With government continually engaged in corrupt behaviour, there is a lot of speculation about why they would do it. Some of the more outlandish claims centre on Australia being or being owned by a corporation itself and the Governor General being invalid. Hopefully I can explain some of the detail behind this.

Transcript

My office deals with many telephone calls and emails on a whole range of topics. There are a few topics that keep popping up and this video is about responding to the many misconceptions around Australia being a corporation, the use of Australian Business Numbers, the relationship between Parliament, the Judiciary and the Executive and the Great Seal of Australia. There are many social media posts stating that Australia is owned by one or more corporations, or that Australia is a corporation. One such company that many people mistakenly think owns Australia is Pecker Maroo Proprietary Limited. This is not true.

Pecker Maroo owns some cleverly crafted business names that attempt to mimic state and government departments. For example, Pecker Maroo has registered the name Office of Fair Trading New South Wales, whereas the actual government entity is called New South Wales Fair Trading. Simply stated, some businesses operate by buying and selling registered trading names with a view to making a profit. One such company that does this is Pecker Maroo. Australia is not owned by any corporations and is not a corporation. Another commonly asked question is around the use of Australian Business Numbers, ABN’s. The Australian government uses a number of registered business names in order to enter into contracts and agreements with other businesses and countries. This is common international practise and is not unusual. Those government business names and companies are registered in the necessary registers, including foreign registers.

The relationship between the Parliament, the Judiciary and the Executive can be confusing. Australia is a sovereign country and its governance consists of three arms: the Parliament, the Judiciary and the Executive. Australia is also a Constitutional Monarchy, which means the Queen is the Head of State of Australia. Our government relies on the terms of the Australian Constitution, which came into effect upon Federation in 1901. The Parliament is where the laws are made and gathering assent from the Queen or her representatives is part of the parliamentary process of making an Act of Parliament.

The Judiciary comprises the judges within the court system and the courts apply and interpret the law that Parliament makes. The Executive comprises all the public service, including the police force, where our laws are administered. The police, for example, are public servants working for either a State or the Commonwealth government. The current Great Seal of Australia was issued under Royal Warrant by Her Majesty the Queen on 19 October 1973, to be used by the Governor-General and the Queen as Queen of Australia. A Great Seal is a formal, traditional means of certifying a document. The change to the seal in 1973 happened because the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 changed the previous title of the Queen as set out in the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953. The changes in 1973 essentially removed the words “United Kingdom” and word “Defender of the Faith” from the style and titles, and it was considered appropriate that the Great Seal also reflect those changes.

The Royal Style and Titles Act 1953 states: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of the God of the United Kingdom. Australia and her other Realms and Territories Queen. Head of the Commonwealth. Defender of the Faith. The Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 states it most succinctly: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of the God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth. At times there is a great deal of chatter and argument about the current Great Seal of Australia not being the true Great Seal, or that the incorrect Seal has been used. These arguments have been rejected by the courts. It appears that some parties, who perhaps have received unfavourable outcomes from various laws or decisions, are attempting to discredit and invalidate the laws, the judges, governor generals or elected governments, that operate under the Great Seal of Australia. These claims are baseless and I can assure you that the current Great Seal of Australia is the true Great Seal.

Paedophilia is among the worst possible offences someone could commit. My office has been told about a supposed suppression order on a document listing 28 high profile people accused of the offence.

Unfortunately, my investigations were not able to find any evidence supporting these accusations, with the document being merely an unauthored list of names and there is no suppression order.

Despite this, all allegations should always be thoroughly investigated and we need a Commonwealth Integrity Commission that is able to tackle corruption, criminality and misconduct anywhere in politics and the judiciary.

The list is unauthored and completely inadmissible as evidence in any kind of court. We cannot even contact the author to verify the allegations because we don’t know who they are.

There is no difference in evidentiary terms between the list and a napkin that I write your name on. There is no suppression order.

It is up to former Senator Heffernan to explain why he didn’t explain these facts when he raised it. We have done everything we can to pursue this issue but if a list is unauthored with no supporting evidence there is very little we can do.

After exhausting inquiries, this separate investigation and research was brought to our attention which provides insightful additional detail:

Transcript (click to read)

Speaker 1:

Well, did you know that there is a secret paedophile protection racket right here in Australia, implicating some of our most powerful figures in government, all the way up to the High Court of Australia? Well, that’s how the story goes anyway. And it’s not just a few people here and there, it’s everybody. Everybody in government is in on this conspiracy, everybody in our judicial system is in on this conspiracy. A lot of these allegations and these claims seem to stem back to one man’s speech in parliament, and that is a speech by Senator Bill Heffernan.

Speaker 1:

Now, if you haven’t seen this speech, it basically all boils down to one particular moment, when Bill Heffernan publicly discloses a secret list containing the names of 28 high profile figures in government, including a former PM, as well as a number of high profile figures within our judicial system. Now, the story goes that John Howard placed a 90-year suppression order on this secret list.

Speaker 1:

Now, to understand all this and put all the pieces together, you really have to understand the timeline of events that led up to Bill Heffernan’s speech. Obviously, during 2015, during Bill Heffernan’s speech, John Howard wasn’t the prime minister then, Malcolm Turnbull was, I believe, at the time. So we have to go back in time to when these allegations were first made, and that was way back in 1994, 1995, during the Wood Royal Commission into police corruption in New South Wales.

Speaker 1:

Now, if you’re not familiar with the Wood Royal Commission, it was established after a number of concerns were raised about possible corruption within the New South Wales police service. By 1995, the commission had uncovered hundreds of instances of bribery, money laundering, drug trafficking, fabrication of evidence, destruction of evidence, fraud, and serious assaults in the criminal investigation branch at King’s Cross Police Station.

Speaker 1:

Now, when were these allegations of paedophilia first made? The allegation of the existence of this conspiracy was first made by Colin Fisk, a convicted sex offender and member of such a network. The background to this allegation was his arrest, along with detective Larry Churchill, for child pornography and drug offences.

Speaker 1:

Now, who’s Larry Churchill? Well, he was the deputy detective sergeant to the then, at the time, Graham Chook Fowler, the detective senior sergeant of the King’s Cross Police Station. He’s basically the centrepiece of this Royal Commission, and he was also made famous on the Underbelly TV series. But it wasn’t until 1994 that Colin Fisk begun to make a number of allegations about exposing respected businessmen, a former media personality, and top legal identities, as well as an ex-politician, in this secret paedophile network.

Speaker 1:

This is where it starts to get a little bit odd, because shortly after Mr. Fisk was interviewed for the first time by the Royal Commission, information was leaked to a journalist who wrote an article in Woman’s Day in which he claimed that, “Mr. Fisk was about to give evidence before the Royal Commission. He would expose respected businessmen, a former media personality, top legal identities, and an ex-politician. And he was at risk of being murdered by a ring of millionaire child molesters and corrupt police officers who protected them.”

Speaker 1:

Now, it was obviously because of this Woman’s Day article that caught the attention of a Labour Senator, Deirdre Grusovin, who invited Mr. Fisk to her electoral office, where he made a further statutory declaration in which he claimed that all these allegations against these prominent high-profile people, known to be paedophiles, were first made way back in 1989 when he was arrested with Larry Churchill.

Speaker 1:

Now, he claims to have made all these allegations back in ’89, except all the copies of the records of interview to prove that he did make these allegations in ’89 have either been destroyed or they’re missing. There’s no evidence of it whatsoever. And he said when he went to the Royal Commission to give evidence about it, it was all missing and nobody could find it anywhere. He also made the claim that Mr. Marsden, John Marsden, who was a lawyer, was also involved in this paedophile network.

Speaker 1:

Now, this was introduced to parliament by Mrs. Grusovin. Mrs. Grusovin read this out under parliamentary privilege. That ultimately led, and this is important, that led to the New South Wales ICAC, the Independent Commission Against Corruption, who were already investigating possible links with New South Wales police and this paedophile network. They were already investigating. But because of this, because this statutory declaration was introduced, that then led to the powers of the ICAC being transferred over to the Royal Commission.

Speaker 1:

And now, this is really important. Not more than two months after that statutory declaration by Mr. Fisk, he then made a further statutory declaration on the 27th of January 1995, in which he basically retracts all the allegations that were made in Senator Grusovin’s office just two months prior, in which he says that in his confused state of mind at the time of making his statutory declaration, he could not differentiate between fact and fiction. He even retracted the allegation against Mr. John Marsden, the lawyer, for accusing him of being a part of this paedophile network. In which, John Marsden then sued Channel 7 for defamation for half a million dollars.

Speaker 1:

And also, on the records of interview way back in ’89, where he first made these allegations about these prominent paederasts, he said they did not exist in the first place. So the question we have to ask ourselves is, because this is where all these allegations first originated, we have to ask ourselves, why did Mr. Fisk push so rigorously to try and have the powers switch from the ICAC to the Royal Commission, so the Royal Commission would not only have to investigate the allegations of corruption within the New South Wales Police Force, but also this whole paedophilia area as well? That is a question we need to ask.

Speaker 1:

Why was he pushing so hard for that? Why did he make a statutory declaration, which ultimately led to that happening, to the powers being transferred to the Royal Commission, only then to retract those allegations not more than two months later, after the Royal Commission had to take on those duties away from the ICAC? The ICAC were going to investigate it anyway, but now it was transferred over to the Royal Commission.

Speaker 1:

I think this is an important point that not a lot of people are talking about in relation to this secret list that Bill Heffernan speaks about in parliament. Because let’s just play a clip from Bill Heffernan, where he talks about this being brought up during the Wood Royal Commission way back in ’94.

Bill Heffernan:

And the Royal Commission, the Wood Royal Commission, as you know, Mr. Attorney, was about to explore. And it’s in the Hansard, so it’s no great secret who the legal fraternity people were, that used to attend Castello’s, the boy brothel club, in Kellett Street, Kings Cross. And I’ve actually got the list here.

Speaker 1:

So Bill mentions he has the list of the legal fraternity, allegedly, who used to attend the Castello’s boy brothel in Kings Cross. Now, I think, if this list even exists in the first place, I think these allegations were first made by Colin Fisk to the Royal Commission. Because Colin Fisk actually did make a number of allegations that were investigated by the Royal Commission, and that brought people to justice. And it involved this Castello’s boy brothel. It was the Mayor of Wollongong, I believe, at the time, I can’t remember his name, who was directly involved in this paedophile network. And Castello’s was mentioned a number of times in the Royal Commission.

Speaker 1:

So, it was investigated, but this was made by Colin Fisk. So this leads me to believe if this list really is real, if there is an actual document containing the names of 28 high profile figures, that I think these allegations are made by Colin Fisk.

Speaker 1:

So, again, the question we have to ask ourselves is, why did Colin Fisk push so hard for this to happen? I think it was done, and if it wasn’t coordinated, it was definitely influenced by the corrupt New South Wales Police Force who were directly linked to Colin Fisk. Now, you might think that’s going over the top and all the rest. We’re talking about the highest positions within the New South Wales Police Force, the most powerful positions. They were doing everything they could to try and stop this Royal Commission from happening. Take a look at what they did just two weeks following the establishment of the Royal Commission.

Speaker 3:

Within weeks, the New South Wales Police Force showed they wouldn’t accept this Royal Commission without a fight.

Speaker 4:

The police service has tried to prevent individual police officers approaching the Royal Commission directly. It says that the sole point of reference between the police service and Royal Commission personnel will be the police department’s own rather menacingly entitled Royal Commission Response Units. It goes on to say that on no account is information to be supplied direct to Royal Commission personnel.

Speaker 5:

That’s one of the predictable responses that raises alarm bells, because it calls in question the degree of true cooperation there is from those who are raising this flag. It’s a diversionary tactic, and it’s often the product of a strategy from people who have most to fear from a thorough investigation.

Speaker 1:

A diversionary tactic. The New South Wales Police Force were playing these games not more than two weeks after the establishment of the Royal Commission. Is it too much to suggest that Colin Fisk a paedophile, a convicted criminal who was directly connected to the criminal underworld in Kings Cross, who was arrested with the deputy of the then senior detective sergeant, Graham Fowler, who was at the centrepiece of this Royal Commission into police corruption, is it too much to suggest that he possibly could’ve been used in order to create another diversionary tactic, in order to steer the Royal Commission into a different direction in their investigation, to implicate other people other than themselves?

Speaker 1:

Because remember, at this time, the New South Wales Police Force had no idea, all the corrupt people within the New South Wales Police Force had no idea that the Royal Commission at that time had an undercover informant who was basically dishing out evidence on a daily basis, video recordings, and also audio recordings of all the corruption that was going on at that time.

Speaker 3:

Evidence of corruption led out of the cross to police commands covering the state, then crossed the border and pointed straight at the Australian Federal Police.

Speaker 5:

That was a deep shock for me as it was a deep shock to a number of people who’d known these officers. And it was an extremely sad day, not just for the New South Wales police, but obviously for the federal police.

Speaker 3:

The evidence broadcast to the world included detectives selling heroin out of the back of police stations, cops running prostitution rings, and senior detectives trading in child pornography.

Speaker 6:

Now listen [inaudible 00:12:32] as far as these kids porno movies go, all right, $150 [inaudible 00:12:38] I can’t do any deals for that.

Speaker 3:

Further evidence of entrenched corruption led all the way to the top.

Speaker 7:

Well, yesterday, it was an assistant commissioner. Today, it was a chief superintendent. The New South Wales police inquiry continues to move into the very top echelons of the force.

Speaker 1:

Don’t you think that’s more of a plausible scenario than just everybody’s in on it, everybody’s in on the conspiracy, everyone’s a paedophile protector? We’re talking about a corrupt New South Wales Police Force who were trying every trick in the book, all these different games to try and stop the Royal Commission from happening, to steer it in different directions, to cause these diversionary tactics. I think that’s more of a plausible scenario than the entire system is in on the conspiracy.

Speaker 1:

Now, all of this, all of these theories that even I’m suggesting here, they all rely on the basis that Bill Heffernan is telling the truth. That this list is actually a real piece of evidence, and we have to rely on the fact that Bill Heffernan is a credible source. Well, who is Bill and what’s his history in parliament? Well, in 2007, Bill Heffernan once posed as an ASIO agent in order to contact the general manager of a irrigation farm in Australia, in order to extract information out of him. The general manager says, “I know Bill’s voice now, so it wasn’t long before I realised who it was. It’s the sort of thing that would go on in kindergarten.”

Speaker 1:

Barnaby Joyce, the now leader of the National Party, he even once said of Bill Heffernan, that his antics still surprise him. And he says, “The other day he rang one of his constituents, Laurie Nola, and for the first 20 minutes of the conversation, he said he was me, Barnaby Joyce.” Joyce continues, “And he was full of questions about himself, as in, ‘What do you think of that Bill Heffernan?'” And he once prank called independent member of parliament, Rob Oakeshott. He introduced himself as the devil, except Rob didn’t answer. It was his wife who answered the call. He even later admitted to doing this. He once walked into the Senate, walked into Parliament House with a fake pipe bomb in order to test the security system out.

Speaker 1:

So, this is the real Bill Heffernan. This is who he really is. And if you still think fabricating evidence in order to make allegations against people in our judicial system, like judges, things like that, that’s going a bit far. As if something like that could happen in Australia. Well, actually, that did happen not more than five years after the Wood Royal Commission. And it was a senator who used parliamentary privilege in order to make allegations against one of our most respected judges, Justice Kirby. He made the claim that Justice Kirby was using government cars in order to partake in illegal activities, by having sex with underage boys. And the evidence that this senator claimed to have had was the logs of the actual Commonwealth car, so the logbook, proving that these allegations are true.

Speaker 1:

Now, guess what senator made these allegations under parliamentary privilege? That’s right, it was Bill Heffernan. And after a police investigation, the allegations made by Bill were not only found to be false, but the evidence he used was found to be completely fabricated. So, this is the real Bill Heffernan. We have to take this man’s word for it, that the document that he held in his hand during that day in 2015 was, in fact, a real police document. It wasn’t fabricated evidence by the New South Wales Police Force, of which the Wood Royal Commission uncovered many instances of when those sort of illegal activities occurred, or that it wasn’t more false allegations from a known liar, criminal and paedophile, Colin Fisk, who was directly linked to some of the main players within the corrupt New South Wales Police Force at the centre of this Wood Royal Commission. All these other allegations he made about Justice Wood and others, we have to take his word for it, that it was all correct. It was all legitimate.

Speaker 1:

So, this is who they’re using. This is their credible source. And I’m not just talking about people within, the cue community and the conspiracy community. I’m talking about politicians, I’m talking about independence and people within political parties are using Bill Heffernan as this credible source in order to undermine the government in certain areas just for political gain for themselves. But they’re using this guy, Bill Heffernan, as their credible source. This is their man, this is their knight in shining armour, a bloody jester in a two-piece suit. And that is being generous as well.

Speaker 1:

So, look, maybe I’m missing something. If you have any other information, if you have more information on especially the suppression order that allegedly is being applied by John Howard, what has it been applied to? Is it this secret list? Is it just simply documents of police investigation that was mentioned by Bill in his speech? There’s so many questions that need to be answered here. And I just don’t see any of these claims holding much weight at all, when you are digging into it. Let us know in the comments what you think. If you have more information, let me know. I’m open-minded. If you want to send me something, I’ll look into it further because I’m actually generally interested in this, in finding more information out.

Speaker 1:

But, look, you want someone to blame? Blame Bill. Where the hell’s Bill on all this? He’s supposed to be this guy who wants to bring down this alleged paedophile network. Yet, what has he done? What has he done after he left parliament? He’s just gone into hiding. He’s the only one who had this list in the first place. Who really does know whether it’s real or not, and the claims made by him are true or false? So, where is Bill? That’s what I want to know.

Transcript (click to read)

Speaker 1:

Well, this is a quick follow up to my latest video on Bill Hefferman and the secret paedophile list. If you haven’t seen that, I’ll leave a link above, go and check it out. Watch the whole video, especially if you’ve heard about Bill before in the past, because I go into tracking down the origins of these allegations, not when Bill first made them in 2015, but going way back to 1994, ’95, when they were first made.

Speaker 1:

Now, I have to say, since I published that video I have received a lot of negative feedback from a lot of people who are pretty disgruntled on the treatment of Bill Hefferman, the claims that I made against Bill. And look, that’s completely understandable. I get it. I’m not trying to do this to undermine your movement or to discredit you guys or anything like that. It’s actually the opposite, and I’ll talk more about that in just a moment.

Speaker 1:

But among all the negative, I noticed a massive positive, and that is not only how passionate you guys are, motivated, but also how determined you are to really not just get at the truth, but determined to really fix a lot of these issues, a lot of these problems, especially to do with child abuse. So, that’s a massive positive that I pulled out of it.

Speaker 1:

Now, one of the negatives, among many, is how much you’re distracted by misinformation. Now, I’ve received so many private messages from people sending me different pieces of evidence, different allegations and things like that, and I said I was going to follow a lot of it up, which I have. Now, one of them, which I received a number of times, was this claim that even our own prime minister is a convicted paedophile, and he’s got a very shady past.

Speaker 1:

Now I’m just going to read one message here from lady that commented on this post. She said, “I suggest that you go look up our Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s deep, dark paedophile past. It’s not pretty, but he served time on home detention. Go look it up.” Now, the evidence that a lot of these people used, and sent me, was a court transcript that confirms this.

Speaker 1:

Now I’ll just read here. “On August 2nd, 1991, Scott Morrison was convicted of one count of third degree child molestation.” And it continues to go on that he only ended up serving 30 days partial confinement on work release and 24 months of sexual deviancy treatment. And that’s what a lot of people were saying. They’re like, “He committed child molestation in the past. He didn’t even go to jail for it. The whole system’s crock.” So I thought, “Okay, I said I was going to look into it, I said I was going to be open-minded, so I’m going to check it out.”

Speaker 1:

So first thing I did was just to verify if the URL was legitimate. And sure enough, it’s a legitimate URL, and this court document is also legitimate and it’s linked to it. Now, the second thing I thought, “Okay, well, I’ll start at the top and I’ll work my way down.” So I started the header. Well, I only had to get to the fifth line, “The state of Washington.” And I thought, “I don’t know about you guys, but I’m pretty sure we don’t have a state in Australia called Washington.” So I thought, “Okay, well maybe it’s a typo. I’ll continue on.”

Speaker 1:

And sure enough, just a couple of words later, “Respondent v. Scott H. Morrison.” I thought, “Okay, I’ll check his middle name, just to confirm that it actually does start with H.” Sure enough, “Scott John Morrison.” So it’s a not a H. It’s a John. I thought, “Oh my God.” So it’s riddled with confirmation that it’s not actually from Scott Morrison, our Prime Minister, it’s not even from someone here in Australia, it’s from a Scott Morrison in the USA.

Speaker 1:

Now look, this… I don’t blame you guys. I don’t blame the people who get caught up in this, because here’s the thing. They take stuff like this, they repurpose it and they turn it into memes. This is like a meme that another person sent me, PMed me. It’s got the court document in the background with a photo of Scott Morrison as a young guy. It says, “ScoMo? Yes, our prime minister, and we allow this criminal to run our country. Get rid of him, people.”

Speaker 1:

So, I don’t blame you guys. I blame the influencers. I blame all these other groups, these conspiracy groups, who grab this information, they repurpose it and they send it out to you guys. And you have been following these groups, so you just assume that they’re a credible source, that they wouldn’t try to deceive you. And look, here’s the thing. I’m not suggesting that the influencer that you may have got it from is trying to deceive you or lying or anything. They may have got it from somebody else, and then that’s when it just goes on and on and on.

Speaker 1:

They probably got it from somebody else, from somebody else, and it could originate from some idiot at home just trying to play tricks on people. But the end of the day, you trust that source. So, it’s more confirmation in your mind. You don’t have to go through and do what I did. You don’t have to go through and check the URL, check to see whether Scott Morrison’s middle name starts with H, things like that. You just expect it to be real. You expect it to be truth.

Speaker 1:

Like I said earlier, I’m not trying to undermine your movement. I’m not trying to discredit you guys. I’m trying to help you focus on the real issues, help you focus on the truth, and not get distracted by fake news, which is what this is. This is misinformation and fake news. And all that does, it just takes up your time and energy focusing on the wrong things. And especially, it’s not going to get you all the public support that you want on the real issues, like child abuse in families and all the rest of it, because a lot of the public, they can see through this.

Speaker 1:

They can see this for what it is, that it’s just more misinformation, and then they can turn you into these conspiracy theory nuts. So all I’m suggesting is, focus on the real issues, don’t get distracted by this. And look, this isn’t just… Here’s the thing, conspiracy theories, right? There’s a number of main reasons why people or groups use conspiracy theories. There’s a couple of main ones, the main one being that it causes people to take action on social and political issues. It really can cause people to take action on things.

Speaker 1:

And the second thing is, a lot of people in groups use conspiracy theories, like I just said, to distract people, to cause division within society, within groups. And I’m not just talking about people in Australia. I’m talking about bad actors overseas in other countries. It’s a well-known fact now that countries like Russia and others, they use conspiracy theories in order to cause division in other countries, in societies and among groups and things like that.

Speaker 1:

It’s well-known now that that’s the game they play, essentially. Think about this. Do you really think Putin gives a shit about getting to the bottom of finding out who Ashli Babbitt’s murderer was? Do you think he really cares? Or do you think he simply came out with that statement at a time when there was so much division happening in relation to that in order just to cause more division in the US? A lot of people are looking at Putin as if he really gives a shit about us over here in the West. He doesn’t care. He doesn’t care about Ashli Babbitt.

Speaker 1:

That’s the game they play. They want division in other countries. And you just never know. You never know where a lot of this information is coming from, a lot of these memes are coming from. So, that’s all I’m suggesting. Are there paedophiles in government? Absolutely. There’s paedophiles in government. I’m not denying that fact. You only have to go back as far as this year. Was it south Australia? Nat Cook, MP in the Labour Party, one of her staffers was convicted of child molestation. He was convicted.

Speaker 1:

Does that mean that Nat Cook was in on it and everybody in the Labour Party was in on it? Absolutely not. I mean, you have a look at the interview. I remember watching the interview of Nat. I’m assuming she was a mother. She was absolutely beside herself, absolutely distraught. And you can go back again another year to the Greens Party. A member in the Greens Party was arrested for child pornography, sending tens of thousand dollars [inaudible 00:08:39]. Does that mean Bandt and the Greens are in on it? As much as I dislike Bandt and the Greens, obviously not.

Speaker 1:

So all I’m saying is, yes, they exist, but losing all your focus and putting all your energy onto these conspiracy theories, it’s wasted energy, is all I’m saying. So I’m not saying that I’m right all the time, or anything like that. I’m just saying double check everything and just expect, just assume that everything is a lie until you actually confirm it yourself.

Transcript

G’day, I’m Senator Malcolm Roberts. I want to talk now about a very serious issue that concerns all of us in our community. This issue offends every normal thinking person and it disgusts us all. I am talking about paedophilia, the sexual abuse of children by deviant adults for their own sexual gratification. There are a lot of stories circulating about this issue and I want to set the record straight. One such story relates to a document purportedly naming 28 alleged people under investigation for pedophilia-related activities. It was most famously discussed in a Senate Estimates hearing.

After extensive research by my office, we found that the Wood Royal Commission was provided a document that the Commissioner determined contained information outside the terms of reference of the Commission. It was returned to the provider. That’s it. The document is not in the public domain and is not held by the government. My inquiries revealed that it contained unsupported allegations against 28 people from an unidentified author.

Without an author, it’s wholly unverifiable and unusable in court. Publication of the contents may well constitute defamation in some circumstances. When starting this investigation, I had hoped to unearth evidence which if brought to light would prove and put away perpetrators of disgusting acts. Despite my best efforts, that is not what I found. There are plenty of urban myths about all of this. One of these is that the document is subject to some sort of suppression order, preventing its release. My inquiries revealed there is no suppression order on this document. There never was a suppression order.

The document simply isn’t credible enough without an author for anyone to publish outside of parliamentary privilege. My view, and that of One Nation, is that paedophilia is a blot on our society and that everything should be done to stamp it out. Offenders should receive the severest penalties when convicted as a deterrent to others and to keep our children safe. Those who would knowingly protect these offenders must also be identified and stopped, no matter what their roles in our society may be.

No one should be immune because of their status. Sexual misbehaviour in the legal profession has been highlighted in the media lately. Allegations have even been made towards the behaviour of judges, magistrates and senior lawyers. What is missing is a Federal Integrity Commission with power to review the behaviour of the politicians and the judiciary. An integrity commission with teeth would mean that any allegation of corruption, criminality or misconduct could be thoroughly and independently investigated. There’s no doubt there are still people in power that get up to no good; we need a commission that can properly investigate them and bring them to justice.

Sterling First victims have been kicked out of their house and some are still under threat of eviction. ASIC received complaints about Sterling as far as back as 2015 but didn’t start investigating until 2018, when millions of dollars of retiree’s and other investor’s money was at risk.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Mr Longo and your colleagues from ASIC. Mr Longo, would you agree that, for ‘buyer beware’ to work, buyers need to have access to all available information?

Mr Longo : The general principle of ‘buyer beware’ is as to availability and also asking. Clearly, as your question proposes, information needs to be made available, but the classic application of the buyer beware principle is: the buyer also has to ask questions and take an active interest in ensuring they’re properly informed before doing things.

Senator ROBERTS: Before getting to my core questions, I need to reference information contained in the redacted internal ASIC chronologies that were provided to the Senate. I know some of the details have been laboured over, yet I need to reiterate them for the purpose of these questions. I’ll make four points. In May 2015, ASIC concluded internally that, firstly, Sterling had likely provided financial services while unlicensed; secondly, Sterling had likely not provided adequate documentation to retail investors; thirdly, Sterling had likely engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct; and, fourthly, Sterling may have breached the requirement to not engage in conduct liable to mislead the public. Are these details correct, or substantially correct?

Dr Bollen : Mr Longo, do you want me to take that?

Mr Longo : I was just talking to my general counsel. Go for it, Rhys.

Dr Bollen : Yes, that’s a reference to an early complaint we received—the first one we received—which was from FOS. At that time it appeared to be one breach without any prior or later concerns. It was about a three-year-old breach already at the time. In the circumstances, with the myriad of other complaints and referrals we had, we formed the view that no further action was needed at that time.

Senator ROBERTS: So they’re correct. Despite these conclusions, ASIC elected to not pursue an investigation at that time due to the age of the conduct and the other workloads et cetera. I will continue to check my understanding. In June 2015, an ASIC staff member raised fresh concerns about Sterling providing unlicensed financial advice or that it may be engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. Secondly, and this is the last fact I want to check, in September 2016, ASIC received a complaint that a Sterling victim had concerns about misleading and deceptive conduct and was unable to get information about what had happened to their investment and could not withdraw their investment as they had been led to understand they could. Are those two points correct?

Dr Bollen : That is a slight simplification, but, yes, basically, they are the second and third complaints that we received. They’re referred to in our submission as well.

Mr Longo : Can I ask about the line of questioning? These points have been dealt with comprehensively in our written material and I would respectfully ask, in regard to the rather simplistic approach that I’m hearing this afternoon, the committee to expect a supplementary written submission to comprehensively deal with the inferences it appears you wish to draw. But these matters have all been dealt with comprehensively in our written submissions and questions on notice and do not change my earlier evidence that I believe ASIC behaved reasonably at all material times. I do respect the line of questioning, but I would ask the committee to expect a supplementary submission to confirm the position we’ve taken on these earlier reports that I believe were properly handled at the time.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for repeating that conclusion of yours. In January 2017, ASIC assumed that Sterling’s conduct fell within the small-scale offer exception for professional investors, despite a track record of complaints relating to retail investors. ASIC suspected that a new and ongoing managed investment scheme was in operation—a managed investment scheme was in operation. Despite all of this, ASIC recommended that no further action be taken in relation to Sterling. Did ASIC commence any type of investigation before concluding no further action was required and, if so, specifically what were the investigation steps?

Mr Longo : Through the chair, could I ask Senator Roberts to ask a question, please?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I just did. Did ASIC commence any type of investigation—

Mr Longo : With all due respect there was quite a narrative that preceded your question, which makes it very hard to answer the question fairly, given the premises upon which it was based, which are very hard to follow. So can I ask senators to—

Senator ROBERTS: Certainly, Mr Longo. I’d be happy to do that. This is what I asked—

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, to make it as easy as possible for us all to follow, can you just go through one by one the introductory points that set up your question so that we understand the preamble that gives the context to our witnesses from ASIC?

Senator ROBERTS: What I’ll do, Chair, is address Mr Longo’s request and ask the question, and then I’ll go through the introductory comments. The question is: did ASIC commence any type of investigation before concluding that no further action was required, and, if so, specifically what were the investigation steps? Some of the earlier comments were—

Mr Longo : What point in time are we talking about?

ACTING CHAIR: Mr Longo, I think Senator Robert is now going to go through the preamble and give you that context so you can answer the question. In particular, Senator Roberts, we’re talking about the timing.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for understanding, Chair. In January 2017, ASIC assumed that Sterling’s conduct fell within the small-scale offer exception for professional investors, despite a track record of complaints relating to retail investors.

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I will just hold you there. There’s a point you’ve made there, and it’s based on certain premises, so perhaps we can ask ASIC to respond to that point first.

Mr Longo : Thanks, Senator. The idea is that there’s an assumption that we apparently made in January 2017. Rhys, can you comment on the assumption? Can you follow what’s going on here?

Dr Bollen : The senator is referring to the first three complaints and the redacted chronology that was tabled by Senator Hume earlier. Those three early complaints—the one from the Financial Ombudsman Scheme, the second from an internal staff member and the third in late 2016 or early 2017—were all assessed by our intake team, who receive all reports of misconduct, breach reports and so on. We have a large number each year—10,000 or so reports of misconduct and 4,000 or so breach reports. They were all assessed. I wouldn’t describe that as an investigation; it is an assessment. There are policies and procedures that the assessment team follow. They look at the evidence, the number of people who appear to be affected, the amount of money that appears to be involved, the age of the conduct and the likelihood of whether it’s systemic or not. They have to make a judgement, based on the information that we’ve been given by the complainant or in the report, about whether further action should be taken. They necessarily have to be quick judgements to get through that kind of volume. You’re referring to the views that that assessment team formed at the time as to whether it was likely to fit into the small scale exemption and so on. Yes, those assessments were made at the time based on the information in those three early complaints.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What we’re looking at here is trying to get an understanding. I work for and serve the people of this country. They pay my salary, they elected me and I have to serve them. I think that’s what all members of the Public Service have to do as well, including members of ASIC. So what we need to understand is: what does ASIC see as the breaches? Were there breaches of law? Were there breaches of good faith? What’s the core issue? Is it the capacity of ASIC? Is it the capability of ASIC? Is it structural? Is it a legislative or parliamentary fix? What’s the intent going on here? That, overall, is where I’m heading. I can either help you or undermine you.

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, there’s a lot there.

Senator ROBERTS: No, I’m just explaining. Let me continue.

Ms Armour : Senator, just to go back to your questions about the report of misconduct that came in in 2016 or 2017, I just think it’s important to note—we put this in an answer to a question on notice—that that report of misconduct was from an investor who appeared to have purchased shares in a company called Sterling Residential Syndicate Australia Pty Ltd, so it related to a different type of investment. I thought it would be helpful for you to be aware of that, because it’s a different type of investment from the Sterling Income Trust, which we’re talking about. It’s the same broad group, but that was the context of that one.

ACTING CHAIR: With your indulgence, Senator Roberts, I will ask Commissioner Armour about this: that complaint which was made did not have an attached or stapled residential tenancy—is that correct?

Ms Armour : I’m taking my answer from our answer to the question on notice, which was back in 2019-20. We’re happy to take on notice whether there was anything stapled to that.

ACTING CHAIR: I’m reading this. I have a few with me too. I would be interested to know in relation to it. As you know, in that question on notice which was provided, there were three prior issues which were raised. I think it would be helpful if ASIC could provide as much additional information with respect to those three issues as possible. I would certainly be interested to know whether or not any of them have the hallmarks of the attached residential tenancy as well as the purchase of shares.

Mr Longo : I can give you that assurance now. Those three matters are outside what this inquiry is looking at. I’ve said repeatedly—and I’ve tried to act in good faith with this inquiry—that the meeting with consumer affairs in March 2017 was a significant meeting. Without wishing to oversimplify, that’s when some of the dots started getting joined up and that’s when, as I think the evidence to the inquiry has shown, ASIC’s interest in this matter really started. There’s been a lot of evidence and back and forth about whether we should have done things more quickly or whatever, but, the way I’m looking at it—I wasn’t around at the time; I’m trying to be objective and trying to be professional with the inquiry—to my mind, around March 2017 is a realistic moment to say: ‘Well, there was that meeting with consumer affairs. We started talking with consumer affairs in a way that started looking at the issues that are the subject of this inquiry, and the rest is history.’ Pre March 2017—

ACTING CHAIR: You’ve been very consistent in your testimony about the three prior complaints that were the subject of the answer to the question on notice that Commissioner Armour refers to. From your perspective, you’re quite adamant and quite clear that these matters were totally disconnected from the matters which are the subject of this inquiry. Is that correct?

Mr Longo : That’s correct. But, with respect, I do appreciate that people are wanting to understand: ‘Why not? There were these three wrongs. Surely that must have got you thinking.’ I respect that curiosity, if I can put it that way.

Senator ROBERTS: Concern.

Mr Longo : Concern, absolutely. I was concerned. When all of this came to light, Senator Roberts, with the help of my team I put a lot of time into really trying to understand what happened, and this is my view. It’s my duty to give you my view. I think, from March 2017, as I’ve said to the team, to my mind, that’s when the dots started getting joined. I’m absolutely happy to come back to the committee. There have been a few QON submissions dealing with this point. It might be helpful to the committee to put it all in one place. Hopefully that will clear the air on it. As I’ve said from the beginning, we’ll do that as quickly as we can, and if there are additional questions from the inquiry, saying, ‘We still have some queries,’ we’ll deal with those, too, as best we can.

ACTING CHAIR: Excellent; thank you. Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Can ASIC explain to this committee how it interprets the phrase ‘reason to suspect’, as detailed in section 13 of the ASIC Act?

ACTING CHAIR: I’m looking forward to this answer, Chair Longo!

Mr Longo : Well, there’s a lot of jurisprudence on that question! We interpret that phrase in a conservative manner. If there are facts or circumstances that we think could point to a contravention then we may, but are not required to, commence an investigation. I think the practical answer to your question, just reflecting on it, is that it’s a pretty low bar. I don’t think anyone is going to tell you that a reason to suspect is a very high bar. It’s a very low bar, and so it should be. You want agencies like ASIC being able to investigate things without having to jump over a high bar, because that wouldn’t be in the public interest.

The critical question, Senator Roberts—and I hope you’ll forgive me for saying this, because I’ve been saying it repeatedly through most of my professional life—is that we can’t investigate everything. What tends to happen is that a lot of judgement, assessment and analysis goes into all the matters that come to our attention. The really hard part of our job, on the enforcement side, is choosing which ones to investigate, resource, have section 19 examinations for and issue document notices for and which ones not to. I know in this inquiry there have been a lot of questions about: ‘What’s going on here? Your investigation didn’t start until May 2018. Why didn’t it start sooner?’ I’m not here to tell you that there was a big legal impediment. The situation unfolded. We made judgements based on what we knew at the time. We commenced an investigation when we did and we took the steps we took. But it is a low bar. The short answer to your question is: it’s a low bar, and we have to make decisions about which things to investigate and which things not to.

Senator ROBERTS: Are there any internal criteria or operational procedures or guidance as to how section 13 powers are to be exercised by ASIC and when?

Mr Longo : Yes, there are.

Senator ROBERTS: Could we get them as a question on notice, please?

Mr Longo : This question has come up before. I’m looking at my general counsel.

Senator PRATT: That was me. I did ask that question before, and I think we were going to get that provided to us.

Mr Longo : It’s not an uncommon question. We’ll certainly share with the committee what we can. When I say ‘what we can’, there may be some material we would happily share with the committee on an in-confidence basis, because you will appreciate that, as to some of that internal material, it would not be in the public interest for the whole community to know about it! But we’ll certainly provide you with what we can, and, where we think there’s a sensitivity, we will ask the committee to accept that material in confidence.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Longo. Who, at what level of seniority within ASIC, is able to make a determination on whether ASIC can trigger section 13 powers?

Mr Longo : I was about to say ‘relatively junior’, but there’s a system of delegation of powers that we use so that the commission itself isn’t involved in every decision to commence an investigation. Because of the range of matters that come to our attention, we have a process and a system for figuring out which ones to investigate. There’s a governance structure, a committee structure, within ASIC that makes those decisions. I suppose we could include a description of that in the—

Senator ROBERTS: You’re reading my mind now! Thank you very much—that’s exactly where I was going.

Mr Longo : I have to tell you, Senator Roberts, it’s a very risky business thinking I can read someone’s mind!

Senator ROBERTS: I thought you were referring to my mind!

Mr Longo : Can I just generalise, then: I can’t read anyone’s mind.

Senator ROBERTS: I have difficulty, too, reading minds. That’s why I ask short questions, generally. Is there a threshold of evidence that a complaint to ASIC must meet before section 13 powers can be exercised? I think that’s really part of the earlier question, and I think you undertook to give us that.

Mr Longo : There’s been a lot of confusion about this over the years. Just stepping back: ASIC gets matters, issues and concerns brought to its attention by a whole range of sources, as you can imagine. We might learn about something by reading about it in a newspaper and say: ‘Whoa! We need to get on that.’ What you are focusing on—which is really sort of the big part of resources—are those thousands of complaints that Rhys referred to earlier. We have a very systematic—I would like to say, sophisticated—approach to figuring out what to do with each one of those matters, and we have internal benchmarks to make sure they get prompt attention. A lot of them are actually resolved by getting other agencies involved. Sometimes we’re just helping people with a query that we can’t take any further. So, long story short: an assessment is made. Now, some of those matters will become investigations, but that depends on a whole range of circumstances, and I think Rhys touched on quite a few of them. The general principle is: it’s not every matter that could lead to an actionable contravention that we would investigate.

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we’re running about 30 minutes over time, so do you have many more questions?

Senator ROBERTS: I think they’re all fairly short, Chair.

ACTING CHAIR: Okay.

Senator PRATT: I have a couple more, too, Chair. My apologies.

Senator ROBERTS: Given the track record of complaints, as to Sterling, how was this threshold not specifically met?

Mr Longo : I’m not sure—I think we really are at cross purposes now. As to the first three, I just don’t think they led us anywhere close to what the inquiry is looking at now. From March 2017, as I said earlier, we had the interaction with consumer affairs, and that triggered what we did and didn’t do. Clearly, we’ve had several days of hearings now and we’re trying to work through what we did do, what we didn’t do and why. So I’m not sure I can really add much more to that story—

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you—

Mr Longo : The formal investigation started early in 2018.

Senator ROBERTS: In the context of Sterling First, it took ASIC one year and two months, from March 2017 to May 2018, to exercise its section 13 powers and commence a formal investigation—only after receiving a complaint from a Western Australian government department, as I understand it. Wouldn’t a reasonable person expect that ASIC would have reason to suspect after receiving a complaint crammed with concerns from a state government department in much less than a year?

Mr Longo : I don’t accept the premise of, or the way you’ve put, those questions. As we’ve gone through in written submissions and evidence, we responded to the material. After all, consumer affairs were aware of this matter for several years. They were aware of the issues with the tenants. They then made the connection and came and spoke to us. We started looking at it, and we’ve taken the steps we’ve taken.

I’m not trying to make excuses. I’m just trying to work through what we did and didn’t do based on what we knew at the time. I respect the fact that some people might say, ‘Well, you should have started your investigation the moment you left the meeting with consumer affairs in March 2017.’ With all due respect, I think that’s entirely unrealistic. That was never going to happen. We’ve tried to work through why that’s the case. But I think the commencement of an investigation in early 2018, in the particular circumstances of this matter, is a reasonable time line.

Remember: we don’t have any visibility into these investments. We’re not there when the investors sign the leases and put their money into managed investment schemes. We’re not there when the product disclosure statements are given to these investors. Indeed, right up until the time we commenced the investigation, the investors weren’t even complaining to us. Then, by the middle of 2018, a lot of investors still seemed relatively happy with what they were getting. These situations, as I’ve tried to explain in earlier evidence, really require a lot of judgement as to when to intervene and how much you need to have before you intervene. It’s not uncommon for investors in managed investment schemes to say: ‘Why did you intervene so quickly? That was all going really well. It’s your fault, ASIC, that this scheme’s collapsed.’ Alternatively: ‘It’s your fault, ASIC, that you didn’t come in here sooner and stop this scheme.’

I’ve really given this a lot of thought, Senator Roberts, and I really think this inquiry is an opportunity to revisit. I’m not here to make excuses; I really want to reassure the committee about that. We have a number of management scheme matters that we’re working on right now that could lead to court action, and there are others that already have. The Sterling situation is tragic, but it is part of a much bigger picture. With all due respect, these are big issues. We’ll do whatever we can to be helpful, but, as far as this particular matter is concerned, I think ASIC acted reasonably. We did, I think, act reasonably quickly with what we had. Could we have moved more quickly? Probably. Should we have issued a media release more energetically? Probably. But with the time the investigation took and the issues we’ve had to deal with, I think we’ve handled that reasonably.

I do respect other views of frustration about this. We’ll do whatever we can to provide additional information to the inquiry to better understand the issues, but, as I’ve said in earlier evidence, this is going to happen again and again and again.

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that this is a complex situation. There are many levels at which it needs to be investigated, and I think that’s happening. Victims, as I understand it, thought they were paying rent in advance—some of the victims. Victims did not make a decision to invest in a managed investment scheme. I think that’s clear as well. Some of the victims did not make a decision to invest in a managed—

Mr Longo : I’m not sure that’s right. With due respect, I’ve got to disagree with you about that. I don’t know what the investors were thinking at the time. What happened here—and I’ve looked at the documents personally—is that they signed a residential tenancy document, and they also signed documents to invest in an income flow that would pay for the rent. They signed documents signing over the income from that managed investment—it went into a bank account—to pay for the rent. I do acknowledge that, many investors, if not all of them, didn’t fully appreciate what they were doing or the risks. But there’s no doubt they signed documents, because, otherwise, this couldn’t have gone ahead.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m done arguing that. Does ASIC not see that some of the victims did not know that it was a managed investment scheme?

Mr Longo : I can’t speak for their state of knowledge.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that a possibility? I don’t expect you to read minds. But where is the deficiency in Sterling? Is it in ASIC’s exercising of powers, ASIC’s analysis, ASIC’s capability? Is it the law? Is it the intent of the people who were putting out this scheme?

Mr Longo : Where I’ve taken your question, Senator, is it’s a bit like talking about crypto or why people buy stock exchange shares or why they put money into superannuation. I don’t know. When someone puts their money into a managed investment scheme or buys shares on the Australian Stock Exchange they are motivated by whatever is going on. I can’t tell you what they were thinking at the time. At the time they had the benefit of marketing material saying that there was an innovative product, that this would enable them to have a higher standard of living, that they could sell their home and put the proceeds into an investment, into something that would generate income to pay for rent. I know there’s sort of a feeling of ‘they’re not investors’ but where did the money come from to pay for the rent? It wasn’t coming from their bank account. It was coming from this other place where they put their money—I’ll call it an investment—and that income went into paying the rent at the so-called ‘stapling’. I’m the first to concede this is a complicated arrangement and it’s risky. With all due respect to the investors, I can’t speak on their behalf as to what they were thinking at the time.

Ms Armour : The responsibility for the success or otherwise of the scheme rests with the people who promote and develop the scheme. That is the model that we’re operating in, where degree of latitude is provided to firms and individuals to develop schemes and to attempt to attract investors into those schemes. They own, if you like, the success or otherwise. There’s a framework they need to operate in but it is really the responsibility of the promoters of the scheme.

Senator ROBERTS: Then we have regulators to oversee the promoters’ intent.

Ms Armour : The regulators work in a framework. We oversee the promoters’ conduct. So, as we talked about previously, a lot of what we do ends up being retrospective because that’s how we’ve set the system up. When things go wrong we take action. But we don’t have the merit powers that would substitute, say, my judgement for an investor’s judgement at the start of the investment.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s get to my final question then with a statement first that this is a complex situation. Mr Longo has acknowledged that. I’m saying regulations are a double-edged sword, because dishonest people can quite often hide behind regulations, especially complex regulations. What is the core issue in your view, Mr Longo? Is it capacity of ASIC? Is it capability? Is it structural? Is it legislative? Is it the intent of the promoters of the investment scheme? What is the core issue here, or what are the core issues here, and what’s needed to prevent it happening again?

Mr Longo : That’s a really generous question.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it is.

Mr Longo : We live in a free country. We’re a democracy. We encourage people to make their own decisions about what they do with their lives, their money and everything. I think one of the really big issues for all of us here is that we know from our life experience that good people, very often highly educated people, do silly things with their money. They put their money into things they shouldn’t put their money into and there are lots of examples over the years. So one big policy question for us all is: should we have a law that makes it harder for people to put their money into investments that a group of people like us in an inquiry like this would say, ‘Gee, that’s a bad idea, that’s really risky and you really shouldn’t do that without getting advice or whatever the rules are’? I think that’s one big question for the inquiry, because this system, as I think Commissioner Armour was just reminding us, is pretty liberal. It basically says that, if you follow what I think you’d have to describe as fairly liberal managed investment scheme criteria and responsible entity criteria under the Corporations Act, then a whole range of ‘investment opportunities’ are opened up to ordinary people. To me, the heart of it is: do we want to change the law to say we’re going to make it much harder for certain people—we’ll call them vulnerable consumers or retail investors—to put their money into something like this without a proper rating or proper counselling or access to proper advice or whatever the safeguards are? So I think that’s a legitimate issue and a legitimate question.

Senator PRATT: I’ve got a follow-up question to this, Chair, when we’re able.

Mr Longo : Then there’s the role of the regulator, and there are big issues there too. We know regulation can be costly, it can be inefficient and it can give people a false sense of security. One of the issues here, I think, is that people say, ‘This managed investment scheme has been registered with ASIC, and the responsible entity has a licence.’ It has this veneer of an imprimatur, if you like, from the regulator. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Our role is essentially a licensing administrative role. There’s some substance underneath it—I’m not saying it’s totally administrative—but the policy objective is to encourage investment and to encourage risk-taking. As Commissioner Armour reminded us, what happens after that is retrospective. It’s reactive. We don’t spend a lot of time—or, in fact, any time—looking at whether the business models work or not or whether the PDSs are accurate or not. That’s another big question for the inquiry: do we want to change that? I could go on and on, but I thought I’d just pick a couple of those. I don’t know whether I’ve missed something fundamental. It’s obviously a very generous question from Senator Roberts. Cathie or Rhys, do you want to add to it?

Ms Armour : It’s a very fundamental question, isn’t it? It’s quite apparent from reading many of the submissions that there is a disconnect between, potentially, what investors anticipate, or some investors anticipate, and what the framework is. It’s a very fundamental question, I think.

Dr Bollen : The only thing I’d add is something we mentioned in our submission. There have been a number of inquiries over the years suggesting improvements to the managed investment scheme regime around how insolvent schemes and nonviable schemes are managed. Indeed, this committee has made recommendations in the past. I think there is fertile food for thought in that area.

Senator ROBERTS: I’d just like to add, Chair, that Mr Longo made the statement that we live in a free country. Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you, Mr Longo, and your colleagues at ASIC.

The evidence of Anthony Fauci’s previous bungles is available for all to see. This and more on Marcus Paul in the Morning.

Transcript

[Marcus Paul]

You know I’ve enjoyed my sparring sessions with One Nation Senator, Malcolm Roberts, throughout 2021. So much so that I’m gonna do it for years to come. Malcolm And I sometimes don’t see eye to eye on certain issues, and that’s okay. One thing I do appreciate is him holding the federal government to account on a number of issues. And Malcolm has been very vocal on issues that he is passionate about. Look, I don’t know a politician that seemingly does as much research and collates as much empirical data as what he does. And for that, he should be commended. Malcolm Roberts, good morning.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Good morning, Marcus, and thank you for the introduction.

[Marcus Paul]

It’s all right, Mate.

[Malcolm Roberts]

By the way, I’ve got two things. First of all, you’d be very pleased to know that you’re converting me. I’m reading a book by a lefty.

[Marcus Paul]

Ah, stop it.

[Malcolm Roberts]

And it is stunning. And the lefty is Robert Kennedy, who is Robert Kennedy Jr., actually.

[Marcus Paul]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Robert Kennedy, the assassinated Robert Kennedy’s son.

[Marcus Paul]

Right.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Marcus, It is absolutely stunning.

[Marcus Paul]

What’s it about?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, it’s called, the title is called, “The Real Anthony Fauci”.

[Marcus Paul]

Right, okay.

[Malcolm Roberts]

You know who Fauci is, of course.

[Marcus Paul]

I do, yes.

[Malcolm Roberts]

He’s the man who started this exaggeration around the world. And that man, according to Robert Kennedy’s work, is an absolute criminal. He’s an inhumane, genocidal maniac. And he has deliberately suppressed, and dishonestly suppressed ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and many other standard treatments, combinations of treatments that doctors around the world have been using highly successfully for one reason, to get injections into people around the world. And Robert Kennedy has sat down and wrote this book over a number of months. He’s got something like 2000 references in it from scientific peer reviewed papers, right through to newspaper articles. And he documents about his criminal behaviour over decades. And it is absolutely stunning. And we have all been sold a pup. And Fauci has got blood on his hands to the tune of hundreds of thousands of fatalities, and thousands of, tens of thousands. That’s hundreds of thousands of fatalities that could have not occurred because we would have been using other treatments. And tens of thousands of people who have died due to adverse effects from these injections. It is absolutely disgraceful and we need to be holding people to account.

[Marcus Paul]

All right, what’s the name of the book again?

[Malcolm Roberts]

“The Real Anthony Fauci.” I ordered it a couple of months ago when I heard it was coming, for my son for a birthday present, but it hasn’t arrived yet because I think it’s selling so well in America that they can’t print them fast enough. You could get it in Britain for around about $2.99 for the, what is it, PDF version and the Kindle version. It is stunning.

[Marcus Paul]

All right. What I want you to do as well, considering you’re into books written by lefties, there is another book that I would like you to read. It’s written by a good friend of mine, Vanessa Badham. It’s called “Qanon and On.” All right, so that’s another. In fact, I might even get a copy of you signed by Van herself, sent to your office for Christmas, from me to you. How’s that?

[Malcolm Roberts]

That’ll go well, yeah.

[Marcus Paul]

There you go. All right, Mate. What else are we?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yeah, the other thing, the other thing I wanted to raise was I’m still waiting.

[Marcus Paul]

I know you’ll be waiting forever. Look, I got you, I got you a listener. I got you a listener to debate with this year. Wasn’t tearing him a new one enough or what?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, Mate, he showed that there is no science because he didn’t present any science, no empirical evidence proving cause and effect. And that’s the thing that I see everywhere. I’ve held politicians accountable, senior politicians, Penny Wong, Anthony Albanese, no one has got this stuff, Mate, no one.

[Marcus Paul]

You’ve taken on the Wongster. There’s no way.

[Malcolm Roberts]

I wrote a letter to her asking her for the evidence.

[Marcus Paul]

Yeah, but what about if you and, now that’s a debate I’d pay to see, you and Penny Wong having a discussion about climate change.

[Malcolm Roberts]

I’ll donate the proceeds to a charity that you care to name, Mate. You arrange it and I’ll be there.

[Marcus Paul]

Well, I can only ask. I can but ask. I mentioned this before. Nearly 40% of Australia’s coal fired generation capacity will shut down by 2030 under the greenhouse gas emission cuts promised by Labour and the federal government. Both have proposed a massive expansion of renewable energy to cut pollution from electricity generation, which accounts for around 30% of Australia’s emissions. Now I already called for the oxygen for Matt Canavan. Do I need to send oxygen your way as well?

[Malcolm Roberts]

No, because the facts will dismantle it. Unfortunately, a lot of people are going to hurt and we’re gonna lose a lot of industry. Labour is saying they want to stop coal. And yet they’re saying they won’t cost a single coal miner’s job. That is complete rubbish. It’s the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull Marcus. It is complete rubbish.

[Marcus Paul]

Hey Mate, just repeat that.

[Malcolm Roberts]

How can you shut down an industry, yet not cost a single job? The people in the Hunter, the people in Central Queensland will be devastated. But more significantly, when you shut down the cheapest form of power in this country, you will export more and more manufacturing jobs to China. We export our coal to China. They use our high quality, high energy, cheap, affordable coal. They generate coal [energy] at eight cents a kilowatt/hour. Because of our restrictions, we sell it at 25 cents a kilowatt/hour. We’ve gone from the cheapest coal and the cheapest power in the world to the most expensive. We have exported, not only our coal. We have exported our jobs, our manufacturing sector to China. And now we are dependent on the Chinese for much of our manufactured products. We can no longer sustain a defence force in this country because we don’t make our own bullets. We don’t make our own armaments. We don’t make our own machines. This is absolutely disgraceful. This is a highly important security issue, an economic issue, a social issue, a moral issue, and an integrity issue. And Labour is destroying, plans to destroy the country. If they get into power

[Marcus Paul]

Wow.

[Malcolm Roberts]

It’ll be the Greens, that run this joint.

[Marcus Paul]

Oh, rubbish.

[Malcolm Roberts]

It will be the Greens.

[Marcus Paul]

What a load of rot.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Look at the two coalitions. We’ve had the Liberal National Coalition since 2013. Prior to that, the last government was the Gillard Miln Labour Green Coalition.

[Marcus Paul]

That’s because it was a minority government. And obviously she was beholden to crossbenchers. And I don’t think that’ll happen under Albo, personally. I think they’re making it pretty, no, they’re making it pretty clear. I’ll speak to Richard Miles about it very soon. I’ll ask him like I’ve asked Anthony Albanese in the past. Will you be forming a coalition, for want of a better word, with the Greens? Their answer will be at an emphatic no, Malcolm.

[Malcolm Roberts]

That’s what they say. That’s not what they will do. They want power more than anything else. Even if they’re slaves to the Green. The Greens will say jump and Labour will say how high. That’s what’s gonna happen.

[Marcus Paul]

I love it, I love it. This is why I love having you on cause you and I can, we can spar and have a bit of fun. But as I say, I meant what I said at the beginning of the programme, of our chat. I do appreciate and do respect how hard you work. And, you fundamentally stand your ground on all of the issues that you feel so strongly for. And you have a strong supporter base as well. And look, I wouldn’t be surprised, given what’s been going on in this country in the last 12 to 18 months, that the One Nation vote doesn’t head north to a great extent when we hit the ballot box next May.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, I don’t make predictions about what people will do in elections. That’s up to the voters. But I do know that there is a huge groundswell around this country away from Liberal Nationals and away from Labour Greens. So I’ll leave it to the voters. But more significantly, what’s going on in Queensland, Marcus, is they’re starting to dismantle the narrative around COVID. There’s a huge groundswell. I’ve addressed crowds, hundreds, thousands of people, and Marcus, more telling than the numbers of people, are the energy in the people. They are angry, but then they are hopeful. They’re united. We have got local councils passing motions up and down our state and increasing in numbers, saying to the Palaszczuk Government, they will not be enforcing the injection mandate. The federal government knows, we’ve put them on notice. We will be continuing to oppose government legislation in the new year until we get our freedom back. We’ve got liberal senators now, two of them, Gerard Rennick and Alex Antic, standing up saying they will abstain from all government voting. The government is powerless, and we have to get our freedoms back, and the people are ready for that. They want their freedom back. Think again how I opened this session. Anthony Fauci is a genocidal maniac who has killed, no, he’s killed hundreds of thousands of people. He’s responsible for their deaths. And he’s also responsible for the prevention.

[Marcus Paul]

Don’t get me sued, Malcolm.

[Malcolm Roberts]

The data is there. I’ve read the data. I make comments only based on data.

[Marcus Paul]

All right, Mate. I’ve got to go. So just repeat that phrase. One of the best I’ve heard all year, what was it? Something out of the southern end of a bull. What?

[Malcolm Roberts]

It’s the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull, but more significantly, Merry Christmas to you, Marcus. I love being on with you, as you say. It’s good to have a respectful debate and Merry Christmas to all of your listeners and a happy new year to all. Let’s get this place back to normal.

[Marcus Paul]

You look after yourself. And to you and your family, take care. And I look forward to our further sparring matches next year in 2022. Thank you, Mate.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thanks, Marcus. One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts. I love that. Well, what I would say is, he’s proposing that there’d be a Labour Greens coalition. Well, that to me sounds like something that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull.

Transcript

Adrian D’Amico:Hey everyone, Adrian here, welcome to the Conversations with Adrian podcast. Today I’m joined by Malcolm Roberts. Malcolm, thank you very much for joining me on the show.  
Senator Roberts:You’re welcome, Adrian, it’s a pleasure to be here, mate, looking forward to it.  
Adrian D’Amico:It’s a pleasure to have you. I’ve got to tell you, some years ago I started this podcast with my background in business, so it was always about motivation and mindset and marketing, and all these sorts of things. When the virus started to hit Australia I quickly turned to the counter narrative, for some reason I picked up on it pretty quickly and started to divert my attention. I honestly hoped I would never get political with any of my conversations, but here you are.  
Senator Roberts:So did I, we share something in common.  
Adrian D’Amico:Yeah, there you go. So the interesting part about what’s going on in Australia at the moment is it has become so political, and I guess it’s the reason why I wanted you on the show. I’ll let you know that I’ve reached out to many, many politicians and you’re the only one that’s actually accepted my invitation, so congratulations.  
Senator Roberts:Wow. No, you’re welcome, it’s a pleasure, because I noticed in your interview with Peter McCullough you obviously have a good business background, strategic thinker, but what was most obvious to me was that you based decisions on data, otherwise you couldn’t help businesses, the businesses have to base their decision on data.  
Adrian D’Amico:Yeah, 100%.  
Senator Roberts:And that’s what’s missing in politics, we can talk more about that later, but it’s just hopeless the way, under liberal and labour and nationals and greens, the parliament are working for the parties rather than for the people. And so what we see now is decisions, Adrian, billion dollar, almost trillion dollar decisions based, well they are trillion in terms of opportunity cost, based upon opinions, hearsay, whims, looking good, getting a headline, not the data, and quite often they knowingly contradict the data. It’s absolutely insane what’s going on.  
Adrian D’Amico:I would 100% agree. So look, I would love for you to maybe touch on a bit about you personally and about your history in politics, because I’ve got to be honest, it’s one of those things, much like immunology and vaccines, and all that stuff, I’ve had to go and research myself for the last couple of years and really educate myself on a lot of the goings on of things in life. So I don’t really know much about yourself and your background, but if you could share with me and the listeners a bit about yourself, that’d be fantastic.  
Senator Roberts:Sure. I have an English, sorry, a Welsh father and an English come Australian mother who was born and raised in this country by a English Cornish, her father was Cornish. I was born in India, we spent seven years in India, came to Australia, moved around quite a bit. Went to university, studied mining engineering, got an honours degree in that. And then when I graduated I realised I’d better go and start learning things, because over the summer holidays in uni I’ve worked at the Coalface, literally at the Coalface, mainly underground. And so after uni I moved around, because it’s very important to get practical experience, and to understand how people work, and what turns people on and what turns them off.  
 So I worked as a minor at the Coalface, fabulous experience, five different mines around the country, then I worked overseas for two of the world’s largest coal companies, I saw one very good coal company and one dog. I mean, I learned a lot from both. And look, Adrian, I was so impressed with the United States that I just had to have a look around, so I spent the next 15 months working my way broke, and then sold my car and got a ticket home. But the United States was fascinating, and it’s really shaped my thinking, if you like. Came back to Australia, rose very quickly through management ranks. I was made a mine manager in charge of a business unit, 300 people, at a very young age, and I just did pretty well, and I was promoted to sort out each dog of a mine that I was sent to. Always, always very good people, just not managed, or just allowed to be disrupted needlessly by union bosses pushing a personal agenda.  
 And I found that it just confirmed, I had an upbringing where I was given a lot of freedom by my father and mother, they instilled what I think are good values, and all I did was show people that give them the opportunity, give them lots of freedom, but draw the line and make sure they’re held accountable, and they have to know where the line is. So I was one of the few mine managers who would stand up and take the union bosses to court if they went against the law. Most people in Australia don’t have that courage. And I was also the one who opened up a lot of things for miners, because the way I look at things, Adrian, the head of a business, whether it’s an owner or an executive appointed by the employer, the head of a business, and everyone in the management chain, is only there to help the people at the front line at the Coalface.  
 We don’t get any coal, only the coal miners get coal, so our job is to remove the impediments, remove the obstacles, enable them to work more safely, more productively, and also, if you like, more easily. If you make a person’s job easier, it’s more satisfying, you get more productivity. And I realised very early on that culture was the biggest driver and the biggest determinate of productivity, so I worked on that, and I learnt over the years what drives culture. And so I was able then, after about four or five years in coal companies here as a manager at mine sites, I then got tired and frustrated with the corporate management, and making decisions based on numbers without any understanding what’s really going on. And so I did an MBA at the University of Chicago, and then I was about to accept one of two jobs in the States, and I was poached back to Australia by a company who did a search around the country, and they heard about me and came looking for me in America.  
 So I came back and was given basically a blank slate to do what needed to be done for this project, and it was a very difficult and challenging project, but we did a lot of things, and geologically it was difficult, but we did a lot of things that were process based, if you know what I mean. A lot of systems are built willy nilly at someone’s whim, and they’re not built on the process. If you have a system it needs to support the process, that makes the process more efficient, it needs to be based on a measurement analysis and reporting of performance and data, and that needs to be [inaudible]. Fortunately I realise it’s also the most powerful driver behaviour there is, by far. It’s far more powerful than money.  
 So if you get that right, you can basically step back and say, “Go to it, fellas,” and away they go, and they look after themselves. It’s quite uncanny, I’m sure the way you’re smiling and nodding that you understand what I’m talking about, but so few executives do. We set enormous records in this country despite the difficult conditions, very satisfying, then I formed my own business and helped other people improve their minds and their businesses, and worked in other sectors as well as mining. And then around about 2005, yeah the whole of 2005 was spent overseas turning around a very difficult operation in New Zealand, and that was a lot of fun. Then we came back here, and just in that 12 months that I’d been away the global warming narrative started.  
 And as a university graduate in mining engineering, and as someone who had to get statutory qualifications in mining, I understood that carbon dioxide is a trace atmospheric gas, and I understood the properties, and I thought, this is complete crap what we’re being told. But of course I went, hang on a minute, who’s little old me to go against thousands of scientists and thousands of politicians? But it still bugged me, so I started looking at the science more and I thought, this is crap. And then still, that daunting feeling that I can’t be right, because I’m only the only one. Then I found other people, very intelligent people, very switched on people. And remember, as a mine manager, people underground depend upon my understanding of atmospheric gases and other things to keep them alive. So then when I started finding other people I realised this was absolute rubbish, what we’ve been told about us affecting climate by the use of hydrocarbon fuels.  
 So then I started to get deeper and deeper into it, and something just drew me into it, and I realised not only that it was crap, but I then started to understand who was driving it. Then I started to understand the motives. That opened up a huge, huge cavern to explore. And then I was speaking publicly at rallies all around the country, and I could see that a lot of people just knew in their gut that it was completely wrong, and that the politicians I worked with, some of the politicians, completely hopeless. They knew, they agreed with me, but they didn’t want to do anything about it, they were caught, swept up in the politics. And then Pauline Hanson came to me one day and said, “I’ve heard about you, would you like to run for the Senate?” So I said, “I’ll check with my wife first,” my wife said, “Yes.”  
 So then I spent a full day interviewing Pauline and finding out what had happened in her career, and I was pretty impressed. Very high integrity, and everything since then she has reinforced that very, very high integrity. Then I got elected into the Senate, got knocked out of the Senate on dual citizenship, got back into the Senate on my own steam, and that’s where I am now. And yeah, COVID just came up, and there’s no way I wouldn’t tell the truth, I have to tell the truth, I can’t do anything else, but it would’ve been far, far more difficult if I didn’t have Pauline Hanson next to me. She understands, she’s got a gut instinct, as well as a very, very good brain, she’s got the courage to say what she really thinks, and she’s got the [inaudible] to work out these mongrels in politics, I haven’t got that experience yet, but she’s got it very, very strongly.  
 So I’ve been a bit blessed, I’ve been lucky to end up as an apprentice next to Pauline. People see her as, what could you say? Aggressive, argumentative. She’s not the least bit aggressive and least bit argumentative. She doesn’t like a fight, but there’s something she likes even less than a fight, and that is not telling the truth. So she cannot run away from something, she has to confront it, and that’s wonderful, that’s the way I am too, so she is very, very good to work with. And she’s got to strength of character, which I think, I made up my mind on that many years ago, that strength of character is the most important leadership trait, the ability to say I’m wrong, the ability to say, Adrian, I don’t know, can you help me? And the ability to say, dammit, I’m going for this, and everyone suddenly disagreeing, bugger, I’m going to keep going until, but hang on, hang on, Adrian’s just given me a suggestion there might be better, there’s a better way to do it, so rather than look after my ego, go after that.  
 So make decisions based on data, and the biggest thing probably for me is I’ve got a very supportive wife, she grills me, holds me accountable, she’s got a very good brain. And in politics it is so rowdy and so tumultuous at times that the only thing that’s kept me sane is my meditation practise, which I do every day for an hour and a quarter in the morning. I try to do it in the evening, but haven’t for a while.  
Adrian D’Amico:Nice.  
Senator Roberts:Yeah, so that’s basically me, and I love making decisions based on data and fact wherever I can, because you can always then back it up and go for it very confidently.  
Adrian D’Amico:Look, the first thing that is coming across for me, to be honest, is during this brief conversation we’ve had so far, is that you talk more like a human being and not like a cyborg, like most politicians do. So I want to segue into obviously your political career and politics as we see it in Australia today, because look, Pauline is a really good example of someone that the media, in my knowledge now, looking at her and her values and some of the things that she’s putting across on the table at the moment, and really speaking her mind about this kind of situation, I saw her do the same thing many moons ago as a probably 20 something year old person, I would say, and honestly she was just really pushed through the media as just a hot head and a bigot, and just all these nasty things.  
 What I didn’t know then, and this is just my opinion now from what I see of her now, is that the media was doing the same thing to them as they did to Trump, as they do to anyone they want to smear in terms of a political campaign, or just to rubbish their character in a way, and I feel like there’s a lot of that that’s happened with her. And the reason why I say that is because politics at the moment is, to me, is giving me no hope in a lot of ways. So as a citizen of Australia I can tell you that the sentiment amongst my friends and amongst my peers, amongst the people that I talk to, is that we don’t trust our politicians.  
 The difference between what you say and what you do is two different things, and right now we are having a real tug of war between some of these tyrannical rules and regulations and health orders, and who’s actually running the country, and everyone feels like, what can we do about these tyrants? Because they seem to be just doing whatever they want whenever they like it, and there’s nothing that we, the people, can do. And like you said at the beginning, it seems like most politicians, and this is just a generalisation, are not acting in the best interest of their people, they’re acting in the best interest of whatever other is a motivating factor for them, and I think we know where we’re going to go with that. But I would like to get your perspective on this, because I just feel like at the moment a lot of Australians are really angry and really upset with our leadership, or lack of leadership, and they feel very helpless and very vulnerable at the moment.  
Senator Roberts:You nailed it, you raised so many of the issues there. In a totalitarian dictatorship, Adrian, the people fear the government, and right now people are afraid. But they’ve switched in the last month or so, they’re now angry, and then they’re starting to awaken. There’s so many things I can talk about here. So a totalitarian dictatorship, the people fear the government. In a true democracy, the government fears the people. That tells us, pretty much summarises what you just said. We are living in a dictatorship, not a true democracy. The people no longer raise terror or fear into the parties, because the parties control the parliament. When I say the parties I’m talking about the liberal, nationals, labour, and greens. They work together. The liberal nationals are like two peas in a pod, labour and greens are like two peas in a pod.  
 And if you look at their policies, there’s very little difference. Very, very little difference. The only difference is in some areas they have some degree of… There’s just different in terms of degree, that’s all. They’re heading down the same direction. They’re also, the parliaments are working for those two parties, or the two duopolies. The bureaucrats don’t really mind which one is in, because they control both of them, but the parties themselves are controlled by essentially a foreign agenda. Now if you’d have told me that 12 years ago, I would’ve laughed at you, but that’s one of the things I learned by going through the climate scam, I focused on the data, then I focused on who was driving the corruption of the climate science, it’s complete rubbish, and then I worked out who was driving them.  
 And so that is also across the banking sector, it’s across the coronavirus, the COVID virus. The COVID virus is slightly different in that it can kill you, so I’m not [inaudible] that idea, but we can talk more about the COVID virus in a minute. The COVID virus is no more serious than a flu. It is no more serious than a flu. It’ll kill some people, but most people will shrug it off. In fact, it’s probably less serious than many flus in the past. What are the others? The stealing of property rights in this country, the abandonment of infrastructure, the neglect of water resources, all are driven by a foreign agenda. For example, The Lima Declaration was signed by Gough Whitlam’s labour government in 1975 in Lima, Peru. The following year his so-called arch enemy, Malcolm Fraser, ratified the same thing. That Lima Agreement, Lima Declaration, gutted our manufacturing. Not immediately, but over the next 20, 30, 40 years, gutted it.  
 The Kyoto Protocol was, sorry, in 1992, the Rio De Janeiro Declaration for 21st century global governance, led to [inaudible] to 21. That was incorporated into labour policy, it was signed by Paul Keating as the labour prime minister.  
Adrian D’Amico:Really?  
Senator Roberts:But the liberal nationals have been implementing it with gusto. And most of the people in both those parties, the liberal national and the labour, don’t know what’s happening, they have no clue, Adrian, they don’t know. And so you’ve got to step back from politics. Then in 1996 along came John Howard and he said, “We will abide by the UN’s Kyoto Protocol, but we won’t sign it.” Well, Kevin Rudd, so John Howard did more damage than any other prime minister, which shocked me because I actually wrote him a letter when he got booted from parliament in 2007 and said, “Thank you for what you’ve done.” Six years later, after my research into this, I wrote him another letter saying, “I rescind my first letter.” I mean, the man, his government was absolutely graceful, and people trot him out at every by election now and say, look at John Howard, what a wonderful, true liberal is. His government was so destructive.  
 And then in 2007, when Kevin Rudd was elected as prime minister, he ratified the UN’s Kyoto’s Protocol, and it has been destroying property rights, it has been destroying our electricity. We’ve gone from the cheapest electricity in the world to the most expensive. We export coal from our country, the world’s best coal, highest energy density coal for its type in the world, we export it to China, send it thousands of kilometres there, they sell electricity burning our coal for eight cents a kilowatt hour, we sell it in, in this country at three times that price, 25 cents a kilowatt hour. And that’s despite the fact that we don’t have transport costs. And why, because of all of the UN regulations, the UN policies that the labour liberal and nationals and greens have implemented.  
 And in 2019 we had the liberal government under Abbot sign up for the Paris Agreement, and Turnbull ratified it the following year. So we’ve seen a complete sellout of the country. We see the aboriginals in this country, they’ve had it rough, but we are not making it any better. We’re pretending to close the gap, but we’re not. What we’re doing is we’re shovelling tens of billions of dollars a year at the Aboriginal industry. The people on the ground, the aboriginals in the communities in Cape York, in Northern Territory, are not getting much of that.  
Adrian D’Amico:Really?  
Senator Roberts:It’s being syphoned off by the black and white consultants in the Aboriginal industry. And you can talk to people on the Cape, they’ll tell you this. Native Title Act was brought in by, I think by Paul Keating, it gave some recognition to the aboriginals for their previous ownership of the land, even though they didn’t really own it, if you know what I mean, it gave them some acknowledgement for that. But they can’t get land to build a house in their own settlements in Cape York, they cannot do that. And so when you look closely at the Native Title Act, it’s littered with references to the United Nations, and it’s about locking up the land, not freeing up the land.  
 And this is what happens with so many of these foreign policies that come through, World Economic Forum, the United Nations, they’re about constraining us and controlling us, not about liberating us. They’re the complete opposite of what we are told. We’ve just been, my staff. I’ve got some very, very good staff, very capable researchers, and three or four of them across many disciplines. And one lady has done a phenomenal job of evaluating and summarising the Digital Identity Bill, which this government is flagging is going to come. It is horrendous. What it means, I’d have to get my notes to talk about it comfortably, but one example, the government will bundle up your data, your data, your health data, and sell it to foreign corporations, where it’ll be held in that company’s jurisdiction, so it might be according to U.S. laws, which they can do things that we can’t do with our data. So the privacy of data will be destroyed.  
 And then for you to access your health records, you will have to pay a fee to those corporations. It’ll track just about everything you do right throughout the day and night. So it’s horrendous. What I’ve described it as is a mix, it’s the baby that comes from a father that’s into control, and a mother that’s to feudalism. It’s a mixture of controlled feudalism, it’s just such a backwards step, but it is heinous what’s going on. And the liberals are going to float that, and I suspect that the labour party will just wash it straight through parliament. And if the labour party wins the next election, they will introduce it. This policy has not been originated in this country for Australians, it has come from the World Economic Forum, lifted from the World Economic Forum, which we know is not on our side.  
Adrian D’Amico:Absolutely.  
Senator Roberts:So this is what’s happening in our country, we’ve got politicians who are basically ignorant, stupid, and gutless, and most of them are intelligent, but they’re behaving like they’re stupid, because they’re not asking their party leaders and the party power brokers what’s going on, instead what they’re told is you will vote this way, if you don’t you won’t be preselected, you’ll be out of here. So they’re working for the party, not for the people, and that’s what we’ve got to change.  
Adrian D’Amico:Malcolm, you’re not really giving me a lot more hope when you’re describing the current situation of our country. It does seem that there is someone else that they’re answering to, which is what is making a lot of the political decisions throughout this country. But it does beg a question for me is, who owns Australia? Who’s running this country really? It would seem that between the UN and whoever’s behind that umbrella of people  
Adrian D’Amico:… People there is really pulling the string. So it would seem like most of our politicians that are within the heaviest power are basically puppets on a string.  
Senator Roberts:Correct, but they don’t know they are. Most of them are not doing this consciously. I believe that if you want a solution, you better identify the problem first. That’s why I’m spitting it out now. I may not be giving you much hope, but it leads to the solution, which does give me hope. If you look at our country, we have got phenomenal people. Our education system is being gutted and I mean that, sincerely being gutted. It’s deteriorating for an agenda. We’re focusing kids now on transgenderism. We’re focusing kids on being woke. We’re telling them that humans are evil, greedy, irresponsible, uncaring, which is the complete opposite of humans. Humans are just phenomenal. Only a few. We all have our blemishes, we know that. None of us are effect, but the majority of us care enormously, and we want to belong to a community.  
 We know that we’ve had our Hitlers and our Stalins and our Maos. Significantly, all of them are on what some people call a left wing. I don’t use the left wing, right wing because it’s rubbish. It’s meant to distract. What I use is control versus freedom. But you’ll notice that the mass murderers of the last century were all from the control side of politics, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, they were all from that side.  
 So what we’ve got is fabulous people. We’re now being dumbed down, but we have got the makings of a very good education system. We had a very good education system. We’ve got enormous potential. We are now the world’s biggest exporters of energy, yet our domestic prices for energy are high. We’re the biggest exporters of natural gas, yet we’ve got some of the highest gas prices in the world. Second biggest export of coal. We’re no longer the biggest. Indonesia’s taken over, and yet our electricity prices are among the highest in the world. We have got an abundance of metals, abundance of rare… Well, we’ve got some rare earth. We’re confident. We’ll find more. We’ve got amazing farming land. A lot of our country is desert, but so is America. When you look at the map. We haven’t got the depth of soil America has got, but we have got locations more than enough for us. We’ve got abundant water. It’s just being very poorly managed. We have got the world’s biggest market immediately on our doorstep to the North in Asia, we have got enormous potential.  
 Australia in 1900 to 1920 was number one in terms of per capita income in the world. We’re now at well outside the tent and slipping, we don’t manufacture stuff anymore. The UN has deliberately done this. The Lima Declaration exported our skills, exported our technology overseas, set up China, set up other third world countries in a move to dumb us down and to destroy our independence. Australia was once proudly producing everything we needed. Now we are interdependent and the UN has call that lovely word, interdependent, meaning, oh, we’re all interdependent. What a lot of crap? What it means is we are dependent on other countries now. We’re in an island that’s easily-  
Adrian D’Amico:Vulnerable.  
Senator Roberts:… Separated with the blockade. Yeah, we’re vulnerable. So the UN has destroyed our capacity to be strong and independent. We are now dependent on China. We are now dependent upon other countries. So that’s the crazy thing. So we’ve got this enormous potential. Our governing document is our federal constitution. To change one word in that, you need a majority of people across Australia, and you need a majority of people in the majority of states. So you need at least four states where that referendum passes to change, just one word. So that tells me that the people are in charge of this country. They are only ones who can change what the constitution does, the governing document.  
 The other thing that comes in there, so we are the ones who are responsible, but how come the people are afraid of the government? How come the government is saying, “Screw you. We don’t even want to work for you. We don’t serve you. The people serve the government.” And that’s because we’ve had a two party system for so long. When you’ve got two parties, they’re basically jostling over the middle votes. So you end up with just a slight, one of the parties slips up a bit and the votes go to the other party and they become government, which is backwards and forward.  
 Now the very encouraging thing with at this COVID virus is that people are waking up. They’ve taken our country for granted. They’ve assumed it’s been well managed. They can now see it’s not. They can see contradictions within our state of Queensland for example, from week to week within that one government. They can see so many contradictions and illogic and insanity between our government and the other state governments. And then they can see the contradictions with the federal government. There’s no plan, you can tell that. You’re a management consultant. You know there’s no plan because they’re not basing anything on data and I can talk more about where the data is, but these are the things. So what we have got to do as voters, I’m talking as a voter now, not as a politician, as voters, we need to say to the parties, pick up your game, or I’m taking my vote somewhere else. Just like if you’re not providing me with the service, I say, pick up your game or I’m going somewhere else to buy their products, their services.  
 So the voters haven’t done that. The encouraging thing is that so many people in the 25 to 45 year age bracket, and now saying, “Gee, look at what’s going on in our country.” They’re now awake. They’re now saying, “I’m going to vote.” They’re now saying, “I’m going to think about who I vote for.” And if you look at the trend, probably 30 years ago, it was 45% Voter Liberal National, 45% Voter Labour, 10% swung. They controlled the government at each election. Then it became 40, 40, and 20% swung. Then it became 35, 35 and 30% swung. Now in the last federal election in Queensland, the Senate in Queensland, for the federal election, the federal Senate, Labour got 22% of the vote. Not 45, 22%.  
Adrian D’Amico:Wow.  
Senator Roberts:So you can see, and also we see now independence in parliament, genuinely elected off their own bat, we see also more and more, some of our candidates are getting to be the last of the two that are knocked out on two party preferred. So people are waking up and that’s what we need.  
 So COVID has really said, “Wow, these guys are mismanaging their country. They’re not leading it at all.” You’re a business coach. So you know that a good leader as well as having strength of character, he or she leads people. They draw people. They create had a picture based on data that they’ve gone and researched. They create a vision as to what are the benefits for people. Sometimes those benefits don’t have to be for the individual. They can be benefit for society, or a very caring and altruistic, they will switch onto it to a noble goal providing it’s a good goal, and they’ve got faith in their leader. And then the leader will most established systems that enable people to work, whereas what we see in this country is we see bullying and threats. “Get your injection, or else you won’t get freedoms.” Hang on, hang on, hang on. We won’t get freedoms? There are ours in the first place. They’re con people-  
Adrian D’Amico:Let’s talk about that now [crosstalk] You’ve touched on a couple of things there, which resonate with me in the sense that there’s a lot of things that have been revealed as this COVID virus is as wiped through Australia. So to me, the virus has exposed the truth of what’s going on. And if you are able to sift through all the bullshit and see what the actual data is, and I am big on data, but I’m also big on real time results and responses of what’s going on. So whether it’s in business or in life or whatever I’m doing, if I’m working out at the gym, I’d like to test and measure what’s going on and then see what the realtime feedback is. And then iterate and change and progress and go forward. What we are seeing here in Australia is that there’s this flip flop between one policy and another. There’s flip flop between whatever reasoning is, standing up, sitting down, wearing a mask, not wearing a mask, 1.5 metres apart, 10 people in a home, five people in a home, the whole thing’s just gone, absolutely nuts.  
 The other thing that I guess has been exposed is that tyrannical, that control part of the political environment, which is really alarming. So here’s a couple of things that from my perspective, what I’ve researched and educated myself. So I’ve started a new business, 19 months ago, I’ve been closed for eight and a half, nine months of those 19 months. So it’s absolutely bled me dry. I’ve died the death of 1,000 cuts. I’m now working seven to days a week and just trying to make things work because I have to. Most people have said, “I’ve got no choice. I’ve got to get this shot.” I’ve said, I’ve got no choice. I’ve got three kids. I need to earn a living. I’m going back to work. So I just opened up the business.  
 So when I’ve looked into that, it’s taken me a long time to get the intestinal fortitude to do that. But it’s also taken a lot of research into the laws that are protecting me as a person, as an individual, as a business owner. No one can get in the way of my trade and me providing for my family. That to me, sets a precedent over any governmental or anything, that’s a health order, whatever it may be. My health comes first. My family comes first. The livelihood of what I’m doing to provide for my family comes first. However, what I’ve noticed in the last couple of months is that there are certain things to do with the biosecurity acts that are changing with the Privacy Act. They’re changing around privacy of your data. Like you mentioned before, it’s changing. The internet is changing. As you know, you’re getting censored, I’m getting censored. I uploaded a video last night with Charlene Bollinger for a documentary producer of truth about vaccines and truth about cancer. The whole video got deleted in 10 minutes. As soon as I uploaded it to YouTube, it got wiped off.  
 So there’s the censorship, the misinformation, the changing of the guard, the changing of the rules. It doesn’t matter whether Berejiklian gets in or Perrottet gets in. There’s all singing from the same hymn book. So this is super concerning as an Australian, it’s super concerning as a nation, because before our very eyes, these rules are getting changed in the favour of those tyrants that are ruling the roost.  
Senator Roberts:Yeah, you’re absolutely correct.  
Adrian D’Amico:So what’s going on? My question is what’s going on and what can we do about it? I want to circle back to the solution and it’s the reason why I wanted you on the show because the system is clearly broken. It’s clearly got cancer riddled right through it, and it needs to change immediately and the people need to be responsible for that. But there’s also people like yourself who are placed in positions of authority in order to help that change. So let’s go back to what’s going on with these rules being changed. Why can Dan Andrews do the things that he’s doing and passing these bills through parliament that allow him to call a pandemic whenever he sees fit and the majority of the Senate is pushing it through? It just seems to me that everyone’s all in on this and there’s nothing that we can do as the people.  
Senator Roberts:Yeah. There’s so many issues you raised there. The first one is everything you’ve talked about, the censorship, the control over people, they’re all forms of control and always beneath control, there is fear. I’m not talking about the government instilling fear in us. They are, but I’m talking about when someone tries to control someone else, beneath their control, there is fear. And they’re afraid of the truth. They are afraid that we will wake up because this is a gigantic scam. As I said, COVID can kill. So it’s not to be taken lightly, but it’s not the monster people are talking about. It’s not. It’s been grossly exaggerated. So that’s the first thing.  
 The second thing is the reason governments are jumping all over the place and contradicting themselves is that they have got no data. That’s the main reason. If they had data, they would all have the same data and they’d be marching down the same tune. Down the same road, rather to the same tune. But they’re not doing that. They’re capriciously changing things because they came out at first, the politicians themselves were scared and so had a lockdown. Now lockdowns are one of the worst things you can do. In America, there are 50 states. So you’ve got a scientific experiment underway. You’ve got many, many states locking down. Many, many states not locking down. The states not locking down are imaginably better than the states locking down. You’ve got Sweden, which has got of lockdowns and done very little at all. They had a slight increase in deaths. Well, a dramatic increase in deaths, but it’s now becoming a slight increase as they revert to the mean. So there are many people who believe that they did it correctly.  
 Then you’ve got Taiwan, which is by far, the standout performer in this. And Taiwan put in place a rigorous process of testing, tracing and quarantining. We locked down, which shuts everyone down. One, quarantined the sick and the vulnerable, which is exactly what you should do and they had an objective process for doing that in terms of testing and tracing. They’re not ruthless, they’re just common sense and the people there trust their government. If you look at the countries that did well, initially, Adrian, you’ll find it was countries like Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Israel. Now some of them have gone off the boil and they’ve, they’ve become poor cases of management. But initially, they were all very good. They were the leaders. The single thing can see that’s common amongst all of those is the fact that they’re under threat all the time. Every one of those countries has an antagonistic neighbour or is an economic threat. Singapore doesn’t have any resources. It depends upon international trade. It depends upon being competitive. It’s always fighting for its economic survival.  
 The other countries have military threats and they are the people don’t tolerate crap. If you’re not good, out you go because my life is at stake. So they’ve got that trust there. So they base decisions on data. In the first 12 months in our country where we locked down so often, we lost about 950 lives. In Taiwan, which has got a similar population they’re 24 million compared to our 25, they’re half the size of Tasmania in area. They’ve got 2% of the size of Queensland. They’re punching above their weight economically compared to us. No real resources to speak of very little agricultural land and yet there they are outperforming us. They had a blip in their economy of 0.6% in their GDP.  
Adrian D’Amico:Really?  
Senator Roberts:Ours was decimated because of the lockdowns. Now if you think even more about Taiwan, they’ve got a far riskier situation because they’re right next to mainland China, communist China, where the virus started. They have a lot, despite what people might think, they have a lot of trade with communist China. The two get on very, very well when it comes to trade and supporting each other with industry. One of the biggest investors in communist China is Taiwan. So what, what you’ll find is that they had a much more difficult and riskier job to manage the virus, but in their first 12 months, they lost seven people, seven. But the United Nations World Health Organisation, which lied about the virus in the first place, which tried to cover it up, which denied human to human transmission of the virus, which caught the world napping because we were lulled in a false sense security. The United nations has done everything it can to suppress Taiwan’s performance to hide it. But Taiwan has been the best in the world.  
 Now Taiwan had a major breakdown in quarantine and they got an increase in deaths very quickly, but they brought it back under control very quickly as well without draconian practises. So what we’ve seen now is that Taiwan, it’s death rate per million people is quite a bit lower than ours, despite a major breakdown. So they have got it under control yet again. So we see that what they’ve done is they’ve based their management of the virus on testing, tracing quarantine hard data. What you’ll find in this country, the virus is managing us. That’s what’s happening. The virus is managing us. We’re not managing the virus. Even the World Health Organisation, it’s a crooked, corrupt, incompetent, dishonest body but even they have a few months ago acknowledge that lockdowns are a last resort weapon, and they’re only to be used initially to get control of a virus.  
 So every time Anastasia Palache, every time Dan Andrews, every time Dom Perrottet invokes a lockdown, the guy in, in Western Australia, McGowan, he continues his lockdown. Every time they do that, they’re putting a flag up the pole saying, “We can’t manage this virus” and why are other countries managing it? So they’re giving the game away, but people can’t see that. They’re locked up in fear.  
 The other thing that happens is that, you would know this from your reading and your experience, that fear tends to short circuit the neocortex and people react in a gut level and they don’t react in a very logical way. There are benefits to that, but it means that there can be quite easily played by politicians. So what you see in Anastasia Palache was that in February, last year, before the virus arrived, she was gone. They said that in the election later that year, she would be turfed out easily. Well, they got the virus into the country. She then played on the fear. She made the old people terrified. She scared everyone, and then she conditioned people to certain practises and she won the election because she was an incumbent, just like the others won the election because they were incumbents. Northern Territory should be tossed out. So they’ve preyed on that fear and that’s what politicians do quite often. They prey on people’s fear, cause them to make emotional decision rather than informed decisions.  
 What I’ve also noticed with the UN and World Data Forum, their policies are fundamentally anti-human. They believe that humans are evil and need to be controlled, and they justify that to get more power, more power for the corporations that control them. And these corporations are well known. They’re easily identified. You see BlackRock, Vanguard, they own most of the world’s major corporations. You see Pfizer, for example, was given provisional approval for its injection here in this country. I won’t call it a vaccine. It’s not a true vaccine. They have not been tested. They have not been tested. They have been slightly tested or partially tested, but they have not been properly tested. They came out in months, whereas they should have come out in seven years, minimum of five, maybe 10 years. So I asked the therapeutic goods administration a question in Senate estimates in May, what does provisional approval mean? What is it? And they said, it’s approval given on the base if there’s nothing else.  
 So you’ve got to give it a chance. So they admitted no testing that we know that the Pfizer and AstraZeneca were basically adopted based on the manufacturer’s claims, but they’re indemnified against any loss and against any damage they do there. There’s been minimal testing. I wrote a letter to Scott Morrison and Anastasia Palache. It’s a six-page letter with about 58 pages worth of attachments. And I put in that the data, there are seven, seven attachments. One is on data, which I got from the chief medical officer, but people in the street have not been given that by the government and I had to get it out of the government. The second one is about the injections. The third one is about the use of complementary or alternative medicines, which are now proven. I won’t mention it because you want to post this video, but either, that’s one of the UN World Health Organisations, top 100 essential medicines for the planet. It’s been handed out prescribed and given in 3.7 billion doses over around 60 years and no side effects.  
 So it’s proof of COVID. I took it in this country. When I came back from India with a condition, it cleared up what I had in no time with no side effects. It’s recognised as the only side effects are minimal, are slight headaches, sometimes slight nausea. But now it’s proven, in India, it’s proven, in south American countries, Asian countries, European countries as being highly successful. Not only does it cure people who are sick and sometimes seriously sick with COVID, it cures them very quickly. It cures them with no risk. It also prevents transmission of the virus because it’s a prophylactic. Yet they won’t approve that. So some doctors and I was able to get some in this country until I locked it up based upon the fact that it’s been approved for other things, now the government is chasing down doctors, hunting them down, persecuting them, threatening them with removal of their practises. Why? Because that medicine, if it was readily available, there’d be no need for the injections.  
Adrian D’Amico:Agreed-  
Senator Roberts:But even if some people wanted an injection, let them have it, but let them have an alternative. This is the first outbreak we’ve seen where proven safe, affordable, and readily available, medicines have not been used immediately until a vaccine or injection is developed. And what we’ve got now in this country-  
Adrian D’Amico:[crosstalk] I agree with you 100%, but what you’re telling me tells me that they know. It tells me that it’s not that they don’t have the data, or they’re not acting on the data. They’re choosing to ignore the data. They’re choosing an injection, which obviously has a benefit to someone. But they’re not using these therapeutic goods or product services, whatever. They know the details. If the government, if the TGA doesn’t know any of this information, then that to me is bullshit. It can’t be true. So it means I must be avoiding it because I can tell you from little old me based in Wollongong, a fucking no one, I’ve been able to get ahold of Robert Kennedy Jr. I’ve been able to get a of Dr. Pierre Kory. I’ve interviewed Peter McCullough. All of these guys know the facts. They’ve been curing COVID patients for the last 18 months and scientists, Ashton C. Berger, researchers, people who have worked for the World Organisation. I’ve sent  
Adrian D’Amico:Sent them an email. They responded. You can’t tell me that our health bureaucrats and our government officials don’t know this information. You can’t tell me that. There’s no way…  
Senator Roberts:I’m not going to tell you that. I’m going to tell you, you’re right. And if you look at Greg Hunt, have a look at Greg Hunt, 2000 and 2001, in the World Economic Forum, he used to come to there and he was Director of Strategy for the World Economic Forum. Mathias Cormann has now head of the OECD. He was leader of the Government in the Senate for the Liberal Party, from Western Australia in the Federal Senate. Whenever I ask him a question about show me the evidence for this climate change, a narrative you’re pushing and the policies, he would say, “Well, we’ve got to fulfil our obligations to the global obligations.” In other words, he didn’t have any damn science, and they do know what’s going on. Although I will put a caveat on that, the climate scam, which I’ve been vigorous on, the climate scam showed me that the majority of politicians do not know what’s going on.  
 The majority of politicians, sorry, around about 40% of the Labour Party in 2012, when they passed the Carbon Tax, Julia Gillard promised never to have one, but she had one. When they passed that, and it’s an estimated about 40% of the labour party didn’t agree with it, all silent. In the Liberal Party, at least 60, probably 70% of the liberal nationals did not believe it. But bit by bit over time, they’ve conditioned themselves to do this. They just get lulled to sleep and they’ve put up their hand and vote in a certain way because they’re afraid of not getting pre-selected. Once they vote once a certain way, they find it very difficult to change because that’s something that politicians have a great anathema to. They won’t admit mistakes. Whereas Paul and I, we will confess the mistakes because then you can get on with your life, and it’s not a burden anymore.  
 So, what you’ll find is that most politicians, in my opinion, are driven by ignorance, gutlessness, and stupidity. I mean, this stuff you said, you’re not a doctor, but you’ve just researched it using your common sense and you know it’s stupid. There’s so many contradictions, nonsensical, illogical contradictions. So, I’d read you some from my second attachment, Therapeutic Goods Administration. And remember, Greg Hunt said that the world is engaged in the largest clinical vaccination trial. This is a trial to him and it is a trial because they haven’t done the basic studies on transfer from one generation to the next. That can be done easily in rats and mice with very short life spans, that can be done many times in the short period. They haven’t done that.  
 We know so much dangerous about these injections, but we don’t know much in detail. So, conflicts of interest are bound in association with the Therapeutic Goods Administration. For example, the TGA is funded entirely by fees imposed on the pharmaceutical companies that it supposedly regulates. A new prescription drug, for example, requires payment of a $250,000 application fee and ongoing fees of around $30,000 a year. Professor Scarrott admitted to those figures as being correct. Now, this was developed by my staff and I. I put this whole document together because I want to understand it from the roots up. The TGA makes $160,000,000 a year in payments from pharmaceutical and nutraceutical companies and device manufacturers. What? 160,000,000, that pays for them. It is this same drug companies repeatedly paying their money and getting their approvals. These same drug companies invite clinicians, doctors to attend exclusive and free professional development programmes to promote their products.  
 Sometimes, it’s a trip overseas. COVID has shown how easily those approvals are issued and how hard it is to get an approval for a drug like Iver, that only makes a few cents a pill in profit for drug companies. So, what we’ve seen here is Pfizer has estimated, it’ll take an income revenue over $45,000,000,000 this year, total. It produces the Pfizer injection. Was it called Comirnaty? I can’t… Yeah, whatever it is. And that injection is going to be the bulk of their revenue. It can only be provisionally approved if there’s no competition. If this Iver medicine or the many other complimentary medicines that are working, some people don’t use Iver, they use other complimentary medicines or regimes or protocols. If they were available, imagine what Pfizer’s profit would be. It would be nothing compared to what it is now and what they’re heading for. In the last quarter, they made revenue of $18,900,000,000 and they made a profit of $4,000,000,000.  
 They produce drugs that cure the side effects of the injections. So, you can see the money going on. Now, there’s no way, and then I’ve got a document my staff put together with 32 pages of conflicts of interest for the medical professionals on the TGA’s expert committees that review the drugs and recommend approval. Some of them have taken research grants or benefits from or worked for these same drug companies, and they’re the same drug companies. Merck produced the Iver medicine, but it’s gone off patent. So, they can’t make a lot of money out of it. But now, they’re pushing another drug, which we’ve got grave concerns about and which our government bought $300,000,000 worth without testing. It’s your money. And so, what we’ve got, it keeps coming back to, “We don’t hold them accountable.” So, what we’ve got to do is Senate…  
 When I say we, I’m talking about the people at the ballot box, but what we do is senators, Paul and I, we go into the details, but it becomes a game of cat and mouse, Adrian. We have to chase these bureaucrats and they’re pretty well-versed in responding with bullshit and giving us nothing to hang onto. So, what we have got to do is play a game of trying to corner them. They should be open [inaudible] as their job as bureaucrats and responsible to the people. So, we can see it is a game. There’s no way that the TGA does not know what’s going on. No way at all. If they don’t, they’re completely stupid morons. They’re not bright people. There’s no way. But what we’ve got is they’re being protected by ignorant, gutless, stupid politicians.  
 Now, we’ll say there are some politicians waking up. I put together another letter to the prime minister and to the four omegas, as I call him Prime Minister Joyce, Barnaby Joyce, the deputy leader, deputy prime minister and leader of the Nationals, Anthony Albanese, opposition leader, and Adam Bandt. I sent this just before Glasgow. That’s on the climate. There are so many things on climate, John Howard, who I just described his government before, did the most damage when it comes to this climate rubbish, these lies. Six years after leaving office, he said in an address in London, after passing all this legislation, he said on the topic of climate science, he is agnostic. These policies are now costing us trillions in opportunity costs and costing us hundreds of billions in direct costs, $19,000,000,000 a year, an extra $1,300 per household average cost.  
 So, the father of the Senate, when he was in the Senate, he’s left now 2016, Senator Ian MacDonald from Townsville looked across at me, Adrian, and said, “I don’t always agree with Senator Roberts, but I’ve got to admit that he’s the only person that started the debate that this parliament has never had on the climate science.” They’ve never debated the climate science, neither the Liberals, Labours, Nationals, nor the Greens. There are so many other examples. So, I wrote to politicians who’ve been prominent in publicising the crap on climate and pushing these policies that are gutting our economy and making us dependent and said, “Where’s your evidence?” Not one of them, out of the 19 prominent politicians I wrote to on all the parties, the major parties, not one of them could provide me with any evidence, not one.  
 I then wrote to 10 people, who I know have got doubts about the policy, and I said to them, “Can you please provide me with the evidence?” And they all responded by saying, “We have never been given the evidence in parliament nor by our party.” So, I’m going to read out their names because we pitch and moan about some politicians, rightly so, but these people have shown the integrity and the courage to tell the truth. Llew O’Brien, National Party, Craig Kelly, formerly Liberal, now United Australia Party, Kevin Andrews, a senior Liberal member of parliament, who’s not going to be pre-selected and you can see why, because he speaks up. Senator Eric Abetz was once the leader of the government in the Senate, George Christensen, a National Party from Queensland, Senator Connie Fierravanti-Wells, Liberal Party, New South Wales, another conservative, another strong person, Bob Katter from Northern Queensland, Senator Pauline Hanson and Senator Gerard Rennick.  
 Now, there’s a good man, Senator Gerard Rennick. He stands up, he’s willing to cross the floor, he sticks it into the government, because his job is not to be beholden to the Liberal Party. His job is to serve the people of Queensland and the people of Australia, and I know that. I deal with him. He’s a wonderful bloke. He bases decisions on dart. He’s got a very good brain, very bright with figures and numbers. So. These people, they show hope that in the parliament, there are some decent people, but the trouble is, Adrian, they get drowned out by the vast majority in the Labour, Liberal, and National Parties, and the Greens. So, it’s a matter of… With the climate, I just thought, “How can these people do what they’re doing?” This is when I was on the outside, trying to hold them accountable.  
 And I realised the majority of people had no clue what was going on. They did what were told. Many of them, as I said, 60 to 70% of the Liberal Party and the National Party actively agreed with me. And we’ve seen some senators like Senator Canavan, for example, came from the sceptic side. He was Chief of Staff of Barnaby Joyce, who was the most colourful and effective speaker against this climate crap. And I talked to Matt when he was Chief of Staff and he was against this bullshit. Matt in the Senate in 2015, when he became a cabinet member spoke in terms of needing to cut carbon dioxide from human activity. What? And so, I sat next to him in a division one day and I sat down next to him and said, “Hey mate, I heard about your speech before I arrived.” And he said, “Well, we must be having some effect.” So, I said, “Where’s your evidence?” You know what he did? He just slid on the seat away from me.  
 Now, what Matt has done is he’s realised that there’s a lot of votes in Central Queensland from coal miners. So, Matt, as a cabinet member, he’s now out of cabinet, but as a cabinet member, would vote for liberal bills that would gut the coal industry. Not one liberal policy has helped the coal industry. They’ve all gutted it since about in the last four years, not one, but he talks when he’s in Central Queensland about the need to support coal. He goes down a coal mine and comes out with coal dust on his face. These are the kinds of things people do, but then, they’re not sincere. They’re not genuine. And so, you get to Craig Kellys, wonderful, genuine, makes decisions based on data. The Gerard Rennicks, the Connie Fierravanti-Wells, the Eric Abetzs. These are the people, the Senator Pauline Hansons, the Bob Katters. These are the ones that have the guts to stand up.  
 So, the problem is the same thing that ruins many corporate boards, one person tends to dominate and he or she floats an idea and the others are saying, “I don’t really agree with this. I don’t understand it.” Now, if I ask a question, they’ll go, “Oh, you’re a dumb fool.” So, I won’t ask the question. I’ll just vote with it. That’s what happens in parliament. In other words, what we’re electing in parliament are the same kind of people who are running right throughout our society. Only a few people stand up and that’s sad, but that’s the reality. So, what we have to do, the parliament is not broken. We don’t need to replace parliament. We need to get back to running the system the way it was designed to be run. We’re just breaking the rules. When I say we, I’m talking about the title party breaking the rules, they’re not complying with the system and they haven’t had people in the voters and they haven’t had people like us before holding them accountable persistently based on data, and that’s what I love about Pauline, she bases her questions and comments on data.  
Adrian D’Amico:Okay. So, you’re not saying that the system can be fixed in a sense of people swinging their votes towards parties like yourselves that are more outspoken that want to get down to grassroots, and I guess provide solutions to the current problems. But I guess I’m hearing that side of things and I think that that is definitely the sentiment that I’m getting at the moment is people are starting to wake up to the parties like yourselves and the Clive Palmers of the world, the Craig Kellys of the world, which is great to see, but there’s still these guys and girls that are sitting at in very prominent positions, which are still pulling the strings. So, my concern is that what’s going to be the collateral damage between now and when there’s the next election in order to make these changes.  
 So, what do you see is going to be a possible remedy or a solution right this minute, because you look at Victoria, you look at where you are in Queensland, what’s happening at the moment with all these rules and the two classes of citizens and all that kind of stuff. It’s happening here in New South Wales, the same thing. For our listeners, we talk up here, you’re in quarantine right now?  
Senator Roberts:Yeah.  
Adrian D’Amico:So like you’re stuck inside of wherever. So, what’s happening with these people? What can we do to eradicate this cancer, which is rotting Australia?  
Senator Roberts:Pauline had made a decision today on how to move this federal government, because Scott Morrison has been accused by the French President of being a liar. He’s been accused the following day at Blasco by Malcolm Turnbull as being a liar, who frequently lied to Malcolm Turnbull. He is not telling the truth on this COVID, not at all. Anastacia Palache said that the decision to invoke her edict in Queensland was in line with that of the national cabinet. The national cabinet is not constitutional. The national cabinet has no authority, and you yet is made out to have a lot of authority. That is a lie.  
Adrian D’Amico:Okay.  
Senator Roberts:Scott Morrison, I believe… Sorry?  
Adrian D’Amico:Yeah, keep going. This is interesting.  
Senator Roberts:Scott Morrison, I believe started the national cabinet very early, almost immediately, because he’s a very clever politician. I don’t think he’s honest. I think he tells lies and we can see that just in their responses and the mismanagement of this COVID, make it no mistake. This has been entirely mismanaged in this country. So, Scott Morrison started the national cabinet. I believe he started that if what they did, and they didn’t know what they were doing and I accept that for the first few months and I can come back to that in a minute, but they have to learn what’s happening after a few months on the job and managing it and they didn’t learn. They didn’t come up with a plan. We still don’t have a plan. You know in a business that a plan is not a plan unless you know what you’re going to do, who’s responsible for it, when they’re going to do it, where they’re going to do it, and when they’re going to do it, and why are they going to do it? They’re the five.  
 Once you sort out those basic answers, you go into the how. What happens too much in our parliament is they go to the how, not the should. Should we do this? No, bugger that. We’ll forget that. We’ll just go to what we’re going to do. And then, Pfizer drops a few clangers and they start going into that. Where do you start? I got tired of this. So in 2020, in March 23rd, we had our first single day emergency session in the Senate in parliament on this coronavirus. We could see that tens of thousands of deaths reported in Italy, France, Spain, and China. So, we thought this could be very serious. So, we’ve got to give the government all a leeway and said, “Get whatever you want, away you go. You’re in government. You’ve been elected. Get on with a job. We won’t stand in your way. We’ll pass your bill.” But I said to them, “Have a look at the promising in vitro trials at Monash University using the Iver medicine.”  
 “Have a look at Taiwan and South Korea,” and later on, I just said, Taiwan, in particular. “We want you to get the data and we want you to develop a plan.” None of those things have been done, not one. On the 8th of April 2020, I repeated those same things, when we passed the job keeper legislation, just said to the government, “Get on with the job. We’ll give you an open check.” They still haven’t done any of those things. And so, we’ve got a national cabinet that I believe Scott Morrison started as something that he could take the credit for if it worked and something that he could blame if it didn’t work, because they’re just groping their way through the dark. They’re blind. They’re not managing at all. So, what we’ve got is mismanagement and a grove on the gravest kind because we [inaudible] hundreds of billions of dollars.  
 We’re destroying small business. We’re destroying people’s lives. People suiciding with these idiotic lockdowns. We’re now seeing Dan Andrews and Anastasia Palache, and to some extent, New South Wales, now dividing society into injected and non injected. They’re now trying to pit people against people in this country. They’re dividing. That’s why Pauline calls us one nation, because she wants us to reunite, recombine as one nation, not black or white or Asian or anything like this, because we’ve all got red blood. She wants us to be one nation. So, we’ve got the states now not managing, we’ve got the federal government not managing. So, we’ve got to come back to basing decisions on data, having a solid plan, sharing… These are basic management traits of managing a small business, sharing the plan with the people, getting them involved if necessary through feedback, and then getting on with the job.  
 Never have we seen any one of those traits, not one. In May this year, sorry, in March. In March, instead of the estimates, I had the Chief Medical Officer for the Federal Government, the Secretary of the Federal Health Department together in the room in Senate estimates and I said, “Let me just ask you a few questions about the components of strategies for managing a virus. So, the first one would be lockdowns.” I didn’t elaborate because they are a tool that can be used sometimes, they’ve been overused. So, they said, “Yes, that’s a tool.” Okay. Good. Number two is, I can’t remember what I mentioned then, but number two is basically some forms of restrictions like masks or social distance. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. That’s good. Yep. Number three was injections, vaccines. Yes. Yes, that’s the strategy. So, I slipped in number four. Number four is the use of alternatives, prophylactics, cures, treatments. And to my amazement, they said, “Yes.”  
 And in fact, viruses up until this time have been managed with treatments that have been proven until the vaccines were developed, then I said, “Number five would be testing, tracing, quarantining, like in Taiwan.” Targeted. “Yes.” That’s that’s the strategy. So, we’ve got five strategies so far. Sixth strategy, they said we had to add of behaviour. What do you mean by personal behaviour? Hygiene, washing hands. I said, “Yes, that makes sense. That’s from managing flus and respiratory diseases.” Then in May, I added a seventh one, health and fitness. You look at what we’ve done. We’ve crippled health and fitness, locking people up, keeping them out of the sun, Vitamin D, stopping them exercising, stopping them engaging with people, stopping them being with their loved ones, which is essential for health, and we know that the immunoglobulin, it responds to lack of stress.  
 So, we’ve just destroyed that. Washing hands, we’ve been told about that, but not given many tips about it, and the other personal hygiene. We’ve been prevented deliberately from accessing proven, known, safe, affordable alternatives and complimentary medicines. Stop from doing that. This is the first time in Australia’s history, where the government has knowingly injected something that can kill people into healthy people and has killed them. It’s the first time in our history, where we have knowingly withheld a proven, safe, effective treatment from people who are sick and they have died as a result. So, we’ve gone against the strategy. So, we haven’t done testing, tracing, and quarantining properly. We haven’t quarantined properly. We’ve done it capriciously just by locking people down. What’s the other one? So, and lockdowns have been overused, abused, suicides, causing other diseases, causing a destruction of the economy, which freedom and economic freedom in particular are essential for health, absolutely essential.  
 And we have done the complete opposite. These governments in their gutlessness and their stupidity and their cowardice have actually crippled people and exacerbated the virus’ control over people. They have done it deliberately through fear. What we’re seeing is complete mismanagement because it comes back to, they don’t have the courage to say, “Okay, we didn’t know. We made a mistake for the first three months. Let’s change our plan. Let’s go change, find out what Taiwan did. Let’s find out what Sweden did. Let’s find out and have a look at the Iver medicine.” These are the basic things, and these are the things that destroy large companies who don’t have strong corporate executives. See, it just comes down to human nature.  
Adrian D’Amico:I get it. I’m still longing for a solution that stops what they’re doing in their tracks. What I don’t see from Scott Morrison as a leader is actual leadership. I don’t know where he is or what he’s doing, but I don’t see anyone calling the shots as in stop what we are doing right now because it’s clearly broken and it’s clearly destroying this country. I mean, just as we are recording, prior to recording this interview, I have spoken to someone who her and her husband have had the shot. They got their double dose. They’ve both been in hospital for three days. They’ve both got heart problems. They’ve both got serious health issues going on. They have two kids and they have to go to work and still provide, and they’re suffering from this experimental medicine that is really mining and harming and killing people in Australia and our government,  
Adrian D’Amico:… government is then responsible for doing it.  
Senator Roberts:Well, look-  
Adrian D’Amico:What you’re explaining is criminal. It’s a crime.  
Senator Roberts:Yeah it is, it is. And it’s negligent. There’s a four-letter word starting with C. There’re actually three four-letter words starting with C, and they have one vowel difference. C-A-R-E, care. C-O-R-E, core. C-U-R-E, cure. What I’m about to say is second nature to you. If you really care, you will go to the core of the problem and develop a solution, and then you’ll put in place the cure. What we see around here is people not caring because they want to look good, feel good, get a headline, get a result, be looking after their donors, their corporate donors for their party, so they don’t care, so that’s set aside. They go straight to the cure, which is pulled out of the air or out of their arse. It’s just put out there as something that’ll grab a headline. They have no care, so they come up with the cure. They ignore the core, and because they ignore the core they keep coming back.  
 You said, “What are the solutions?” Long-term, the solutions are, “Voters, for goodness sake, change the parliament so that parliament goes back to serving the people rather than serving the corporate donors, the political parties.” That’s one.  
 Secondly, the people need to stand up and express their disappointment. They need to get off their arses and go and visit their Senator. Go and visit their Member of Parliament for Federal, go and visit their State Member of Parliament, their State Upper House Member of Parliament. Knock on the door and say, “I want in and I want to see my Member. He works for. He works for me. He serves me.”  
 In the Senate, when I had my first speech in the Senate, and every speech since that’s more than two or three minutes long or… I can’t do it in the short ones, but every decent length speech, I start with the [inaudible], “As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia.” When I first uttered those words in my first speech in the Senate, Labour Party, Liberal Party, some people laughed. Laughed. And I’ve done it every time since, not to annoy them, but to remind myself and to remind them why we are supposed to be here. We’re supposed to listen to our constituents and then exercise our hearts and our minds to develop solutions, get the solutions from the people. We need to, as voters, we need to say to the people we elected, “You’re not doing your job. I’m not voting for you. Hold yourself accountable. If you can explain to me why you’re doing this, well, I’ll vote for you. But if you can’t, bugger off. I’m not voting for you.”  
 The second thing, if you can’t get to see them, and even if you can, call them up, talk to them on the phone, leave messages. We know that the Liberal Party is terrified at the moment because they’re having members, long-term members, donors, leaving them in droves because they’re disgusted with Scott Morrison’s lies and gutlessness, his lack of leadership. He came into power in 2019 based on opposing the 2050 net zero. He’s now taken the policies he was criticising. The man has done it time and time again with so many things.  
 The third thing is to get hold of MPs, is to write them a letter, sign it, put it on paper, post it. They make a lot of difference to MPs. Emails don’t, unless they get many, many, many emails on a topic. They’re the things… get off our arses, go and talk to them, hold them accountable, tell them what you want. They’re supposed to represent you.  
 The… excuse me. The third thing is to protest. Get up, make your voice heard. Look at Melbourne. Dan Andrews was dictator supreme until one single event. The CFMEU rank and file attacked the head offices of the CFMEU’s union bosses and they jolted them out of their lethargy, and that shocked Dan Andrews because the CFMEU is a core part of the Labour Party support. The rank and file said, “Up yours,” then they took to the streets. There were all kinds of protests, all kinds of violence perpetrated by some cops, only a small percentage of cops. Dan Andrews in his latest lockdown had about a couple hundred cases, I think, a day, and he said, “We’ve got to lockdown hard and fast. When he’s got 2,000 cases a day, he unlocks. Tell me there’s any sense in that. People are now asking these questions. Now what we’ve seen is, is protests in the mid-20,000s of people in Melbourne last Saturday. Wasn’t reported on the news.  
 So that brings us to another topic. We’ve got to get people talking to each other, talking to their workmates. It doesn’t matter whether they’ve been injected or not injected, give them a break. Some people have been injected. 40% of nurses that have been injected have done it under coercion. They don’t want it. They’ve seen exactly what you’ve seen with your two friends who’ve had heart problems. They’ve seen clots, they’ve seen strokes, they’ve seen all kinds of ailments, some very serious. They’ve seen people die. These nurses are not fools. These doctors are not fools, and they’re not complying. Or some of them that are complying are complying because they’re under duress. They can’t afford to go without a meal, can’t afford to go without a week’s pay. So talk to your friends, talk to your workmates, talk to your colleagues, talk to your family, talk to your social friends, talk to your football club friends. Get the word out. Don’t be quiet anymore. So these are the things we can do.  
 What else? Tomorrow morning we should see something pretty big come out of Pauline and myself. We’re giving Scott Morrison an ultimatum, “Get off your arse and do your job, or else,” and we’ve got some strings attached to that which I can’t go into now. These are the kinds of things we shouldn’t have to do. We should be able to present the data as I’ve done to him with the virus, as I’ve done to him with climate, and he should be taking notice of that and doing something. He won’t reply to them. He would just keep bluffing his way through. He’ll spend another couple of billion dollars on electric vehicles that will transfer money from taxpayers to billionaires who are making the benefit. He’ll transfer more money from taxpayers and electricity users to billionaires funding and our multinationals funding solar panels and wind turbines. It’s all bullshit. It is complete bullshit.  
 So what I’m saying is, there are no simple ways and the ultimate way of course is to vote him out and vote Albanese out. Put minor parties in place, change the Parliament and hold them accountable once they’re in. There are many, many ways in a democracy of doing that.  
Adrian D’Amico:Okay.  
Senator Roberts:I’ve just given some.  
Adrian D’Amico:I like it. I’ll add a couple more.  
Senator Roberts:Okay.  
Adrian D’Amico:Mass civil disobedience. I think when it’s stupid and nonsensical and illogical, don’t do it. And I think if more people get on that bandwagon then we can unite, and I’m seeing it throughout the businesses that I go to. You’re supposed to show your passport and wear a mask and all that kind of stuff, and I don’t do it, and the vast majority of people don’t say a thing because they want me in their stores. They want me to buy their stuff, and so I feel that the majority of Australians would feel this way.  
 Another thing that I thought of is between yourself and Pauline and Riccardo and Clive and all the good guys that you mentioned, you guys have got to start to make a stand yourself, and I feel like some of that is coming already, but I really think that if you could get together and you could use yourselves as a force to be reckoned with, because this government that is currently ruling the roost is destroying this country. I’ve never seen this country fail so miserably and be destroyed and have its people set amongst itself so quickly in my lifetime.  
 The conversations that I’m having with my children who are 15, 11 and nine is scaring the fucking daylights out of me. Every time they go to school, every time that the news is on, every time there’s a new case, every time there’s someone that I hear of that’s passing away or having some sort of ailment from this new medicine that’s going around. It’s diabolical. The things that are going through my mind as a father every single day. I hate having these conversations with my children.  
 So from me to you, I want to encourage you to get together with the people that you know that can be a force for good in the powers that you have, and I think you should take over these tyrants and push them out. I really think that that could be a seventh or an eighth option, and I think we need it now otherwise there was going… I feel like there’s going to be civil unrest. I feel like there’s going to be just mass civil unrest amongst this country, which is not good. This cannot be good for us going forward.  
Senator Roberts:No, you’re right. A couple of things I would agree with. All of your points I agree with. I would want to modify it a certain way, as I will. The first comment I’ll say is that you begged the current government and you should, but remember that the Liberal Nationals are in power in Federal and in New South Wales and in South Australia, and the Liberals in Tasmania. The worst States are the Labour States. Dan Andrews, Anastasia Palaszczuk and Mark McGowan. So it’s not just the Liberals. Anthony Albanese will be no better, and in some ways he could be worse. The problem is the [inaudible] party, so that’s the first thing. I’m not going to criticise Morrison alone. When I talk about Morrison, it’s because he’s the prime minister. He’s a liar, he’s gutless, he’s not a leader, he’s a pusher. Same with Palaszczuk. Same with Dan Andrews, particularly Dan Andrews. These people are pushers and tyrants and bullies, they’re not leaders. They don’t draw people.  
 The next point you mentioned was to disobey. I have been one to sometimes break the rules myself, but as a Senator it would be hypocritical of me to be a lawmaker and to break the rules, so what I do is I gather my evidence and then I’ll take it forward. I’ve written to the ACT Chief Minister because I’m in parliament in Canberra. I’ve written to the ACT Chief Minister and said, “Where’s the evidence for masks?” and if he doesn’t provide it, I’ll be telling the Senate President, “I’m not wearing a damn mask until he does.” And Anastasia Palaszczuk and her health minister, I’ve written to them saying, “Where’s your evidence for masks?” and then I’ll be doing something about making sure that people don’t have to wear masks. That’s the second thing. I’ve got to be careful what I do. I’ve been in protests, but I must have integrity in following the laws. Where the law is wrong I’ve got to work on changing them, not just blatantly disobeying them, if you know what I mean, so I’ve got to have integrity, but I have pushed the boundaries.  
 We have taken a stand. We’ve been in the face of the TGA. We’ve been in the face of the government. We have been very outspoken publicly. I’ve done a lot of things with the [Ivermectin]. The Therapeutic Goods Administration wrote me a letter trying to intimidate me, to shut me down. They accused me of advertising, breaking the laws on advertising of medicines. Rather than meekly accept that and shut up, I wrote them a letter back saying basically, “Go to hell. The government has blood on its hands because they’re not approving the Ivermectin,” and I said, “It’s disgraceful what you’re doing.” I got a thank you back. That was it. “Thank you for your letter.”  
 So in other words, we have been standing up. We’ve been asking questions boldly in the Senate and in Senate Estimates. We’ve been questioning the government on their… I don’t know if you know it, but there’s no pandemic of deaths. For a pandemic to happen, there must be a huge increase in deaths. There isn’t any, so some people then say, “Well hang on. That’s because of lockdowns.” No, go to Sweden. You’ll find a huge increase [inaudible] initially, but now they’re reverting to the mean. All that happened was a few people with comorbidities brought forward their death, but they haven’t had an overall increase.  
 Many other countries, there’s been no overall increase. Around the world there’s been no increase in death. There’s been no pandemic. There is no pandemic. I won’t use the word. If you look at their death data… How can I do this here? The data goes, looking from your way, it goes seasonally, right? It’s seasonal. If you look, you know this, there’s an average, then there’s a range above the average and a range below the average where you’ll have a number of deaths per week, per year, and that varies from year to year, week to week. But it’s always between that upper level and the lower level, until the start of injections. Now it’s been consistently above the upper range. This is unprecedented. It’s not COVID death because we haven’t had many, it’s not death due to car accidents because we’ve been locked down. It’s not death due to misadventure because we’ve been locked down. It’s not death due to suicide because the total number of suicides, even though they’ve gone up 40, 50%, the total number of suicides is still small.  
 They started, this increase, unprecedented, started at the same time as the injections started. Well, we’ve been chasing the government on that, because the government used to release the data two weeks after the period closed. Now they’re releasing it 15 weeks later. So we’re saying, “Why? What have you done?” The Therapeutic Goods Administration, I’ve said to them in Senate Estimates, “Why have you had 564 deaths from injections?” We reported deaths from injections, and the Professor, John Skerritt, the head of the Therapeutic Goods Administration, I thought he was going to explode. He said, “We haven’t had 564 deaths. We’ve had nine,” and I thought, “Well hang on, so I’d better go and check the data.” I checked the data. They have had 564 reports of deaths from doctors due to the injections.  
Adrian D’Amico:Wow.  
Senator Roberts:They have analysed them and revised them down to nine. So then I went back into Senate Estimates and said, “I want to know the process.” I read from their website, 564 reported deaths, et cetera, and then I said, “I want to know the process by which you revised the 564 down to nine. I want to know, do you do autopsies? Do you do biopsies? Do you do tissue samples, cultures, blood tests, et cetera? I want to know how you do that.” I don’t think they do, so there’s no pandemic of deaths. There is by the sound of it something they’re hiding with regard to the injections and the deaths that come from those injections, so we are standing up.  
 The third thing, unite, you mentioned. We are talking with Clive. I’m very good mates with Craig Kelly. I think he’s wonderful. He’s got courage. He uses… If he says something, it’s truthful. He gets his facts. He’s like me. I know Campbell Newman. I don’t know him very well. Well, we get on okay, pretty well. Who’s the other one? Oh, Bob Katter. Pauline and Bob Katter said that before the last election they did a tour around Queensland, various parts of Queensland, and they said that they would work with each other and that’s continuing. They asked their supporters and voters to give me their second preferences. That helped me get elected, and we did the same with them, so we’re working with the small parties. Who’s the other one? I’ve had a meeting with Clive, Pauline and James Ashby, who’s Pauline’s Chief of Staff. I’ve had meetings with Clive. They talk reasonably often. We work with IMOP. They’re the people who are… You know IMOP?  
Adrian D’Amico:Yep.  
Senator Roberts:Okay, they’re a good party. Who are we missing in there? Liberal Democrats, Campbell Newman. So we are talking, and what I have been saying on Facebook to people is, “Vote One Nation, one. For two, three, four, five and six, vote United Australia Party, Katter’s, the LDP, Shooters Fishers Farmers, IMOP. Put Liberals third last, or Labour. Put Labour second last or Liberals. Put the Greens last. So in other words, we can’t unite because we are fundamentally different in some areas, but not only that, I know that what will happen if we all united, say we all united under Craig or all united under Pauline, all the guns would be trained on that one person. They would be told lies about them. They would smash that person into the ground and they’d destroy their character, the media would be onto them. They would just destroy that person.  
 That’s what’s happened in the past. Bob Katter told me that many years ago. I’ve never forgotten that. And so if we’ve got Pauline standing up, me standing up, Bob Katter standing up, Jared Renick in the Liberal Party standing up, Craig Kelly standing up, Campbell Newman standing up, Shooters Fishers Farmers standing up, IMOP standing up, we got all these parties standing up, they can’t shoot us all. And so long as we unite in our approach and we help each other and support each other, and that’s what we’re doing, and so long as we share… You don’t share preferences, because the voters control their preferences, the voters decide preferences. So long as we recommend on our how-to-vote cards to our supporters to support the other minor parties ahead of the majors, then we will get preferences and get more of the minor parties elected.  
 There are people leaving the Labour Party in droves, people so pissed off in Queensland with Anastasia Palaszczuk. The feeling, I thought, would be fear. It’s not. I was wrong. The feeling is anger, and some fear, and so people are now saying, “I voted for Palaszczuk last time because she said she’d protect us. This is wrong. I’m not voting Labour again ever,” so they’re coming to us, and so what we’ve got to say is, “If you vote for us one, vote for the other minor parties two, three, four, five, six in whatever order you want. Put the Liberals, Labour, Nationals and Greens last.” So we’re uniting in terms of our vote, but we’re not uniting in terms of forming one party, but effectively we’re united and we’re helping each other.  
Adrian D’Amico:Very good. Malcolm, I could keep going. I’ve got to… this is the type of topic that can obviously open up a can worms, but I want to commend you on, first of all accepting my invitation. Like I said, you’re the first politician that’s actually done that, so congratulations. Thank you for being human about all of this and being candid and straight to the point. I really appreciate your views. I wish you well with your endeavours, and I really hope that a lot of what we’ve spoken about within tonight’s podcast is something that people can take away from and really understand that the power does belong to the people, and that if we can unite as a nation, as someone who can look towards Australia’s future, I really feel that we can get out of what this bleak outlook is at the moment and unite to a really strong and positive Australia, which this country really deserves. So thank you once again.  
Senator Roberts:[inaudible].  
Adrian D’Amico:I look forward to chatting [inaudible].  
Senator Roberts:If I can say thank you very much for what you are doing, because the legacy media doesn’t give us a voice. It’s a funny thing. Is the legacy media dying because of COVID or because of suicide? The legacy media, Sky News, has become abysmal. They even sacked Alan Jones, who’s their prime performer. Alan was calling them out on so many issues. They’ve now gone quiet. TGB is an absolute disgrace now. They’re propagandas for the injection. Sky News has become propaganda for the injection. Channel 9, Channel 7, the same. They’re more subtle about how they do it, but they’re still very strong. The ABC is as terrible as ever, so we’ve got no chance in the legacy media.  
 Social media is really anti-social media. They’re censoring you, they’re taking your material off, your content off. They’ve done the same to me. They banned me on YouTube a couple of times. I have to skate the line very, very closely on Facebook. Anybody on Facebook, individuals, please push the line, because they can only… they’ll only ban you for a few days or sometimes a month. You’ll be back. With me, with Craig Kelly, they ban us forever, so we can’t afford to lose that voice. We have other ways of getting around that and you’ll see that on Facebook.  
 But the third alternative is independent media, truthful media, like yourself, podcasters, live streams on Instagram, Facebook. These are the people who are spreading the news and giving people who tell the truth, like myself and Pauline, an actual platform to speak, and you’re doing the research yourself, the [McCulloughs], et cetera, you just rattled off a whole bunch of people who are prominent around the world and preeminent, and so thank you very much for getting the data and for sharing the data and giving people an opportunity to get to the truth. Thank you.  
Adrian D’Amico:My pleasure. Thank you for your kind words. Thank you for this conversation, and I look forward to talking to you again soon.  
Senator Roberts:Yeah. I look forward to that too. Thanks Adrian.  
Adrian D’Amico:Okay.  
Senator Roberts:Good night mate.  
Adrian D’Amico:Bye Malcolm.  

Available on these platforms:

Our debt of gratitude to our Australian health care workers over the past two years is impossible to quantify.  Doing what they love, thousands of nurses and doctors have been at our beck and call taking care of people who have become ill.  The mandatory introduction of the COVID vaccine has wreaked havoc in many sectors, with large numbers of staff having to leave their jobs to exercise their bodily autonomy to not have the vaccination.

It is our doctors and nurse who are seeing first-hand some of the concerning adverse effects from this vaccination and, perhaps not surprisingly, these stories are not finding their way into mainstream media.  Doctors and nurses who try to advocate for their patient’s rightful access to informed consent and bodily autonomy are threatened with disciplinary hearings and dismissal.

Others, like ‘Cathy’, refuse to stay silent and have already resigned from their job that is their passion, so they are free to speak out about what they have experienced.  Cathy is a registered nurse and a registered mental health nurse.  She joins me on Our Nation Today to share her experiences over the past eighteen months, including adverse reactions from the vaccinations and the adverse outcomes for the mental health of our health care workers.

There is no one size fits all for dealing with a virus like COVID-19.  Australians have a right to choose how they medicate themselves when ill.  The blatant removal of our individual freedoms regarding our chosen medical responses to COVID is unprecedented and should concern every Australian.  We have been corralled like cattle into a yard and forced to plunge into the dip.  

The mental health consequences for the government’s stubborn refusal to consider complementary treatments for COVID-19 is leaving an ugly legacy for families, and the government is ignoring.  Our governments have a preference that it is more palatable to die from mental health issues such as suicide and suffer debilitating adverse effects from the vaccination, or even death, than it is to die from COVID or give people medical options.

Adverse reactions are real.  The vaccination is not for everyone.  People should not be corralled and made to choose between vaccination or livelihoods.  

Our freedom to choose our medical treatments is a fundamental aspect of a democratic society. 

Every day more and more people are joining community rallies against the vaccine mandates that the government is steamrolling ahead with.

Thank you to Frankie Dog Turner Productions on The Grounded TV Network for additional footage of my speech.

Transcript

So we know we’re doing that for the people, you just confirmed that. But we had calls from Josh Frydenberg, the treasurer, saying, please pass my such and such bill.

Sorry mate, but this is really important to you guys too, it is, but there’s something more important than all of it. Freedom.

[crowd] Yes!

I want to compliment some liberal and national party senators Pauline and I will work with anyone, providing them, working in the national interest. Senator Gerard Rennick, Senator Alex Antic from South Australia, Senator Matt Canavan from Queensland. Senator Sam McMahon from Northern Territory, Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells from New South Wales, Craig Kelly from New South Wales, And George Christensen from Queensland.

So we have to be united and hold the line. We are here for freedom. Many people in this room have been coerced into the injection. We did not say anything about those people. They’ve been forced into it. Many are in the room, injected, double injected and not wanting it and regretting it, but that’s the way it’s been. That is despicable. We do not make any judgement that was your circumstances. If you chose it freely, that’s your choice. That’s what we want. Choice. Not coercion. I’m going to disappoint you now, because I’m going to tell the truth about something. You are expecting me possibly to come up with solutions. Don’t expect solutions from politicians. I’m serious! The people who caused this mess in this country are us, the voters. We keep voting for the same donkeys.

[crowd] Yeah!

And those donkeys are not working for us. They have got it so tightly stitched up that a federal senator, even Pauline cannot do much. What we’re doing is working in the political arena through our ban on the government bills, actually voting against it, I’ll get to your questions at the end, at the end of the evening, but we’re also working in the most important court of all, of the court of public opinion. That’s the only court that ultimately matters. I’ve got a barrister here of 40 years of experience. That is the only court that really matters. And we are all in that court. All of us are in that court. There’s no easy solution. The state Premiers have got things tied up with their emergency declarations, emergency directives.

I wrote a letter to that stage, to Palaszczuk and the Prime Minister back in the 19th of October of this year. 67 pages, six pages of letter, seven attachments with details, facts. I normally get staff to do something like that we’ve got some very good staff, but I wanted to make sure I understood it myself, So I did it every bit of it. Now what we’ve seen is that Annastacia Palasczuk state came back last Friday with two pages, not a single question answered. These guys are spreading the same stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull, that’s what they’re doing. Virus characteristics, I asked the chief medical officer for the virus characteristics. The transmission building is high, not as high as South two, but the severity is low to moderate, low to moderate, not severe. That severity is less than some past flu’s. That is a fact, the death data. There is no pandemic of deaths. And you might say, well that’s because there’s lockdowns. No! There is no pandemic of deaths anywhere in the world! Sweden had a sharp rise in deaths, but that was just pulling stuff forward then now reverting to the mean. That’s facts. There is a change in the deaths and that is the Australian data shows deaths go like this, seasonal basis. There’s an upper range and a lower range. Since the injections started, the actual deaths have gone above the upper range, since the injections started. And then the government pulled a little trick. It used to release the death data two weeks after the month closed. 15 weeks and counting. Think about that. I asked the head of a TGA, some basic questions. I said, why have there been 564 deaths from the vaccines? He exploded. He says there haven’t been, there’ve been nine. So I went back to, I went back to my website, back to the internet later that afternoon and came back in the Senate estimates and asked the chief acting head, acting secretary, deputy secretary of the health department that I said, the figures actually show on the TGA’s website, 564 deaths due- this is doctors reporting deaths due to vaccines.

Only the ones that are reported!

They have a process for winding it down to nine. So I said, tell me the process. I want to know if they’ve had autopsies, I want to know if they’ve had blood samples tissue, cultures, et cetera. I want to know how I make 550 odd down to nine. This is one figure we all need to remember. Pfizer this year is forecasting an income of $43.5 billion. And the TGA, when I started asking questions of the TGA and started spreading the news that ivermectin, you’ve heard of that word, haven’t you? I’ve taken it for seven years ago. I’m still here. It didn’t shrink me, something else shrank me. So the TGA wrote me a letter, two and a half, three and a half pages long and they said I must cease advertising ivermectin. They quoted bits out of one of the acts. So how do you handle a bully? Stand up to them. So what I did was I wrote back a very short letter with the help of a barrister that said, I am a duly elected Senator of this parliament. How dare interfere with my communication to and from the citizens of this country. And secondly, I said the government has blood on its hands for refuting ivermectin. And do you know the answer I got? Thank you for your letter. These people, control freaks, are scared of us. They’re trying to control us because they’re afraid. Always beneath control there is fear.

[Crowd] Fear.

When people try to control, think about this leaders get up front, they listen and then paint the vision. And then they draw people with them. You only follow because you want to follow. Following is a choice. Leadership gives people a choice. All the way through this we’ve had the Prime Minister and all the Premiers pushing, kicking from behind and controlling. They are not leaders. They’re frauds. The government is the problem. The government is the problem with this country. Parliaments now, state and federal, serve the parties and their donors. They do not serve the people. That is fundamental. They tried to knock Pauline out, tried to jail her, because she was saying exactly that 25 years ago. But it’s more than that. The media is the problem. Who decides whether or not they buy the media? We do. I’ve cancelled my subscription to sky. I don’t listen to 2GB. I don’t listen to just about anyone, but it goes beyond that. It’s a global assault. This is coordinated from well outside us. It’s not just Western, it’s a global thing. The government is killing this country, to comply with a global order. The core problem is the United Nations, the World Economic Forum, WWF, Greenpeace, the Greens and I mean the Greens. The Greens are really strongly in favour of controlling people. Everything they do has control and they’re doing it on behalf of the UN. They knock back Pauline’s bill again, they knock back Pauline’s bill twice. They knocked it back from even going to committee. So that’s the core problem. But you know, if someone is offering you something like the UN is offering the government control over the people. It’s really the people who make the choice to implement the greed of the UN policies that are at fault and that’s being a Liberal National’s coalition and the Labour Greens coalition. And if you don’t remember the Labour Greens coalition, that’s what Gillard was in with Millon. Labour and Greens are in coalition, and God help us if they get back into power because the Greens will tell Labour what they want them to do. I want to touch on something in the last minute. Who knows about the digital integrity bill? Have a look at our Facebook page, the digital integrity bill, I haven’t got time to go into it, the government will sell your data to a corporation, store it overseas, and then charge you for access to your medical data. There are so many things that is heading towards bringing in a social credit system.

[Woman In The Crowd] Like China!

Like China, exactly. I haven’t got time to go into the details. I just want to leave you with two things. The parliament is the problem. The parliament is not holding government accountable, Pauline and I are trying, a couple of liberal senators are trying, but the parliament is the problem. The second thing is that Pauline and I, we’ll be voting against every government bill until we get freedom back for the people. But then I ask you to do something as well. I ask you to hold the line.

[Crowd] Yes!

I ask you to hold the line and recognise when people cannot- don’t blame them, blame Annastacia Palaszczuk and Scott Morrison. Scott Morrison could end this overnight. So hold the line, be in strong support of other people holding the line and stay united. One united.

This letter is a rebuttal to Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk’s reply to me in late November.

Previous letters in this series (click to read):

Thousands marched on Kurrawa Park Gold Coast to protest the coming vaccine mandates and to stand for freedom. This is my speech to that rally.

Transcript

[Crowd] Hello!

Look at this! It’s wonderful. Look at what we’re doing. Someone over here said, “This is not…” Where’s your poster? Oh, thank you! “This is not scientific, it’s sadistic.” “Hands off our kids!” Look at over here, “End medical apartheid now!” “Forced jabs are crimes against humanity.” “A pedo has more privacy than we do”! This is wrong!

But, my basic message is, the momentum is changing. The momentum is changing. Let me just give you a few examples. Last night, I was at Redlands. They’re expecting in three days notice, they expected to get a couple of hundred people. The hall was packed, standing room only, 500. And I had to yell into the microphone so people outside could hear. And they were there because they want freedom. Freedom.

It wasn’t about being injected or not injected. It was about freedom. Think about some of these things, Daniel Andrews invoked the lockdown in Victoria, when there were around 200 cases a day. When they were 2000 cases a day, he removed the lockdown. Now, here’s why he did it. The CFMEU, rank and file, marks on the union bosses and gave ’em hell because they didn’t stand up for workers. The CFMEU, rank and file, marched in the streets, along with teachers, nurses, doctors, policeman.

They marched in the streets. They were fired upon in our country. But, they kept marching and Andrews realised he was buggered. So, what did he do? Remove the lockdown down. Palaszczuk hasn’t lived that lesson yet.

[Man From Crowd] She will!

She will. She will. The next thing, Up at Livingston Shire Council, which is in Yeppoon. Senator Pauline Hanson, the hardest working, most competent Senator in Australia’s Federal Parliament. She addressed him last Monday, Monday week, she addressed a meeting of 400 people in small business and residents in Yeppoon. They talked to the council the next day and Livingston Shire Council had a unanimous motion that was passed unanimously to tell the government what they could do with their mandate.

They were gonna stand up for their small businesses in Yeppoon and Livingston. Now, that doesn’t mean they’ll get it. But, they have said if the state government intervenes and fires them, who cares? They don’t mind. Then we had Fraser Coast Shire Council. Then we had Banana. And now there’s a fourth one. And the meetings in Redlands. Meeting tomorrow in Beaudesert. There’s a ground swell coming from the people. The people!

Pauline and I have said that we will vote against the government on every bill they put forward until they change this nonsense. And yes, on Thursday, the treasurer, Josh Frydenberg called us and said, “Can you please pass our bill on?” I won’t go into the details. And we said, “No.” Because we’ve got the balance of power at certain times in the Federal Senate, and we are exercising that for the people. Why am I in Parliament? To listen to you and then to speak for you.

That’s my role. Every speech I start in the Senate, there’s more than a couple of minutes long, I start with the words, this been the very first speech and every speech since, “I am a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia.” And I’ll come back to this because when I uttered those words first, the people in the Labour Party laughed. The people on the Liberal Party laughed. Are they laughing now? You’ve got to make that take that grin off their face.

I want to acknowledge Liberal Senators, Gerard Rennick, and Alex Antic… Yes! Give them a hand! They’re abstaining from voting from their own governments bills until they stopped some of these practises. So, thank you, Gerard. Now, I also want to mention, I heard this morning that ATAGI, I can’t remember what they stand for, but they’re regulating a lot of the health practises and the injections. They have broadened the exemption categories for getting exemption from the injections, last night.

They did it quietly, very quietly. But, now if you’ve had… I haven’t got all the details. A colleague of mine in their party sent me the link, I’m gonna look at the link later. But, this is one of them. If you have had an adverse reaction from the first injection, that can be a grounds for exemption from the second one. So, why are they doing this? Why are they doing it? Because of you!

That’s why they’re doing it. Because we’ve got to keep this pressure up. But, that doesn’t mean you should go and have your first one and say you had exemptions. Don’t have any of them in my book. I’m not gonna be injected! Not injected! Now, I want to reach out to those, because we know that 40% of people who have been injected, did so under coercion. Coercion! That is brutal and wrong. And some of these people are worried about what will happen to them.

So, I’m gonna talk to every person who’s been injected. One dose, two dose. We’re with you. We understand that many of you don’t want to be injected and you’ve been forced to. We don’t feel any worse towards you, any better towards you. If an injected brother came up to me and an non injected, you’re the same. You are the same.

But, I have empathy. I have empathy for those who’ve been injected under coercion. Nurses every day make sure people are given informed consent. And then they’re under instructions to be jabbed, to be injected. That is completely wrong. Teachers too. Federal workers too. Just think about this, the basic message from my first opening is stand the line, hold the line, stand up. I will not be injected! Pauline will not be injected. We know some others. Think about what’s happening in this country. How do you lead? What you do when you lead, I’ve done it in business, is you get the data.

You listen to the people, whether it be customers or employees, then you paint a vision. That honest vision. Then you paint. Then you develop the plan and then you pull people towards you. If they want to go, you’re only a leader if you’ve got people who want to follow. Who want to follow. If you are pushing at the back, you are a bully, not a leader. That’s what we’ve got in this country. We don’t have leaders in the Premiers. We don’t have leaders in the Prime Minister. We have lawyers, thugs, intimidators and bullies. I’ll ask you all question. A simple question. Always, beneath control, there is… Fear!

They are terrified of us! That’s why they’re controlling us. And we swallowed some of it. When I was say, “We”, most of the people have swallowed it. But, look at this, you’re waking up. That’s beautiful. I want to talk briefly about the virus characteristics, because I won’t go into the details, but I dug this out of the government. The virus is classified as highly transmissible. It is just like the flu. It’s also classified in severity as being low to moderate. You heard me, low to moderate, not severe, not high severity.

Like many past flus, it is less significant in terms of severity than many past flus. Think about this, in the death data, there is no pandemic of deaths. None at all. There is no pandemic. With a pandemic, you have to have a pandemic of deaths. None. And some people might say, “That’s because lockdowns in Australia.” It’s because there’s no pandemic of deaths. Sweden had an increase in deaths. But, now they’re coming back to the mean.

All it did was pull a few deaths forward, but they’re coming back to the mean. Taiwan has done a spectacular job. If you look at the global figures, there is no pandemic of death. This has been concocted. Now, people do die from COVID. I’m not denying that, but that means they have to be treated with a proper plan. So, let’s consider some of those things. The second thing about death data, is that the deaths in Australia follow a cycle from season to season and they follow a band from season to season.

There is no pandemic of death. But, there is now, above the upper range of deaths, significantly, deaths that are coinciding with the start of injections. That is fact. The second thing about that death data, is the Federal Government used to release it two weeks after the month. We haven’t got it now since the 20th of June. So, what are they doing? Are they hiding the deaths due to injections?

We know they are. They made a couple of changes in their website as a result of my questions, but they’re still hiding the deaths since June. We know that in America they’ve had 16,000 deaths as of the end of July. Europe, 30,000. 46,000 deaths from injections. Now, the third figure on deaths is that the TGA, Therapeutic Goods Administration, has had reported to them… it’s on their website, 546 deaths due to injections, according to doctors.

And when I challenged them and the Senate estimates on that, I thought that the TGA head was gonna have a heart attack. He exploded. And he said, “No! It’s only nine.” Nine, really? How come? And I went back to their website and found it is 546 reported deaths. They have revised the figures down. So, I’ve asked the question, and I’m waiting for the answer. Show me the process by which you reclassify a doctor’s verdict, and you reclassify that as not due to injections.

Did they have blood samples? Did they have an autopsy? Did they have tissue cultures? We want to know. There’s a lot of things we’ve got to dig into because the TGA has not tested these injections in Australia. It has taken the word of the injection manufacturers. That’s not working for us. I also want to talk about Pfizer. There’s one figure you need to know about Pfizer. They’re own income figures project an income this year of $43.5 billion. This is all about money and nothing else.

This is the first time in our country’s history that a government has injected healthy people with something that can kill them and is killing them. It is the first time in our country’s history that a government has withheld proven, safe, affordable, accessible treatment from sick people and let them die. They have banned Ivermectin. I’ve taken it myself. It is one of the top 100 drugs of all time, according to the UN itself. And we’ve banned it in this country for treating COVID.

Doctors are being smashed, practises destroyed, invaded, privacy being smashed. Yeah, it’s murder, it’s genocide. Withholding that is genocide. But, let me tell you something. The TGA sent me a letter a few months ago saying you’ve been talking about Ivermectin in public. Surely not. And they accused me of advertising it. They accused a representative of the people, listening to the people and talking about it publicly. Three and a half page letter, of threats, implied threats.

So, I went back to them and said… they expected me to count down, just say, “Give up.” No. With bullies what do you do? You stand right up to their face. So, what I said back to them was, “How dare you interfere with the work of a representative of the people duly elected, and how dare you, how dare you because the government has blood on its hands.” You know what their answer was? “Thank you for your letter.” The problem here is government.

The second problem is media. I’ve had experiences with the media where they turn the truth into lies. They turn lies into the truth. I’ve cancelled my subscription to Sky News because it has become a propagandist. I no longer listen to 2GB, 4GB whatever it is, in Brisbane because they’ve become propagandists. They get enormous funds through advertising from the government. Same with The Weekend Australian. We don’t buy papers.

My wife buys The Weekend Australian to look for the magazine. That’s it. There’s nothing else of value in that paper. But, remember who decides what media they buy? You do! So, cancel your subscriptions to these globalist media. I also want to make another comment. It’s not just the media. It’s not just tax state and federal and territory governments. It’s a global apparatus underway. We know that. It’s not Western. It’s not white. It’s not European. It’s not to hurt any distinct race, religion, anything like that.

This is about hurting humanity, about controlling humanity. That’s what this is about. What they’re trying to do is separate, injected versus non-injected and then tell me that I’m hurting, I’m a threat to the injected. If your damn injections are so good, why am I a threat to you? Isn’t that the truth? Government is being used to control people. They won’t release to a peoples representative, anything about the contracts they’ve signed with Pfizer, AstraZeneca, because it’s commercial in confidence. I am authorising these expenditures when I stand in the Senate and vote for them.

But, I’m not doing it as my money, I’m doing it as our money, on our behalf. And that’s wrong. We need to know, you need to know. India. I just saw this morning, the Indian Prime Minister has stood up. We know they’re using Ivermectin, they’re using it successfully. They know that the Ivermectin is a prophylactic. It prevents access to the disease of the virus to your body. It also prevents it, it cures people very quickly. Safe for more than 40, 50, 60 years.

No serious adverse side effects, minor adverse effects on a few people. But, this will stop the vaccine…the virus in its tracks. I had a slip up there. It will also stop the vaccine in its tracks. And that’s why it’s banned. That’s why it’s banned, because our TGA is not protecting us. They’re savaging us and killing us because they’re not using Ivermectin in this country for COVID. And a doctor cannot be frank with his patient, because if he is, he or she… the doctor will lose their practise.

What’s happening in this country? In Germany, I met one of the ladies at the Redlands Bay last night, came up to me afterwards and said, she’s a German, of German descent. Her brother in Germany. Un-injected, is now facing a curfew. This virus only hits the un-injected apparently and only at night. Very clever virus.

Yesterday, I came down here and went further south to the border. According to the border residents, there’s a while I saw the , I touched the . I didn’t get infected, but there are 20,000 people, Queenslanders, who can drive home… And right now, if they were allowed to, they’re prevented from coming in by the Premier of this state. Boo. Now the Premier of this state has told them, first of all, there’s no virus at Northern New South Wales. There was a virus case in Tugun just a couple of weeks ago. There is virus in Sydney.

[Man In Crowd] Not now!

No, probably not now. So, what our Premier is telling them to do, she won’t let them drive, fill up their car in Tweed Heads with fuel and drive all the way to Bundaberg. She’s stopping them. She’s saying, “Drive to Sydney, fly to Brisbane, interact with other people on the plane, interact with other people on the ground, and then you can go home.”

So, I’ll tell you the core problem, then I’ll finish. The core problem is the United Nations, the United Nations World Health Organisation, the World Economic Forum, World WWF, Greenpeace. The greens because the greens are pushing injections, mandated injections they completely lost the plot. The Labour Party, The Liberal Party, and The National Party. If you think this is bad, have a look at the 700 page Digital Integrity Bill.

It’s coming, and it’s laying the groundwork for your data to be sold to overseas corporations. And then for you to have to pay, to access to your health data. Other things… I’m serious. It’ll set up a social credit system, which we don’t want. So, the core problem is Parliaments and lack of Parliamentary Accountability.

Why? I’ll tell you why? Because we as voters have just kept voting for the same old donkeys. It’s our fault, and we have the power to change that. If you want to stop this, and I know you do, change the Parliament.

Change the Parliament.

Available on these platforms:

Stephen Andrew is One Nation’s state member for Mirani and this is his second term.  He is a 5th generation decedent from the South Sea Islander “Kanakas” and has deep roots in the Mirani district.  

Since the last 1800s Steve’s family have been in the communities from Rockhampton to Mackay with both of Steve’s grandfathers born within the boundaries of Mirani. One of Steve’s relatives was born on the banks of Sandy Creek in a hessian Hut and Cedric lived to a ripe age of 101.  His maternal grandfather serviced in the 43rd Battalion in France during the Great War.

Steve has a background in both electrical and mechanical trades, largely within the mining industry.  His decision to represent the people of Mirani comes from a long family commitment to community values and seeing firsthand how poor legislation brings about unnecessary family hardship and damages the local economy.

Steve’s passion is to work towards strengthening the local community and the economy and to ensure people are free to live dignified lives.