever use of legal technicalities and the decision was presented in the media as a court endorsement of the organisation. I was horrified when I saw the front page of the Northern Star featuring a full-page photo of Ms Dorey with the headline "Vindicated!".

I have pursued the problem of the Australian Vaccination Network as a member of the Joint Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission, and I know that others have also pursued the issue. I am surprised that the commission and NSW Health have not acted more promptly to make these amendments, although I am delighted to see them before the House today. They will close the loopholes that allowed the Australian Vaccination Network to continue issuing its misleading and deceptive information. Countering the dissemination of dangerous information by any non-health care provider is the highest priority. I hope that when this bill is passed the Health Care Complaints Commission will immediately return to its investigation of the Australian Vaccination Network. The whole point of Parliament's passing this legislation is to empower the commission to do just that.

I understand that NSW Fair Trading has ordered the Australian Vaccination Network to change its name. That order has been appealed and it is now being considered by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. I wish it well. I point out to the Health Care Complaints Commission and the Minister for Health that irrespective of NSW Fair Trading's success it will not be enough. The network will continue its activities and the Government must do whatever it can to protect the lives of our defenceless babies and small children. I call on the Health Care Complaints Commission immediately to stop the Australian Vaccination Network spreading misleading information and I ask the media as a whole not to facilitate the dissemination of such dangerous messages to vulnerable parents who are already bombarded with confusing information and who somehow believe that the network's role in the immunisation debate is evenly balanced. It is not.

THE founder of a controversial anti-immunisation group has been accused of using apprehended violence orders to gag her critics. Former Australian Vaccination Network president Meryl Dorey has applied for AVOs against three of her most vocal opponents. As a special condition of the AVOs, she wanted the men banned from making online comments about her in "any derogatory manner".

But she suffered a setback last month when her AVO was thrown out against one critic, Peter Bowditch, who she claimed posted harassing and abusive messages online.

She also took out an AVO against Daniel Raffaele, who helped start the Stop the Australian Vaccination Network group, claiming he made threatening calls to her. Mr Raffaele, who denied making any threatening calls, said he eventually agreed to the order because he was "sick of dealing with it", although he made sure her "gag order" was struck out. "The only thing I was never going to agree to was being silenced on the internet," Mr Raffaele said. "The information (the AVN) spread is dangerous and it's not based on anything other than lies – and it costs lives."

In his submissions to court, Mr Bowditch said he lived 750km from Ms Dorey's home at Bangalow, near Byron Bay, so there was little chance he would come into contact with her if she genuinely feared for her safety. "It is obvious to me that this application ... is actually an attempt to prevent me speaking about or criticising (her) activities," he said.

Western Australia-based Dan Buzzard, another AVN opponent, said Ms Dorey probably saw taking out the AVOs as a "quick and easy" way to silence her critics. He will defend the application today. [Note: the paper got it wrong – the hearing is scheduled for Friday, May 24]

Ms Dorey refused to comment on the applications but denied using the AVOs to shut up her opponents. She said she had received anonymous death threats and had only taken the AVOs out at the suggestion of police. Ms Dorey accused The Daily Telegraph of running a campaign against parents who chose not to vaccinate their children and said she was still "taking legal advice" on appealing the magistrate's decision to dismiss her AVO against Mr Bowditch.

Meanwhile, Premier Barry O'Farrell said he would consider new laws giving childcare centres the power to refuse entry to kids who had not been vaccinated, one of the aims of The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph's No Jab, No Play campaign. He said the government was committed to lifting the number of vaccinated children.

You can read the story in the Daily Telegraph.

Needle point

In the early 1950s, when every parent was terrified that their children might catch polio, there was a small amount of opposition to the vaccine. The objectors were treated with the ridicule they deserved.

Jump forward a few decades and there are organisations around the world that have deceptive names like the National Vaccine Information Center (US), the Australian Vaccination Network and Justice, Awareness and Basic Support (UK) which exist for no other purpose than to spread untruths about the supposed dangers of vaccines. All these groups were set up by people who claimed, without evidence, that they had "vaccine damaged" children. These people denigrating vaccines and abusing the scientists who developed and tested them were no longer treated with scorn. Now they had become experts, called on by the media to provide "balance" whenever the topic of vaccines was discussed. When a new vaccine came onto the market television shows would compete to have these experts on to warn the public about potential dangers.

You can read the rest here