The folks at Reignite Democracy Australia asked the Australian government Health department two questions under the Freedom of Information Act.
They asked for documents that provide factual scientific evidence for the existence of the China coronavirus (COVID19 SARS-CoV-2) from it being isolated from a symptomatic patient.
They asked for documents that provide factual scientific evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that the PCR test used in Australia 100% positively identifies the China coronavirus (COVID19 SARS-CoV-2) and not any other coronavirus.
They got their response. No such documents exist!
This is totally in line with what others have written. There is no proof that the China coronavirus (COVID19 SARS-CoV-2) even exists because it has not been isolated and purified and thus its genome accurately mapped.
Particle purification is an essential pre-requisite for proving the existence of a virus, and thus to prove that the RNA from the particle in question comes from a new virus.
Secondly the RT-PCR test used to allegedly identify the China coronavirus (COVID19 SARS-CoV-2) in Australia was reported to initially have been developed and calibrated using the irradiated (dead or inactivated) SARS-CoV-1 virus, called SARS from back in 2002-2004.
The PCR test is even called the gold standard in testing and diagnosis of COVID-19. But unless you have isolated and purified the SARS-CoV-2 virus how can you develop a gold standard in testing for the SARS-CoV-2 virus? If you can’t say with certainty what it is you are testing for because you don’t have a purified sample of the target then how can you use the PCR test to establish the validity of the PCR test used for COVID-19? In Australia they use 40 to 45 cycles in the PCR test but any number over 25 is flawed and over 35 cycles can generate 97% false positives.
In the user guide of one test available in Australia, it clearly states the PCR test does not distinguish between SARS-CoV-2, Influenza (A and B types), Human Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) A and B types. The guide goes on to say that it only provides a qualitative test (not quantitative) and a positive result should be evaluated by a health care professional in the context of medical history, symptoms and other tests.
RT-PCR performed on respiratory samples is the main diagnostic modality for detection of acute COVID-19 disease. But this is being done in Australia under an emergency exemption from the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). (Source) Therefore if under emergency exemption it means it has not been approved for normal use. That means it has not met the burden of proof required for TGA approval. So how accurate is it?
References to any isolation of SARS-CoV-2 invariably depend on PCR technology and yet its inventor, Dr. Kary Mullis states why this is not a suitable application.
“PCR detects a very small segment of the nucleic acid which is part of a virus itself. The specific fragment detected is determined by the somewhat arbitrary choice of DNA primers used which become the ends of the amplified fragment” 
“Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron. PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers. Although there is a common misimpression that the viral-load tests actually count the number of viruses in the blood, these tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all; they can only detect proteins that are believed, in some cases wrongly, to be unique to HIV. The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves.”  http://fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/health/disease/news.php?q=1385227884