This letter was sent on 27 July 2022. As of 31 August no reply has been received.

Dear Mr Repacholi

Congratulations on your election to the Australian House of Representatives.

You have been elected to represent the people and workers of the Hunter and in that regard, I ask that you please read my attached letters addressed to your predecessor Mr Joel Fitzgibbon, in which I detail significant abuses of Hunter Valley miners.  Similar letters were sent to the Hunter CFMEU union boss at the time, Mr Peter Jordan.

It is deeply disappointing that neither Joel, nor your party, nor Hunter CFMEU union bosses prevented or rectified the abuses to Simon Turner and many other Hunter casual coal miners.

Among the many severe injustices on which we have fought for Hunter casual coal miners are the following:

  • Loss of basic mineworkers’ compensation for workers injured at BHP’s Mount Arthur Mine and which CFMEU union bosses are aware, yet have done nothing;
  • Loss of miners’ Accident Pay;
  • Employer/mine-owner threats to injured workers to not report serious injuries;
  • Culture of mine management and management “safety bonuses” that threatens casual coal miners who speak up on safety issues;
  • Non-reporting of injuries including serious injuries;
  • Underpayment of up to 40% to casual mineworkers compared with permanent workers alongside casuals on the same roster and doing the same job;
  • Coal LSL under accrual and underpayment for casual miners;
  • Loss of miners’ basic entitlements and protections and the illegal employment of casuals on production under the Black Coal Mine Industry Award;
  • Gaps in the Black Coal Mine Industry Award that left casuals vulnerable and unprotected by the Fair Work Ombudsman; and,
  • Work, health and safety authorities and insurers ignoring injured casuals.

There have been many injustices done to casual mine workers on mine sites in the Hunter and across Australia.  Employers and Hunter CFMEU union bosses continue to exploit and ignore these miners. Labor has misrepresented these miners’ plight in what seems to be an attempt to protect Hunter CFMEU union bosses responsible for donations to your party’s election campaigns.

When Labor and the union bosses ignored miners’ pleas for help to restore basic employment protections and entitlements, we stepped in.  Our One Nation team have been supporting and working for casual workers since July 2019 to restore miners’ entitlements and protections.

Now that you are the Hunter’s voice in Canberra, please consider these facts:

  • CFMEU union bosses set up Hunter labour-hire companies enabling and perpetuating the permanent casual rort.
  • CFMEU union bosses negotiated and signed off on the abusive casual enterprise agreements.
  • Labor’s Jeff Drayton admits he did a deal in 2017 allowing casuals to be terminated with one hour’s notice and gave no entitlement to annual leave, carer’s leave or paid compassionate leave: Daily Telegraph May 2021.
  • The CFMMEU National Legal Director courageously publicly confirmed the union ignored casuals.
  • Mine royalties and mining jobs subsidise our way of life, the schools, the hospitals and the lifestyle that both city and country Australians enjoy.

Labor’s coal and industrial relations policies, actions and omissions are undermining workers and the Hunter.  One Nation has continued to support and fight hard for casual workers’ rights including introducing legislation for equal (or greater) pay for casuals.  Please refer to the attached. 

You are accountable for what happens next or does not happen for the ignored injured coal miners and to jobs and families in the Hunter.

Labor must honour your election campaign promises to Hunter miners and not do deals with the Greens who want to shut down the coal industry. 

I am writing to your Minister for Industrial Relations, the Hon Tony Burke, seeking his support for the Fair Work Ombudsman to conduct an inquiry into the use and abuse of casual mineworkers in the Hunter.  The previous government promised One Nation such an inquiry.  I hope that you will publicly support such an inquiry as a matter of urgency.

I would be happy to meet with you to discuss what needs to be done to further the successes we have achieved for casual coal miners everywhere and to fulfil my aims stated in 2019 to:

  • Restore to workers their legal and moral entitlements and protections and to obtain compensation for the trauma miners have endured;
  • Stop exploitation of permanent ”casual” coal mine workers across Australia; and
  • Obtain justice for Hunter casual miners in light of the collusion between BHP, Chandler MacLeod and the Hunter CFMEU union bosses.

I hope that you and Labor will support my Bill introduced into the Senate earlier this year and re-introduced in the Senate yesterday, and that you will support my call for an independent inquiry.  I look forward to the possibility of meeting with you.

Yours sincerely

Malcolm Roberts

Senator for Queensland

Senator Roberts calls on the Senate to reject the Climate Change Bills 2022 due to the complete lack of cost-benefit analysis.

He says, “Carbon dioxide emissions reduction is the biggest change to Australian lives Parliament has ever considered.”

“Despite the target’s huge impact, absolutely nothing in the Climate Change Bill says how it will be achieved, what the cost to Australia will be or what measurable impact reducing Australia’s carbon dioxide production will have on global temperature.”

“Politicians don’t accept this kind of blank cheque and ignorant attitude to the flow-on effects of legislation in any other policy, and shouldn’t on energy.”

Emissions reduction policies are expected to significantly impact energy, transport and agriculture.

“Grids that have tried to rely on wind and solar to provide their needs have either been left in the dark or have skyrocketing energy prices. Instead of learning from international wind and solar disasters like Texas and Germany, Australian climate alarmists want us to follow their road to ruin.” 

“Adding emissions reduction to the National Energy Objectives will compromise the existing objectives of price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply of energy.”

“A government funded study has already sounded the alarm on the forced and premature uptake of electric vehicles, finding that uptake could increase electricity demand by 30-100% on Australia’s already struggling power grid.”

“Under an emissions target, taxpayer money will be spent telling farmers to lockup their land for carbon dioxide credits, essentially a scam plagued with integrity issues and currently under government review. Australia’s farmers can grow enough to feed and clothe the world, yet won’t be able to under this target.”

Senator Roberts’ submission to the Climate Change Bills inquiry outlines the lack of due diligence and ideological, rather than evidence based, attitudes that have driven climate policy.

“Not a single politician can say what specific measurable impact these emissions reduction policies will have on any aspect of climate or weather.” “Until the true, full costs of an emissions target are given to Australia, this Bill must not pass.”

I chat with Chris Spicer from the Primodcast for a deep dive on Climate Change hysteria and why the upcoming Climate Change Bill is going to be terrible for our country.

Transcript

Speaker 2:

Ladies and gentlemen, podcasting from Sydney, Australia. This is the Primodcast. Independent, unfiltered, and uncensored. Beginning in three, two, one.

Chris:

Senator. Welcome back.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Thank you. It’s good to be back Chris.

Chris:

So had a bit of a giggle before we jumped on here about a video that…

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

What an insane planet we’ve got.

Chris:

Absolutely mad.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Oh, sorry. The people who try to control it, they’re insane.

Chris:

Yeah, that’s right.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Fact checkers. But good on you for standing up.

Chris:

Oh mate, I get more insane by the day anyway. So look, thanks for joining me again. I have actually put a few polls out about this episode to see what people wanted to know and what questions people had. So the main reason why I’ve got you on here today, as I said to you before, is that you are very well versed when it comes to the climate change debate, agenda, whatever you want to call it. And I guess, very similar to what we’ve seen with COVID that doesn’t seem too much opposition to the agenda. And if there is opposition, it tends to get silenced.

Chris:

So what I thought I would do was invite you obviously, and Adam Bandt, the leader of the Greens party onto the show to have an open debate where there’s no Channel Seven, no Channel Nine hand picking questions for him. I just want an open transparent debate. You agreed, which I knew you would, but I never got a response from Adam. So we’re doing it without him, but that’s okay. I’ve got the questions I have. So look, you’ve been speaking about the climate argument now for a while, and you’ve had a bit of experience with it. I think you said something to do with, was it university or something you’ve studied in the past?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. What the argument is, their argument, the climate alarmists, they’re saying that the burning of hydrocarbon fuels, coal, oil and natural gas is causing catastrophic global warming and it’s going to destroy the planet and freeze us and fry us and everything. The storms are going to increase. So let’s just have a look at the basic message. Hydrocarbon fuels contain atoms of hydrogen and atoms of carbon, hydrocarbon. And when they burn in oxygen in the air, they use the oxygen. So the hydrogen atoms react with the oxygen atoms to form H2O, which is water. And the carbon atoms react with the oxygen to form CO2, which is carbon dioxide. To be perfectly clear and complete, sometimes if it’s not burnt properly, you’ll get carbon monoxide, CO, that’s one carbon and one oxygen, carbon monoxide. And that’s a toxic poison, but that’s not what their issue is. If you burn it efficiently, you get very little carbon monoxide, but still don’t put the exhaust from your car into your car because you kill yourself. That’s carbon monoxide.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

But the majority of gas that comes out is carbon dioxide and water vapour. Now then when you find hydrocarbon fuels, they’re found in nature is coal, oil and natural gas, they have impurities because of the way they were formed in nature. They were laid down millions of years ago, hundreds of millions of years ago. So you might have sulphur in it, you might have other elements in it. And when you burn sulphur in oxygen, you get sulphur dioxide, which is a pollutant. You might get nitrous oxides, which are pollutants. You might get particulates, which are pieces of soot basically, they’re pollutants. That’s what used to cause the smoke. You’ll notice these days in most cities, they don’t have much smoke anymore. That’s because the particulates get scrubbed out at the power station. The sulphur dioxide gets scrubbed out at the power station. The nitrous oxides get scrubbed out.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So that’s why these days at a coal fired power station or a gas fired power station, you’ll see a chimney with nothing coming out of it because water vapor’s invisible except on a cold day when it forms steam, and carbon dioxide’s always invisible. So what they’re saying is that the carbon dioxide which is coming out of smoke stacks, coming out of industries, coming out of power stations, coming out of cars, coming out of cows farting, cows belching, coming out of your nose right now because your carbon dioxide, the air has 0.04%. It’s got bugger all of it. That’s enough to keep our plants alive. But when you exhale, because you’re a factory as well, when you take in your oxygen and you mix it with the carbon and hydrogen in your food, then you get same thing, water vapour and carbon dioxide coming out.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So what you’ve done is you’ve taken in carbon dioxide at 0.04%, and you’ve put it out at 5%, which is more than 100 times, 125 times, whatever it is, higher. So you are polluting right now, Chris. We’ve got to kill you. We’ve got to tax you rather. So that’s what they’re about. They’re about limiting the carbon dioxide because carbon dioxide is in everything. And so they can tax almost everything. And when I said to you a minute ago about you’re breathing out carbon dioxide, there is a consultant who did some work in London for Tony Blair’s office. They were asked to assess the feasibility of taxing people for the breath they’re exhaling.

Chris:

That’s insane.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So I’m only a little guy. Maybe I’m producing less carbon dioxide because I’m more efficient than you as a big fellow. So you’ll have to pay more than I will. How can you do that? And I mean, that’s what they’re after. They’re after control of our energy and control of our food and control of our agriculture, that’s it.

Chris:

So when you have people the Greens party, who are obviously more, in terms of that space, they’re definitely the more dominant with what they’re saying. Now this is the question. Not just them, but everyone in general that are pushing for this. How do they know that carbon is causing climate change? How do they know that? Are they referring to a specific type of literature? Where are they getting that information from? Who’s telling them it’s bad?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Okay. So the first thing is I have challenged Senator Larissa Waters, who’s the leader of the Greens in the Senate to a debate on the science behind climate science and the corruption of that science. I challenged her when we were both on the stage in a forum. We were both on a four person panel. On October the seventh, I think it was, Thursday, October the seventh, 2010. She jumped to her feet the moment I challenged her, she jumped to her feet and said, “I will not debate you.” At the end of the forum, I was the last one to speak in answering questions, I turned and walked back towards her just to get to my chair. She jumped and said, “I will not debate you again, just to make it clear.”

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I challenged her again in the 2016 election campaign in May. I challenged her and also Mark Butler, the Labour party spokesman for climate change. They both said, “No.” I’ve challenged Larissa Waters starting on the 9th of September 2019. I said to her and to Di Natale, who was the leader of the Greens in the Senate at the time, that “I challenge you to a debate. And I challenge you to put forward your evidence for your claims about carbon dioxide from human activity affecting climate.” They have never debated me. They’ve never put forward their evidence. That’s the first thing I want to say. So they run from it.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Now what’s their science based on? It’s based on bullshit. There is no science at all that they have ever cited. What they do, Chris, is they say, “We had a storm last night. That was due to mankind’s climate change. Nothing different. They had hurricanes going to New York. That was due to climate change.” Bullshit. Because they’ve had hurricanes going, tracking all the way to Canada. They know that from human civilization and when the United States was developed, we know that there’s nothing unusual at all going on in the climate. But what they do is they tell lies about the Barrier Reef. You’ve probably just seen the article that says the Barrier Reef’s in fine shape. It’s got record coral cover in the north and the central regions and the south, they’re only affected by Crown-of-storms starfish, which is entirely natural and cyclical. So there’s nothing happening in the Barrier Reef.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

There’s nothing happening with storm activity. It’s no more frequent storms, no more severe storms, nothing happening with droughts. They’re no more severe than in the past. The biggest drought we’ve had, most severe drought was 1901 in our recorded history and perhaps 1920s to 40s. There’s nothing changing in snowfall. They just vary. And what they’ll do is they’ll pick a year or a month when we have natural variation, it’s up, and they’ll say, “Oh, this temperature’s high.” But they don’t tell you when the temperature’s low. So there’s nothing. They’ve got no evidence. First of all, they have to prove that there’s something, remember this is all based on global warming, unprecedented global warming. So what they have to do, first of all, is prove that the temperatures are unusually warm and continuing to rise. They’re not.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

We’ve had 25 years, the most authoritative temperature record for the whole planet is NASA’s satellites. And they’re showing that since 1995, 27 years ago, if you remove the El Nino and La Nina cycles of temperature, the temperature has been flat globally. Flat. If you look at the temperature records for our country, the temperatures were warmer in the 1880s and 1890s. I said 1880s, 1890s, than today. United States, it was warmer in the 1930s, 1940s than today. So they’re fabricating this. They’re just telling lies. And so what they use though, is they make lies up about the Barrier Reef, about the polar bears, the pandas, the cuddly koalas, all the bullshit that they can come up with. There’s nothing there that they have ever presented any evidence. It’s based on nothing it’s based on just simply wanting to control the agenda, to control your energy, control your food, control your water, and control your property.

Chris:

Now I know, obviously you can’t speak on behalf…

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Oh, by the way, Chris, by the way, you mentioned the word carbon. It’s not carbon, it’s carbon dioxide. What they’re done is they started with carbon dioxide from human activity, and then they very quickly converted it to carbon. And carbon, they did that because the old pollution was carbon when they had smoke particles coming out of the chimneys. And carbon is black, usually. Carbon is also diamonds by the way, carbon is also graphite. So pure carbon. But carbon in the smoke stacks was a filthy pollutant. And that’s what they’re trying to conjure up an image of, a filthy pollutant. But carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. First of all, it’s odourless, tasteless, colourless. It’s non toxic. And the second thing about it is it’s entirely natural. Nature produces 32 times more every year than we do. Nature controls the level in the atmosphere.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

We’ve had two natural experiments. In 2008, we had the global financial crisis, which you’d remember. The following year around the world, except for Australia where we were exporting record amounts of minerals, we had a major recession in most countries. So when you have a major recession, you use less industrial fuels. So the use of hydrocarbon fuels, coal, oil and natural gas decreased, which meant the amount of carbon dioxide that humans produced decreased. And we know that for a fact. And yet the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued increasing. In 2020 we had the almost depression around the world due to government restrictions, not due to COVID, due to government restrictions on COVID. And we had the same decrease in fuels, same decrease in human carbon dioxide, but the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued increasing.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So what that tells you is that we do not control the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Nature does. Nature alone. It produces 32 times more every year. We don’t even know how much carbon dioxide is produced by nature in some years, it’s just phenomenal. It swamps human activity. But the second thing is nature alone controls the level because there’s more carbon dioxide in dissolved form in the oceans, 50 to 70 times more in the oceans than in the entire earth’s atmosphere. Slight changes in the sun’s activity lead to slight changes in the ocean temperature, which lead to either carbon dioxide being absorbed or being expelled from the oceans. And so on a seasonal basis, you have this going on with carbon dioxide and that’s exactly what’s showing nature controls it. We also know the laws of chemistry like Henry’s Law. Humans do not control and do not affect the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If we shut down everything, all that would happen is that nature would release a little bit more from the oceans to keep that balance.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So we’ve had two experiments which prove that if we tax people, shut down industry, it won’t matter a damn, because nature controls the level in the atmosphere. But it’s very important to talk about carbon dioxide and human carbon dioxide. They’ve never been able to show any impact whatsoever from human carbon dioxide. The whole of these policies are built on bullshit. To have a good policy what you need to do is you need to say, for every unit of carbon dioxide from human activity, it has this effect on temperature, or this effect on snowfall, this effect on droughts, this effect on storms. They’ve never been able to specify that. If you haven’t got that specific quantified effect, you can’t make up a policy about what you’ll do to cut it.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And you can’t cost the benefits, you can’t cost the cost to industry. The costs to industry are huge. The cost on families is enormous. And the cost to our inflation is stupendous, because electricity is used in everything. It’s used in services, not just manufacturing and transport. So what’s happening is we have gone ahead with a policy that has never, ever been specified, never. And the other thing about it is that without that specific quantity of human carbon dioxide and its effect, you cannot tell how your policies are being effective or not. You just don’t know how you’re going. So it’s based on bullshit and it’s based on an objective to take money out of your pocket and to control what you do, what you eat eventually, what energy you use, how you use it, what you spend your money on. That’s all of this, it’s a tax.

Chris:

Well, you know what I think, even though I think one of the first times we had a conversation and we spoke about climate and I hadn’t really formed an opinion on it. Simply because I’m aware that the climate changes obviously, and it’s always been that way, but I hadn’t looked into it any deeper than that. So I didn’t know whether human caused climate change, how much of a difference humans were making. I didn’t look into any of that.

Chris:

But what I did notice is that not just in Australia, I mean around the world, these climate policies that are ever being pushed through, or even just spoken about, all seem to have one thing in common, control. And that’s where I thought, well, hold on a second. If this is going to impact my life and control us even more than we are at the moment, then I want to know why. Show me why. Justify it to me. If they could prove that we are in fact causing it and there’s going to be catastrophic and all the rest of it and little koala bears and all that sort of thing, like they do, that’s what they push through. I don’t think any person would have a problem with that.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

No, you’re right.

Chris:

It’s when they’re just saying this needs to happen. This needs to happen. We have to do this. We need to sacrifice this because of this. Oh, can I have a look at how are you coming to that conclusion? Ah, just don’t worry about it. Everyone knows that that’s what’s happening. That’s all I keep hearing. And again, maybe it’s due to the whole COVID scenario, where I’ve learned that if you get shut down from an alternative opinion to what’s being pushed through the mainstream narrative, then you need to stop and think why. Because the truth doesn’t mind being debated, at all. Lies do. And it’s a very similar pattern as to what you’re seeing with COVID. The vaccine, I guess, to an extent, and climate. They’re all similar.

Chris:

And all three also are to do with control. Mandates, control. And I mean, I did read the climate change bill that Labour have put through. I did have a read of that. There wasn’t much detail in the way of how they’re going to achieve that 43%. They just said, we’re going to achieve 43% by 2030. That was it. So I think they need to be a lot more transparent with, okay, well, how do you think we’re going to achieve that? And what does that mean for people like you and I? Is my cost of living going to get higher?

Chris:

But there’s none of that. It’s just this is what needs to happen. This is what’s going to happen. And you can’t ask questions because you get shut down. And that’s why I wanted to speak to you about it because I know that you have the information that a lot of people are looking for that they just can’t find anywhere. And again, if you share something on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, whatever it is, the mainstream social media networks, the same thing happens as to what happened with COVID. They start giving you links. Ah, you spoke about climate. Well, here’s a link to this agency. Here’s a link to that agency. And if you say something that goes against that narrative, they’ll flag your post for false information or misinformation. And I’m starting to see that a lot more in the past six months as COVID’s died down a little bit, you can see they’re transitioning into climate.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. You’re astute. You’re thinking. You’re actually thinking, unlike most people. In France, they’ve had lockdowns due to heat waves, natural heat waves. They’ve had lockdowns. Don’t leave your house because you could die. I’m serious. And they’re talking about lockdowns in other countries for similar things. I’ll just mention a couple of things. First of all, you said, well, where’s your evidence? Well, they haven’t got any evidence. They’re just talking about emotional stories and they’re actually telling lies. So when you want to question science, science is based upon hard evidence. That’s the beauty of science. And when science started emerging a few hundred years ago, it put a real hole in people’s attempts to control, the elites attempts to control, because instead of standing over you with financial power, instead of standing over you with economic power, instead of standing over you with military forces, with thugs, instead of standing over you with emotion, instead of standing over you with religion and fears of going to hell, people started saying, hang on, give me the basis. Where’s the objective facts?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And science is all about having hard, empirical evidence. Empirical just means measured. And so that’s what I’ve been using in the parliament ever since I got in, in 2016. When I first mentioned it, the journalists rushed off to get their dictionaries. They didn’t know that. And people have been laughing at me at times and trying to ridicule, and that’s what they do. And they’ve been saying, “Oh, where’s your empirical evidence?” I’ve given them plenty. But the point is that people now know what empirical means and it’s hard data.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

But the second thing is, that’s not good enough. We had Emma Alberici on the ABC tell me, well, what more evidence do you need? We produced 50 billion gigatons of carbon dioxide last year around the planet. So what, Emma? So what? Because you’ve got to have the second part of the science, which is you’ve got to be able to prove cause and effect. So if you do this, this happens. If you do this, or if you see this effect, what caused it? This caused it. So you’ve got to have the cause and effect. So you’ve got to have the data, which makes it objective within a scientific framework that proves logically, with reasoning that this is the effect. So that’s the first thing.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

They’ve never provided any links to logical scientific points. Never. The same thing I’d mention to you is that the truth loves being debated, as you just said there. I agree with you entirely. And why does the truth love being debated? Because it reinforces itself. If it’s not the truth, it’s found out and it’s no longer the truth. And the third thing I’ll just mention is that this whole climate narrative is anti-environment, because if you look at the real pollutants, which I started talking about, the sulphur dioxide, the nitrous oxide, the particulates. In old power stations like they used to have in China 30 years ago, they’d be belching out these pollutants. And that’s why you see haze in Beijing. It’s not because of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is invisible. It’s because of the old power stations were putting out carbon in the form of particulates, haze, smoke particles. And so what they were saying here was, “Don’t burn our power here, ship our manufacturing to China.”

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So China was producing real pollution. So they’re actually increasing the pollution around the planet by shutting down us. Where we had clean power stations that scrubbed out the particulates, scrubbed out the sulphur dioxide, scrubbed out the nitrous oxide, and just let carbon dioxide and water through. Harmless gases essential for all life on this planet. So it’s anti- environment. The other thing, I don’t deny that humans have an effect on climate. If you go into massive land clearing, you will affect the climate in that region. We do not have an effect on global climate. Well, how do you affect the local climate? You affect the local climate if you change the vegetation, you change the water vapour, you change the moisture in the air. So those are the things that do affect. So I’m not saying humans should just go and destroy the environment. But what you’ll find is the focus on climate change is causing serious consequences on the environment.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

If you look at the wind turbines, they’re putting up in the name of climate, they’re chopping birds. If you look at the forest they clear for wind turbines. If you look at the solar panels, the agricultural land they’re destroying the forest they’re clearing for solar panels. And these solar panels and wind turbines, they’re hideous uses of resources. For every unit of electricity from a coal fired power station, you need 35 tonnes of steel. For every unit, the same unit of electricity from a wind turbine, you need 546 tonnes of steel. How do you make steel? With carbon dioxide being produced. So these wind turbines, over the life of the wind turbine, produce more carbon dioxide then they save. Not that that matters because carbon dioxide’s harmless.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

But the point is they use so much materials, that that’s why wind will never, ever compete with coal, nuclear, hydro, gas, oil. Never, because the amount of resources that they consume are huge. So the cost is enormous and the energy density is so low that they produce so little energy that the cost per unit energy is something like double what coal is. So what they’re doing is they’re driving our economy into a tailspin. They’re inflating our economy. What happens is we then subsidise the wind turbines and the solar panels because they can’t stand on their own. We subsidise them. Who do we pay the subsidies to? The wind turbine and solar panel manufacturers, which are mostly in China, and then we subsidise the people who instal them here in Australia, mostly foreign companies and some billionaires. And then we pay them subsidies to keep operating them because they can’t compete with coal.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And then what happens is that the price of normal electricity increases because of the subsidies. And we also then find they rigged the system so that they’re favoured and then that means the coal fired power stations are uneconomical, even though they’re actually half the price to produce. And so then coal starts dying. Next thing, they shut the coal fired power stations down, and you’ve got only high cost components producing our electricity. We’re buggered.

Chris:

Yeah. It’ll drive up the cost of everything. Manufacturing, even our electricity bills. That’s why we need to be asking more questions because I don’t think people realise that when Albanese got up and said that, we’re going to hit their 43% reduction. Okay. It sounds good, but how are you going to do that? And what does that mean? And that’s what I really wanted to speak to you about as well as to how these targets, climate targets will impact everyday Australians in regards to what can we see to go up in price? Obviously we know electricity bills will go up, but what else can we see happening around the country the more they push this on?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Okay. Everything that uses steel and electricity will be increased in price, everything. So if you look at Adam Bandt’s showing signs that he’s admitted defeat on one key part. Coal is used to generate electricity. It’s called thermal coal or steaming coal. It’s fed into power stations to boil water, to drive the turbines, to turn the electricity generators. That creates steam. So it’s called steaming coal or thermal coal. It’s used to provide heat. Coal is also used to produce metallurgical coal in steel mills. In a steel mill you need something that’s got a lot of carbon in it. And when it’s burned it produces carbon dioxide. So they use coal because it’s got the carbon, they also use coal because it’s a solid material and they can blow the air through it, which reduces your iron oxide into iron. Then that forms your steel.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

They also use coal because there’s carbon in coal that goes into your steel to make it a better quality steel. We produce some of the best quality steel in the world. And they also need it to support that whole mass because they put the iron ore on top, which is very heavy. And so you’ve got to support that mass so the air can get through it and do its job. So that means coal is absolutely essential for steel. Unless you get scrap steel and just melt it down, but then you need electricity anyway.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So coal is needed for steel. And I’ve been telling people this for years. Adam Bandt in the election campaign suddenly admitted quietly, “Oh, we can’t stop the production of steel.” That’s right. Steel is in trucks. It’s in our food implements, to plough the ground, we harvest the ground. We sow the ground. We harvest the ground, we truck it, we process it. We store it in fridges. We process it in factories that are full of stainless steel. Steel is in everything. It’s in the goods. It’s in the trucks that transport. So steel is in everything. And if it’s not in everything, it’s in the production of everything because you need a steel truck or a steel implement or a steel scalpel or a steel implement. So steel is in everything. You make roads with steel, you make pipes with steel for bringing water in. You do everything with steel, either as the tool or as a raw material.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

But electricity, what they’re trying to do there, is say let’s cut our use of steaming coal to generate electricity and use wind turbines. Well, hello. What goes into making wind turbines? Steel. And there’s 16 times as much steel in the bloody wind turbine unit electricity than in a coal fired power station producing electricity. So that’s why wind and solar is so damn expensive and battery cars are so expensive, because they’re huge consumers of resources. We are increasing the footprint of humanity by using this bloody stuff. And we’re increasing the toxic chemicals because it’s very difficult to get rid of batteries. They use very rare earths that are mined using toxic processes.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So we’re increasing the use of copper. So that means mining. We’re increasing the use of rare earths, which means mining. We’re actually increasing the use of mining to produce the rare earths and the other exotic metals and minerals that are needed for solar and for wind turbines and for the increased batteries. And yet you will never, ever produce enough electricity from these things and you certainly cannot store it. So what they’re trying to do is absolute madness, but what’s happening is that they will tax us all out of existence and then they’ll control us. And if you look at the United States, this is an example. You’ve heard of George Soros?

Chris:

Yeah.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

George SOS owns the Democratic Party. Obama was a President in the Democratic Party. George Soros said to Obama, negative messages on coal. Obama really ramped it up on coal. They shut down so many coal mines. The price of Peabody Coal shares went from $1,100 to $15. That’s a 98% reduction. Who bought the shares?

Chris:

Soros.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Soros. Because the long term predictions from most people that the use of coal will increase dramatically in the future. That’s the only way to get Africa and Asia up and running the same as we’ve had, in our development of industrially. So coal forecasts are huge. So he’s now sitting pretty with Peabody Coal company, the world’s largest coal producer. That’s what they’re doing. Soros has got a reputation for destroying whole countries, bringing them to their knees economically by manipulating the economy and then making a profit. That’s what Soros does. He destroys to create wealth for Soros at the cost of billions of people’s lives. So that’s what we are facing here. We’re facing control for lining billionaires’ pockets. There are people in this country who are making money hand over fist, they’re billionaires. You can’t afford enormous solar complexes and wind turbo complexes, but they can. And what they do is they make money out of it by getting subsidies. Warren Buffet, who’s the most astute investor ever, he said, “Wind turbines, useless. Subsidised wind turbines, fabulous investment.” It’s the subsidies.

Chris:

Yeah.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Government is now the largest transferor of wealth from the poor and from the middle class to the wealthy. And it’s deliberate.

Chris:

That’s exactly what’s happening at the moment. That’s exactly what’s happening. And you can see that. There’s actually a very good documentary I watched only the other day on Netflix called Capitalism: A Love Story. Have you heard of that?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

No, I haven’t.

Chris:

Very, very interesting. Just in regards to how the system works. This was based in late 2000s. Well, when America had their crisis, was it 2008, 2009?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. Global financial crisis. They had it in ’08, near the end of ’08. And then they destroyed their economy in 09.

Chris:

Yeah, with the bailout package. And what happened with that? And the banks used it and it was an absolute shamozzle, deliberate though. It was deliberate. Goldman Sachs, the treasury department of the US government infiltrated by Goldman Sachs. It’s what they do. It’s what they do. But unfortunately they do it in such a way, like we’re seeing now with climate. We see an issue, the average person will see an issue of climate, this is what needs to happen. But in the background, these people making money hand over fist while it’s costing you money. And it’s going to get to the point now where it’s not going to get better. The economy’s not going to get better so long as they’re pushing this 43% target, that Labour push. So has that gone through? What’s the status of that climate change bill?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

It’s gone through the lower house and it’s gone to a committee in the Senate and it’ll probably come up in about four weeks time in the Senate for voting there.

Chris:

How do you think it’ll go?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

It’ll pass for several reasons. First of all, Labour and the Greens, thanks to dopey liberal recommendations on preferencing, Labour and the Greens together have 38 votes out of 76, they’ve got 50%. All the independents, One Nation and the Liberal Nationals have 38, 50%. So it just needs one independent to cross to go and join the Greens and they’ve got it through. Now David Pocock has said that he will support it. So David Pocock, he’s a hell of a nice guy.

Chris:

ACT isn’t he, I think?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Correct. He’s a hell of nice guy.

Chris:

Is he a rugby player?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah, a very, very, very good rugby player. Real, real hard on him. He’s a fabulous rugby player, very fit. I mean, the guy is built like an ox, but he’s lithe and agile. I mean, he’s a magnificent specimen as a human in terms of physique. Very, very fit. Very, very strong. He and Richie McCaw from the All Blacks revolutionised the way where way number sevens and number sixes play. They’re really very, very effective. Top player. But on science, complete ignorant. Completely ignorant. He stood up in the Senate the other day and he is not a demonstrative guy. He’s a nice personality. He just said, “I’m all for following the science, like we did in COVID.”

Chris:

Okay. Yeah.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

What? And he’s been sold the pop on climate. He’s drunk the Kool-Aid. And there’s so many intelligent people like David, who don’t think. It’s not intelligence that matters. It’s the ability to think analytically. So the economy, if you look… Chris, we’ve been scratching around in the dirt as humans for thousands of years, hundreds of thousands of years. We’ve been at the whim of every drought, every famine and humans have been at the mercy of climate until we got hydrocarbon fields, coal, oil and natural gas. And all of a sudden in 170 years, we’ve now got these things. We’ve got so many things that 170 years ago, when the industrial revolution started, we would not have dreamt where we are today. A person on welfare in this country lives better, longer, safer, easier, more comfortably than a king or queen did 200 years ago. Fact. They live much longer and easier and healthier.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So that’s been due to coal, oil and natural gas. We used to cut down forests 170 years ago to do our cooking, to provide our warmth, especially in Europe where you needed the warmth. We used to kill whales to produce our whale oil for lighting, for reading at night. Then we got gas lights. Then we got coal fired power stations. Then we got oil. All of a sudden, we don’t have to burn the forest. So as a result of coal, oil and natural gas, the area of forest in the developed countries has increased dramatically. Forests have increased because of coal, oil and natural gas. The whales, we don’t kill them anymore for whale oil, for lighting. The number of whales are now pretty secure. So coal, oil and natural gas has been a huge driver of the environment, benefit for the environment.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

The other thing that happens is when you use coal, oil and natural gas, you have a very high energy density fuel. When you have high energy density, you get high energy production for low cost. And when you decrease the cost of energy, you increase your productivity. If you can afford to use more energy, you become more productive. Think of all the energy you’ve got at home, your fridge, your stove, your dishwasher, your car, your car is so much more efficient than a cycle. If you look at farmers, each of us, we could go out and till our own soil. But it’s so energy intensive, that when you get a farmer with a massive John Deere or Cat tractor, they produce far more than we could even dream of. So when you produce that high productivity, the cost per unit of your food, the cost per unit of all your services decreases dramatically.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

The single greatest thing for the last 170 years industrial revolution has been human creativity, our heart in their minds and sharing that. That’s why freedom’s so important. But the second biggest thing and easily the second biggest thing, is the relentless decreases in real costs of electricity and fuels. When you have decreases in fuels, you get greater use of fuels and you get greater productivity. When you have greater productivity, you have cheaper production, you have greater wealth, you have greater prosperity. And what’s happened is we’ve now got greater prosperity, except that in the last three years that every decrease in price for electricity has been artificially increased. And Australia’s gone from having the cheapest electricity in the world to now being amongst the most expensive.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Our electricity prices have trebled artificially. If we removed all the bullshit restrictions, we’d still be decreasing the real cost of electricity, but that’s no longer the case. So we are reversing human progress. It’s inhuman, it’s unconscionable and it’s immoral. And it’s all based on a lie. No science whatsoever drives this bullshit and a criminal named Maurice Strong started this in 1980, when he started the scam of global warming. A criminal from the United Nations.

Chris:

Yeah, I was watching a little, it wasn’t long, it was maybe five or six minute documentary on him a few weeks ago. But I think, look, the people like Adam Bandt, the people like the independents that put a lot of climate activists got through independents at the election, what do those people gain from that? Obviously they’re not the ones that are going to be benefiting from extra control. Is it just they’re brainwashed? It has to be.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

But what they’re benefiting from is increased representation in parliament. The Greens have now got two senators from every state. They’ve got more clout in parliament. They can now tell the government what to do. The Greens are completely ignorant. They have no idea of what we are talking about right now. They have no interest in what we’re talking about right now. The Greens are hell bent on control. If you look at the Greens, they supported injection mandates. They were speaking vigorously on injection mandates. They supported the invasion of the United States and NATO into the Ukrainian conflict. They support control everywhere if you look at the Greens. They want to increase regulation. They want to tell you how to live, what to do. The Greens are so damn arrogant and ignorant that they think they can ignore four and a half billion years of evolution and tell us how the planet should evolve in the future.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Now you probably believe in evolution. I do. Our planet has come from being a ball of gases to being a solid planet. And then we had erosion on the planet due to water and air. And then we had life forms introduced to the planet. Then it was single cell. And then we had complex animals. Then we had dinosaurs and then mammals. And then we had humans and our ability as humans, completely different from any other animal species. We’ve got a neocortex, that’s wonderful. We then created all kinds of technological improvements in just 170 years we’ve just gone phenomenally well. What they’re trying to say is how we should evolve in the future. They’re playing God, Chris. They’re trying to tell us how the planet would evolve. Forget your four and a half billion years of evolution. This is what we’re going to do in the future. Who do they think they are? They think they’re God.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So they’re all about control. Now, what I said was all of the Greens are delusional when it comes to science, they have no idea. They’ll talk about the koalas being threatened. They’ll talk about the Barrier Reef being threatened. They’ll tell lies, they’ll fabricate lies one after the other, and you can come in and give them evidence, they won’t do anything. But the other thing about the Greens is some of them are the foot soldiers for the World Economic Forum and the United Nations. The Greens is the policy introduction for the United Nations into this country. What they do is they bring in policies, they get the media through their stunts and then the Labour Party starts adopting those policies, and you check. Then the Liberal Party says Labour Party’s getting votes. So we need to put in those policies. And so the Greens bring in these policies and they’re doing it on behalf of the United Nations. But most of the Greens wouldn’t know what I was talking about there, just some of their leaders would know.

Chris:

Yeah. Talking about the Greens, that’s why I was looking down. I’ve got to read this to you. It was a post I’d seen yesterday. I don’t know if he put it out yesterday or was just the post he’s put out and someone took a screenshot of it. So it’s a Adam Bandt Twitter, I’ve put it up for you to see through the thing there.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I can’t see it there.

Chris:

You can’t see it. So this is what he tweeted, off subject but I think you can see the mentality and what’s going on there. He said, “Yearly reminder that drug dealers aren’t to blame for your loved ones banned drug related problems. Quite the opposite. Dealers often act as community elders, keeping an eye out for regulars and providing a stigma free community connection point.” I couldn’t believe that. What is wrong with him?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah.

Chris:

What’s wrong with him? He’s not all there. He can’t be. I couldn’t believe that. It’s one of the worst ones I’ve ever seen.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

No, no, I can believe it. These people are inhuman, they’re anti-human, mate. If you look at the Greens policies, they’re anti-education, anti-science, anti-environment, the impact, they tell you they’re pro environment. But the impact on the environment is horrendous. Anti-industry, anti-development, anti-Australian. They’re anti-homosexual because they support Islam and Islam wants to throw homosexuals off the bridges, off the roofs of buildings. They’re anti-women, anti-families. I can make a solid case in all these things. The Greens, some of those are deliberate. Some of those are just through sheer ignorance. By the way, bringing up that thing about drugs. What’s the difference between a drug pusher and big pharma?

Chris:

No. What?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

The drug pusher doesn’t force you to use their drugs.

Chris:

That’s a fair point. They don’t mandate it. That’s right. I was only saying the other day, could you imagine how illegal a Pfizer vaccine would be if it was made by a Columbian drug cartel? Can you imagine?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yep.

Chris:

Oh, it’s crazy. But I could not believe that when I read that. He says outrageous things, honestly. His Twitter feed’s like a comedy. It’s hilarious, some of the shit. You think, the world doesn’t work that way. Do you know what, it looks to me like he’s got no actual experience. No life experience. He’s never been to and seen what drugs do to people. Because I think if he could, he would legalise drug use. He would.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah.

Chris:

For sure. When I see certain things, I’ve seen people, I’ve seen someone get stabbed in a park over drugs when I was 15 years old. You see a lot of things. And that’s why when you look at comments like that, that he’s made, that drug dealers are essentially elders looking after the community. No.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. David Leyonhjelm in the Senate and other people in the LDP put out some pretty good questions. I think we need to think about banning things and criminalising things. Because when you do that, you create a black market and then you can’t control it. Okay. So there is a reasonable argument for legalising some drugs. That’ll actually bring it under close to public scrutiny and you probably have less use of it. That’s one side of the argument. So I’m open to that debate, but it’s got to be done very, very properly. Not a lot like he’s doing it.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And you’re never going to have a drug lord who’s going to be the representative for the community and the judiciary for the community. I mean, that’s complete rubbish. That’s nonsense. And that’s the problem we have, Chris, because if you saw some of the Green’s election campaigns and remember they had a very successful election campaign, they’ve got more members in the lower house, they’ve got more members in the Senate. There was one TikTok video of somebody dancing above Parliament House. They had a picture of Canberra’s Parliament House and somebody dancing above it and Adam Bandt looking up with a vague look on his face. That was it. No message, no words. That was it. What kind of people does that appeal to?

Chris:

Yeah, I don’t know. Brain dead.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Exactly.

Chris:

I think look, the issue with drugs is one that I think there’s a lot of variables, but I think when we’re talking about drug use, I don’t believe cannabis should be… That should be decriminalised for sure. But then you look at drugs like marijuana and you go, okay, well. But then you look at drugs like heroin or methamphetamine and you start thinking well, okay, you don’t really want that legalised in any capacity. But marijuana, sure. Because a lot of the pharmaceutical drugs do more damage to the community than black market drugs will ever do. Ever. If you look at the US, their opioid epidemic, now it’s fentanyl. It was OxyContin. Now it’s fentanyl. They’ve got huge problems over there on legal drugs that are prescribed by doctors and fulfilled by pharmacies. So opioids, painkillers, some benzodiazepines are much more dangerous and harmful to the community than marijuana would ever be.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Well, marijuana, sorry. Let’s talk about medical cannabis because we’re very, very strong supporters of medical cannabis, very strong supporters. It’s a wonderful product. It’s entirely natural. There are no side effects for most people at all. Not only that, you can’t overdose on it. You can stuff yourself so full of medical cannabis that you still wouldn’t have any problems. Whereas opioids, you can die. And the opioids are addictive whereas medical cannabis is not. So there’s a separate argument for marijuana compared with medical cannabis. But they’re both worth looking at. Medical cannabis, we’re entirely sold. That’s it. And we are keeping the two separate at the moment because most people are not ready for the decriminalisation of marijuana because of the THC in it, the psychotropic effects.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

But medical cannabis, it’s used by a lot of people in this country and it should be much, much cheaper and much more readily available. It should be readily available at least by prescription from a chemist, at least. And the reason it’s not, Chris, is because of big pharma. Big pharma controls the health department, at state and federal level. It controls many of the doctors, it controls the doctors’ Guilds, the doctors associations, and what they do is they’re seeking continued profits. Medical cannabis is useful for so many things. In the 1930s, I read somewhere, it was the number one prescribed medicine. Number one. It was in the Doctor’s Almanack. It was taken out because big pharma wanted to produce its toxins and medical cannabis cannot be patented because it’s natural. So that means if you can’t patent it, you’ll never be able to charge outrageous prices for it. And yet it’s effective, it’s safe and it’s affordable and accessible. It’s perfect. That’s why it’s not wanted by big pharma. And that’s why big pharma keeps the government to outlaw it.

Chris:

That’s right. I don’t know about Australia, but I know in the US a lot of the anti-cannabis campaigns, TV campaigns and whatnot were funded by pharmaceutical companies.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah.

Chris:

That’s exactly it, they don’t want that because you think about the conditions. I mean, depression, I get anxiety, insomnia. Instead of sleeping pills, people just have medicinal cannabis. There’s so many…

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Post traumatic stress.

Chris:

Post traumatic stress, cancer, for pain. But you know what’s interesting as well? I’ve been looking into it a bit recently, is there the use of certain, what are they? I can’t think of the actual name of it now, but the mushrooms. Little micro doses of mushrooms that they’re giving to, I think retired military personnel in the US to help with their PTSD. It’s working wonders.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

It’s also being used in some countries, I think in the United States. I know some doctors who are involved with it working wonders with mental health issues. Really very, very effective, very effective. And so we need to advocate more for at least experimental use of them right now. There are people, I can put you in touch with people in this country who are actually using it therapeutically right now.

Chris:

Yeah. I’m sure it happens. Australia’s quite far behind, especially behind the US when it comes to experimenting with drugs that were frowned upon for so many years, and it’s working wonders. And I don’t know how much influence the pharmaceutical companies have here. Well, I know they’ve got a fair bit considering what we’ve been through over the last few years, but there doesn’t seem to be a lot of talk. I know the Greens do support that, but I think they support recreational use don’t they?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yes. And what we want to do is we want to separate those two for now because we want to get medicinal cannabis into people’s hands, cheaply, readily. We want to make that more widespread. So most people are open to that, but they’re not open to recreational use. So rather than stop the use of both, because by pushing both, we just want to push at the moment medical cannabis. We’ll look at the other one later. Put it aside for now, let’s get medical cannabis into people’s hands and into people’s bodies.

Chris:

Would you say it’s a generational thing, because I don’t know many people at all that are around my age that would oppose the legalisation of recreational marijuana use. Maybe highly religious people, but the average person, I don’t think they care too much.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

No, I don’t think it is a generational thing. We know of a lot of army veterans or defence force veterans, we know a lot of older people who have got things that come on with age, they love medicinal cannabis. They think it’s fabulous. I think over a million people use it, but we’ve got to make it much easier.

Chris:

It’s quite expensive, isn’t it, I think, at the moment to get it?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yep, and it shouldn’t be. We could have with our clean environment in this country, we could be supplying medical cannabis all over Asia. It would be huge. And hemp producers, hemp. Then we’ve also got cannabis producing food. I mean really good food. Textiles. So it’s a wonderful, wonderful crop. We could get that in into Australia, that would be fab. And it is coming in certain places. They’re already growing hemp. They’re growing medical cannabis, but it’s just not widespread yet. But there are some people who are trying to do battle with all the bureaucrats and the regulators and they’re making progress and we’ve been supporting them and we’ve got a few more things planned.

Chris:

Do you know Dr. Katelaris? Heard of Dr. Katelaris? Also known as Dr. Pot?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

No.

Chris:

No. So he’s an Australian doctor who was charged in the 90s for supplying and helping children and also breast cancer, people with breast cancer with medicinal cannabis, back in the 90s.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Which State?

Chris:

New South Wales.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Okay. We know of a couple of Queensland doctors who’ve helped people enormously, especially epileptics.

Chris:

Yeah. Well, he was doing it in the 90s and actually reversed breast cancer in many women that he was treating, and also helped children that were in pain with medicinal cannabis. Done great work, great work. He did an interview I think on 60 Minutes or something like that. And then a few days later, apparently the feds kicked in his door and got hold of him. And he had history with Dr. Kerry Chant then, in regards to what happened then. Well, he had his medical licence taken and was actually sent to jail, pending his court hearing and he represented himself and used on the basis of medical necessity and he walked out free, as he should.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Well, what’s changed, mate? What’s changed now the medical… No, I shouldn’t say that. The health departments are telling doctors what to say and what not to say. They’ve completely smashed the doctor, patient relationship. That’s sacrosanct. The Greeks developed that 3000 years ago. That’s been smashed.

Chris:

Absolutely.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

We’re destroying informed consent. We’re mandating things. I mean, this is not all right. It’s not human. And this is what our country has descended into and that’s what we’re fighting against.

Chris:

There’s too much government involvement in our lives. And a buddy of mine only a few weeks ago was fined for fishing without a licence. And I thought, man. You know what? Obviously, I know you’re a part of it, but no politician should have the right to tell another human being that they’re not allowed to fish. It is our basic human right to fish.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I agree. And who’s pushing for that? United Nations. They’re trying to lock up. We have the largest continental shelf fishing zone in the world. We have a tiny population by world standards of 25, 26 million people. That’s it. We should be exporting seafood hand over fist all over the planet. We import three quarters of the seafood we consume. How the hell does that happen? I’ll tell you how it happens. We have 36% of the world’s marine parks in our country. Some of them are controlled on behalf of the UN, by our state and federal governments. Some are controlled directly by the UN. China has 1.4 billion people. What’s that? I’m guessing that’s around 60 times what we have.

Chris:

Oh yeah. A lot more.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

They have a tiny coastline compared to ours. Who’s our biggest exporter of fish, seafood into this country? China.

Chris:

Oh, Thailand would be close to China, wouldn’t it?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Thailand is second. Thailand has a tiny coastline compared to ours. A population that’s about three times ours. Yet they’re the second biggest importer of fish into our country. How can that be? The fish don’t say, “Oh, we better look after Australian waters here. We’ll stay out of Australian waters. We’ll go to Thailand waters.” Bullshit. The Thais and the Chinese say that to the United Nations because they have a country to feed. What we’ve done here is the Greens, the Labour, the Liberals and the Nationals have sold out our fishing industry. We used to have a vibrant fishing industry. Not anymore. We’re so regulated.

Chris:

Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t John West originally Australian? Well, I’m trying to think of the old cans of salmon and tuna, John West.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I don’t know where John West was, but I know that our last tuna cannery was packed up, dismantled, packed up and sent to Thailand back in 2010. Sydney was told by Alzheimer’s Sydney had lots of canneries, seafood canneries. We had a vibrant fishing industry. It’s been gutted because of UN regulations. What’s that done to the price of fish? What’s that done to the quality of fish? What’s that done to your choice, your freedom?

Chris:

Oh, quality of fish at the moment, I don’t know about up there, but in New South Wales, try getting a nice piece of barramundi. You could tell they’re all farmed. They got that muddy taste to the farmed barramundi, you can’t get any fresh barramundi, it’s almost, around where I am, impossible.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

See, this is the UN affecting our energy, UN affecting our water, UN controlling our food, controlling our transport, controlling our movement. What they want to do is control our identity, control what we spend, how we spend it through digital identity, which is a product of the World Economic Forum, the Liberal party introduced legislation before the election. And they’ve copied parts of that from the World Economic Forum’s digital platform project. Copied and pasted it into our legislation. I mean, this is what’s happening to our country. That’s why we’ve got to speak. And that’s why it’s so important to keep doing what you are doing.

Chris:

Yeah. We need to continue to have these conversations. And I have tried many times to have people on the other side of the debate on for a chat, and I’ll be completely, even if I don’t agree with them. There’s some things you say that I don’t agree with. There’s probably some things I say you don’t agree with, and that’s fine. But you always allow the opportunity or the other person to speak and get their point across. And I’m happy to do that. Just the other day, I wanted Mike Carlton to come on another chat about a few things that he was saying. And I said something about his best mate, Peter FitzSimons. And I got a message just last night from Mike Carlton in my inbox saying, “Fuck off dickhead.” And then blocked me.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Let me tell you a story about Mike Carlton. I’ll see if I can remember. It was a few years ago, there was a journalist called Ben Cubby. He was at the Sydney Morning Herald and he was their Chief Environmental Reporting. Got that? He was the head of their environmental reporting. So Ben called me up and said, “Can I interview you about this?” This is before I got into the Senate, “About your stance on climate?” And I said, “Sure.” And I gave him a whole lot of stuff. In the middle of that I said, “Do you know about the IPCC? The UN’s intergovernmental panel on climate change?” “No.” No clue. Here he is, the environmental reporter on a single biggest issue, supposedly, in the environment. He didn’t know about that body.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So I told him a few things. He made a story, it’s a long time ago, probably seven or eight years ago, he made a story and he published it. And it wasn’t that offbeat, but it talked about me being a director of a company I wasn’t. It talked about me doing other things. It tried to frame me as a bit of a coal producer, I wasn’t. I’m very keen on, supportive of coal, oil, gas, and nuclear and hydro electricity because they’re the cheapest forms of electricity. And what else did he do? Oh, that’s right.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Then Mike Carlton came out and said I was antisemitic. Antisemitic? At the time I was a volunteer on the Galileo Movement, which was founded by a man whose wife was Jewish and who, as a two and a half year old, escaped from the Holocaust concentration camps. A Hungarian Jew, a lovely, lovely lady. A lot of my friends are Jewish. I was at a bloody protest in support of Israel where the Greens were hammering the Israeli companies in this country. I was standing up for the Jews, and Mike Carlton came out and said, I was antisemitic. I mean, what a lying bastard.

Chris:

I think they just throw labels on people. I don’t think there’s any thought.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Correct.

Chris:

They just chuck a label on you. Maybe it could just be for… Look, undoubtedly, it’s so people look at you in a particular way. So anything you say after that point, people will just ignore. That’s why they label people, anti-vax, what you were referred to, climate denier. I got called, and this is something I’ll… because a lot of people have agreed. A lot of people have disagreed with my point, but I made a point the other day to, I’ll tell you who she is now because it ended up as a nightmare on Twitter. Twitter’s good, isn’t it? I’ll tell you what. It’s Doctor, she’s down, I think in South Australia, an indigenous woman. Oh, I’m trying to find her now. Where is she? Here we go. Dr. Tracy Westerman. You familiar, no?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

No, no.

Chris:

So anyway, she said something about how come when people ask if you’re Italian, Greek, and you tell someone you’re Italian and Greek people go, oh, okay. But when you tell people you’re indigenous, they say, okay, but how much? How indigenous are you?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I’ve never thought of that. And no one’s ever told me that.

Chris:

That’s what she said. And I said to her, look, in my own experience because I’ve seen it happen, is that people will claim they’re indigenous even if they’d never mentioned it before in their life. I knew someone who did it, they had a dental campaign, I don’t know if it was a federal or state funded dental programme, but indigenous Australians got some free dental work done. This is about 10 years ago now. And a friend of mine claimed that he was indigenous for that for free dental work. There’s another person I know who’s great, great grandfather was indigenous. It’s actually a distant family member. So I know exactly who she is. And I know her family. She claimed that so she could get housing. She got into public housing in about six weeks while I know people that have been waiting for five years. And that was my point, is that a lot of people unfortunately say that or claim it for their own personal gain. And she went off, saying it was weaponized language.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Well, wait until she gets hold of Nampijinpa Price in the Senate. Most people know as Jacinta Price. Her full name is Nampijinpa Price. Man, what a wonderful Senator she’s going to be. I don’t know if you’ve listened to her first speech. Wow. She put the facts out there. She is just a wonderful human being. She is just so lovely to have in the Senate. She doesn’t hang back. She’s just great. And she’s in the Liberal Party, but where credit’s deserved, I give credit. And Nampijinpa Price deserves heaps of credit. She’s going to change that parliament just by telling the truth on indigenous. Beautiful.

Chris:

Well, I’ll tell you what, she’s upsetting the left at the moment. She’s upsetting the left of what she was saying the other day. But again, that’s that same guy I was telling you about, Pete FitzSimons interviewed her and apparently was quite rude and I think she said that she felt bullied by him.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. I can’t imagine anyone bullying Nampijinpa.

Chris:

I don’t know. I did see the speech, but I don’t know much about her, but that’s what we need though. We need a voice where, because I think we all know deep down. There’s a lot of stuff that’s going on at the moment that we know is bullshit. We know that, but people are just too afraid to say that because of the backlash they cop.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Well, we’ve been calling out and the worst thing you can call an Australian woman is racist. And that’s what they’ve done with Pauline. And you just said you are given labels at times. I’m given labels, climate denial and all that. Whenever they give you a label, it means they can’t argue with you, it means they haven’t got the facts and they can’t string their facts into a logical argument. So they resort to a label. So when people give me a label, I just say, “Well, thank you very much, Chris, for giving me that label. It means you haven’t got an argument. So thank you. I’ve just won the debate. See you.” And they can’t give Nampijinpa Price a label. They give Pauline a label, but it doesn’t shut Pauline down. It won’t shut me down because we know what they’re doing. That Pauline has been fighting so hard for the aboriginals in this country and the Torres Strait Islanders.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

When I was first elected into the Senate in 2016, I was walking up to One Nation headquarters in Albion at the time. And three aboriginals from the Territory saw me. And so they walked up and said, “Where’s Pauline’s office?” And I said, “In this building, come with me.” And I said, “What are you doing down here from the Territory?” And they said, “Well, she’s the only one who gets it. She’s the only one who stands up for us. She’s the only one who knows what’s going on.” And we’ve been calling out the Aboriginal industry because the Aboriginal industry is feeding 30 billion a year into an industry from taxpayer money and it’s not getting to the people in the communities.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

We made a list of something like, oh, how many? There are dozens and dozens and dozens of Aboriginal groups that are not serving the people. The people on the communities, the Aboriginal communities are languishing, and they’re not getting the money. The money’s going to black and white consultants, black and white lawyers. It’s going to a whole industry. As some of the aboriginals in the Territory said, you talk about a housing project to build houses. Most of the bloody money goes on white contractors, when the aboriginals could develop a skill and build the bloody houses themselves and have greater ownership. Why is that being neglected? That’s not help.

Chris:

No, it’s appalling. And you know what? You see it with a lot of other minorities. You see that they’ll be used for political gain or for many other reasons. And that’s what we’re seeing at the moment, that topic at the referendum that’s going to be put out, for the indigenous voice. I don’t agree with it, only because I think that we need to come together as one now, this division, it needs to stop. It’s unnecessary, we’re one country. And I just think it does more harm than good, especially in the long term.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

You’re exactly correct. It also says something else too. Currently, around about 5 or 6% of federal senators and MPs identify as indigenous. 5 or 6%. When you look at the number in there, out of the total number of 227 representatives, 5 or 6% are indigenous. The indigenous population is 3%. They’re already overrepresented. So aren’t they really saying that the Aboriginal representatives in parliament are not doing their job?

Chris:

Well, that’s an interesting way to look at it. Isn’t that? Well, that’s what they are saying.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. That’s right? So that is like the whites in parliament. They’re not doing their job either because they’re following the party power brokers’ instructions. They’re not representing the people, they’re following the party power brokers’ instructions. The other thing it does is, I agree with you. We are one nation or one country, whatever term you want to use. And it separates into two. That’s not good.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

But the third thing it does is really insidious. The Greens are very, very damaging with this one. They create victims. They create classes of people and they say, “Chris, you are being demoralised. You are a victim.” And then that destroys your sense of responsibility, destroys your initiative and you become a victim forever. That’s what the Greens do. And to some extent, the modern Labour Party does that. The old Labour Party used to be about standing up together, united by all means, but at least standing up and the Greens create victims to get votes. And in the process they destroy lives. So the Greens are about looking good, not doing good. And the Greens actually, that’s why I keep saying they’re inhuman, because they’re destroying lives. They’re creating perpetual victims and saying, you are this or you’re that, or you’re a single parent or you’re an Aboriginal or you’re a Torres Strait Islander. No, you’re Australian. If you’ve got particular concerns, let’s hear about them. But don’t talk to me about my skin colour or all short people need more money, Chris.

Chris:

Do you know what? It’s the virtue signalling and just like Coles have now announced that they’re got to put a welcome to country on their receipts. What? I don’t understand that. Why? Why don’t you do more for the community? I looked at this last night. Coles have 112,000 employees. I think it was 1800 or 1600 of those employees are indigenous. So how about you do more there? If that’s your concern, how about you do that? How about you employ more indigenous Australians? Because you know what? My children, at the school, they have indigenous, NADOC, we have all these things and I’m all for that, because I think we can all learn a lot from indigenous Australians. In regards to their connection with the land are unmatched, unmatched. And I find it very interesting. And I’m all for my kids learning a bit more about culture. There’s no problem with that, but it’s this pushing it down your throat all the time that gets to me.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Well, let me give you a little example of something. We’ve got an excellent barrister in our office. And I asked him to research the Native Title Act, which came in under Keating, I think it was. Now, all of us whities think that the Native Title Act was brought in to give Aboriginals some land. Bullshit. The Native Title Act of parliament, federal parliament, the preamble to it, the introduction to it, is littered with the words United Nations. If you go to an Aboriginal community like we have in Cape York, Northern Territory, they cannot get access to land. If you cannot get access to land, how the hell do you get money to borrow, to pay for a house? How the hell do you get money to start a small business? What the Native Title Act was about, was about locking up the land, taking your land, pretending to give it to the Aboriginals, but not. And so it was about locking up the land. Where did it come from? United Nations. It was about stealing land.

Chris:

What year was that?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Oh, Keating. When was Keating in power?

Chris:

No idea. It’s why I asked.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

’96, ’93, ’96, somewhere around there.

Chris:

Was the mid 90s, somewhere there.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Early to mid 90s. So this is what’s going on and people aren’t aware of that. And we all sit back and think, well, the virtue signal etc. We’ve done our job. We’ve given the Aboriginals land, bullshit. Go to an Aboriginal community and talk to them. They will tell you they can’t get the land. And they’ll also tell you the Aboriginal industry is stopping the money flying from the taxpayers to the Aboriginal in the community. Torres Strait Islander, we were up there last year. I said, what do you think about Close The Gap? Because to me it’s a negative because you’re focusing on the negative, closing a gap. And he said, “It’s bullshit and you’ll never close the gap while ever we have a Close The Gap programme.”

Chris:

That’s right.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Of course it is. But I was wanting to know, so I said, “What do you mean?” And he said, “Well, who do you think makes money out of having a Close The Gap programme? All the people supposed to be on these programmes who are closing the gap.” If they close the gap, they won’t get the money. They’re not interested in closing the gap. It’s that simple. It’s been turned into an industry that is hurting the Aboriginals in the communities. That’s what we object to. And Pauline has been calling that out since ’96.

Chris:

So it comes from… That’s what I mean, there’s people that will label you and Pauline as racist and on all the rest of the terms that they use.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Nazis.

Chris:

Nazis. If you have to speak, because if what you say, if you just make a point and you just read that in passing, it may look that way. But the way you explain it and the way that you, and not just you, but Pauline as well, it’s very clear to anyone that listens that it comes from a good place. And that in fact, you’re probably doing more for that community than what the other people are, and that you’re actually standing up and speaking for them. But it’s the same thing. The minute you even suggest that you’ll vote no to the referendum for the indigenous voice, the comments were flying about you being racist. You’re like, well, that’s irrelevant. What do you mean I’m racist? I’m objecting to a particular issue. But people just can’t, when I mean people, I mean let’s be honest, primarily the left, but they just see it and run with it.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I don’t call them the left. As you know, I call them the control side of politics, because left and right are meaningless terms these days. I know what you’re saying. And most people can understand a broad group by the left, but there’s so many people on the left economically who are on the right when it comes to morals or values and vice versa. It’s an irrelevant term. And I realised, I was reading a book one day about 10, 15 years ago. And I realised that left and right are used to confuse people. The real terms are you’re either in favour of control or you’re in favour of freedom. And the real issue throughout humanity has been control versus freedom. Labour Party is in favour of controls. Greens are in favour of controls. So what you call the left broadly, in favour of controls. UN is in favour of controls.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And that’s been the entire battle in humans, it’s a battle within each of us, whether we want to control someone else. It’s a battle between two of us, who’s going to control. It’s a battle between a group. It’s a battle within a community. It’s a battle within a nation. It’s a battle between nations, that’s what’s caused most wars. So it’s that ego again that comes up. That’s what the core issue is with humans, the control element, the fear based element. People who want to control, always beneath control is fear. So it’s whether or not we let their fears take over and control others, try to control others, or we let our spirit come through. And then we’re of the universe.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

You’re not a part of the universe, you’re of the universe, but the way we create ourselves and fabricate the ego that I call Malcolm, I’m part of the universe, whereas I’m really of the universe. And I think we’ve got to get back to that holistic thinking, that unified thinking, universal thinking, which means you don’t have a voice for Aboriginals. You have a voice for the people of Australia, that’s it. And what we’ve got to get back to is that, because at the moment we have a voice for the Liberal Party, a voice for the Labour Party, a voice for the National Party, although it’s pretty weak, and a voice for the Greens.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

They’re all speaking for the UN. David Littleproud is the leader of the Nationals. He’s trying to push forward globalist policies. One of the last things he did as a National Party minister was introduce a bill on biodiversity, which is complete bullshit. It was about controlling land in the guise of giving money to farmers for that control. I mean they’re coming at us every which way they can, Chris. We’ve just got to be so much on guard, but I think we’ve got to get back to being individuals within a human species of our universe rather than looking at separation and fragmentation.

Chris:

Mate, well said. We’ll end it there on that. That was yep, exactly right. You’re exactly right. And I heard something a few weeks ago and they said that in the video, he said that we were controlled by freedom, that we’re being controlled by freedom. And then once cryptocurrency and people, you had the internet, they started talking, like we are doing here and bouncing ideas off each other, they lost a little bit of that control. So the shift now is they’re trying to control us with safety, which is exactly what they’re doing. In the last three years, how many viruses have popped up out of nowhere? How many? Coronavirus, monkey pox, now there’s a new one in China where there was 31 cases identified of a brand new virus. It’s just one after the next.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Foot and mouth in Bali.

Chris:

Foot and mouth, that’s right.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

That one’s real.

Chris:

Yeah, that’s very concerning that one. Very, very concerning. But anyway, I’m aware you have another meeting at 12, so we’ll leave it there. But Malcolm, always a pleasure.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah, same here, Chris. And keep doing what you’re doing, mate, because we can’t rely on the mockingbird media, the anti-social media, the legacy media, the charlatan media. We’ve got to rely upon people like you to get the truth out. So thank you.

Chris:

Absolutely. And is your TNT Radio, what’s your vision for that? Are you doing that for the foreseeable future?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yep. Every two weeks on a Saturday from three til five. And thank you for mentioning it. TNTradio.live wonderful, wonderful, global, Australian actually, but they have hosts in New York, Los Angeles, Tel Aviv, Belfast, Ireland, London, all over Australia. And they have journalists during the week and people who’ve come from prominent positions. We’ve got former CIA, senior people in CIA on there. And then on the weekends, they tend to have people like me and we take our turns. So every second Saturday three til five I’m on. But TNT was funded by a person who wants to change politics in this country and change journalism, bring it back to basics and honesty. And by a journalist, Mike Ryan, who’s doing a wonderful job. What they’re doing is they’re just saying to the media, here’s some honesty. And they’re saying to the media, here’s the real politics. So they’re reporting fearlessly on any topic. They just tell the truth. As they say the only thing that TNT mandates is the truth.

Chris:

Yeah. We need to have that. And that’s why I have no problem recommending your show on TNT Radio because we need to work together collectively. Because you know what that’s going to do, it’s going to pressure the mainstream media to hopefully start being a little bit more honest, because people are going to get sick of it. And I’ve already noticed that people are getting sick of the mainstream media. People know that the mainstream media lie. And I think it’s a lack of awareness that podcasts like mine and shows like yours exist. But I think people are really starting to see that now. And it’s going to force the mainstream media to change, because if the mainstream media change and they’re more forthcoming and truthful with their reporting, everyone wins. Everyone wins. So it doesn’t bother me if I promote your show and we’re all in it together collectively, it’s a collective effort. But anyway, Malcolm.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I meant what I said, keep doing what you’re doing.

Chris:

I appreciate that mate, all the best.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

See you, mate.

The Queensland Labor Government’s decision to add an extra fine to unjabbed teachers is vindictive and cruel. It’s also about political donations and Labor taking care of their mates.

The Labor-aligned Queensland Teachers Union was nowhere to be seen when mandates were in effect and teachers were stood down without pay for more than half a year. The Red Union was different. They fought against mandates and teachers flocked to them and ended their memberships to the QTU who donates to the Labor party.

This fine was a move to punish unjabbed teachers who didn’t stay with the Labor-aligned QTU when they didn’t stand up for workers’ rights. If you ever thought Labor was the party for the worker, they certainly aren’t now.

Transcript

Rowan Dean
Well, as I mentioned at the start of the show, we’ve seen so many conventions and rights, democratic rights tossed aside all in the name of public health. The sad reality is that it isn’t over. We learned today, we learned last night actually that the Queensland Government is planning to dock the pay of Queensland teachers who have decided not to get vaccinated.

00:26
Rowan Dean
And the Federal Government seems fairly indifferent to what’s going on as well.

00:32
Anika Wells
Ultimately I think everyone has the right to make a choice about whether or not to get vaccine. But no one has the right to be free from the consequences of that choice. And these have been set out a long, long time coming. And they’ve had their pay docked, you know, for the six months running up to this. So this isn’t a surprise and it’s something that the Queensland Government going to have to work through with this very small pocket of teachers, given 99% are actually vaccinated.

00:56
Rowan Dean
A very small pocket of people we’re humiliating, demonizing and punishing. And here I was thinking labor was supposed to represent the workers. Hmm. Joining me now is One Nation Senator for Queensland, Malcolm Roberts. Great to see you, Malcolm. How are you?

01:15
Malcolm Roberts
I’m very well, thanks, Rowan. How are you? It’s good to be here.

01:17
Rowan Dean
Good mte, good. Listen, I got all these emails yesterday from several teachers, their families and other people who are absolutely livid with anger. You know, these are human beings. They’ve got feelings, they’ve got families. They’re being treated like dirt and scum, even though we know that, according to the CDC, the Center for Disease Control itself in the US, there’s no need.

01:42
Rowan Dean
They’ve now announced there’s no need to distinguish between vaccinated and unvaccinated. Personally, I wonder whether there ever was. Malcolm Roberts, what did you make of this news and how vindictive can a government be?

02:01
Malcolm Roberts
The real issue here is about political donations and about punishment. They’re the three words to remember. Now, I’ve been dealing with a teacher who’s been fighting for restitution for the teachers for a year and a half now. Sorry, sorry for half a year, because they were only cut on December 17th. But she’s been very strong. And so I called her up today and she pointed for four points with regard to punishment.

02:27
Malcolm Roberts
She said, first of all, they’ve been penalized for losing seven months worth of work because they were suspended due to not complying with the vaccine or the injection mandates, not misconduct, suspended due to noncompliance. They lost their pay for seven months. They lost their homes, marriages broke up, distressed people making decisions that were not good and sometimes causing lots of problems and heartaches.

02:52
Malcolm Roberts
Suicides. She’s personally had to talk four people out of suicide. Now after, if that’s not enough, they’ve been penalized for serious misconduct. So just January 23rd, which is only seven months ago, they were penalized, they were suspended, they were told, because noncompliance. Now they’re being accused of serious misconduct. Then the third thing is that some of these people have been living in state education, in state homes, and so they’ve been paying rent to the state government.

03:22
Malcolm Roberts
The state government tossed them out, tossed them out. And some of them couldn’t get their furniture out in time, were charged rent because the furniture was still in the place. One woman was denied the right to even access the furniture in her house. She had to pay someone to get it out for her. The fourth thing is they have now been labeled with this:

03:41
Malcolm Roberts
Quote “any further reprimand could lead to terminations.” This is belting them. It’s not just humiliating them. It’s belting them. This woman has been prevented from doing the work she loves for seven months.

03:56
Rowan Dean
Exactly. Malcolm, these are teachers. These are the people we rely upon to educate our young. To show. To show our children the ways of behavior, the values to take forward in life, positivity, creativity, inspiration, education. These are the people we rely on to bring those values to our children. I tell you, the sheer vindictiveness is there a more nasty, vicious government than the Palaszczuk government?

04:32
Rowan Dean
We saw Dan Andrews. He’s just a thug. We saw all the police brutality, throwing people to the ground, pepper spraying them and all this stuff. But we have this nasty, vindictive Palaszczuk government that seemed to want to hurt and punish anyone who disagrees with them. Is that an unfair comment?

04:51
Malcolm Roberts
You’re exactly right. If a private employer or a public company were doing this wrong, the Queensland Government would have been down on them like a ton of bricks. Now these are doing it. It’s bastardry at its worst, but there’s a reason why they’re doing it. The teachers believe that it’s got something to do with the fact that the Red Union, I think it’s called the teachers professional Association of Queensland a new Union has been making very great increases in numbers in the last few years and the Queensland Teachers Union is scared of that increase.

05:20
Malcolm Roberts
The Queensland Teachers Union has lost a lot of members. Now the Queensland Teachers Union is close to the ALP state government and they had d large sums of money from teachers dues to the Labor Party for their for their campaigns. Now all of a sudden they’re looking at membership drops and the Teachers Professional Association of Queensland, the Red Union, is taking over.

05:41
Malcolm Roberts
And so when the vaccine mandate came along, the injection mandate came along the QTU the Queensland Teachers Union, abandoned these workers, abandoned these teachers and the red union saw them flocking to them because the red unions stood with them side by side and took them,

05:59
Rowan Dean
Fascinating

06:00
Malcolm Roberts
Defended these people, supported them and that’s what’s going on now. We’ve got an industrial relations amendment bill coming in that’s going to make it difficult for the red union to get more members. This is about labor punishing people who dared to join the Red Union.

06:15
Rowan Dean
Malcolm Roberts, political donations. You’re 100% spot on there to point to the Machiavellian maneuvers behind it. Great to speak to you. Thanks so much for speaking up for those teachers and we’ll chat again soon. Thank you so much.

Anthony Albanese must immediately call a Royal Commission into the entire Government response to COVID, not just a weak inquiry limited to some very specific actions of Scott Morrison.

Royal Commissions have been called for far less than the country-changing actions of Government over the previous 2 years. Anthony Albanese’s excuse that the pandemic is still going doesn’t wash with most of Australia.

COVID is now essentially endemic, with most Australians learning to live with the virus. If Anthony Albanese believes the time to call a Royal Commission is not now, it’s hard to believe he will ever think it is time to call one.

As elected members of parliament we have a shared solemn duty to behave with integrity.

This embraces our duty to ensure legislation and policies are solidly based on accurate and objective data so that the consequences on our constituents and nation are safe, affordable, reasonable and fair.

Yet Attachment 1 shows there has never been, and there remains no, factual scientific basis presented in parliament for legislation cutting or limiting the production of carbon dioxide from human activity. Parliament has never debated the climate science.

The term logical scientific point means the empirical scientific data within a logical scientific framework proving causality. Senators and members of parliament have never been presented with the necessary logical scientific points to justify legislating the cutting or limiting of carbon dioxide from human activity. Nor has parliament ever been presented with the specific, quantified effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on any aspect of climate or weather.

Attachment 2 shows that CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) and The Chief Scientist have never produced the logical scientific points needed as the necessary and essential basis for climate change legislation. The supporting detailed scientific documents are Attachments 6 and 7.

I acknowledge and thank Senator Arthur Sinodinos as then Minister for Science and his predecessor Mr Greg Hunt for supporting me in arranging for my science and senate office teams to cross-examine government climate science agencies.

Attachment 3 concisely summarises facts explaining that no government, institute, agency or entity of any kind anywhere has produced the necessary logical scientific point. Together with climate scientists and climatologists internationally and within Australia we have held agencies, institutions, universities and individual academics accountable.

Attachment 3 notes that Maurice Strong was the United Nations Under-Secretary-General who triggered and fanned global climate alarm. He did so while having many serious conflicts of interest including being a director / shareholder of the Chicago Climate Exchange trading global Carbon Dioxide credits and being disgraced for his involvement in the UN Oil-for-Food program. Following allegations of serious breaches of American law he fled from American law enforcement agencies to exile in China. The United Nations Environment Program that he founded and led stands accused of contradicting scientific evidence and causing the avoidable deaths of 40-50 million people from 1972 through 2006.

Attachment 4 reveals the repeated results of two global natural experiments and prove that cutting carbon dioxide from human activity can have no effect. The associated limited summary of the science introduces concepts explaining why the cutting of carbon dioxide from human activity can have no effect on global or regional climate or weather. Included are basic facts on Earth’s essential, natural atmospheric trace gas that is the focus of legislation before our parliament.

Attachment 5 presents the fundamental basis for policy and legislation and for measuring progress toward achieving legislative aims and targets. This is combined with core questions that are at the heart of senators’ responsibilities to our constituents and I ask the committee to consider and deliberate upon these fundamental questions that must precede any consideration of the climate change legislation.

Attachment 6 summarises the staggering and sometimes crippling cost burdens of climate and energy policies.

Attachments 7 and 8 provide details underpinning Attachment 2. Attachment 7 provides a detailed scientific report documenting our discussions with CSIRO, an entity whose advice politicians claim is the basis for climate and related energy legislation. Attachment 8 cites associated peer-reviewed scientific papers in a scientific and statistical analysis of CSIRO’s presentations of its climate science claimed to underpin legislation. Please note particularly our scientific analyses of Marcott (2013), Lecavalier (2017), Harries (2001) and Feldman (2015) being papers upon which CSIRO relies and note the conclusions.

Attachment 9 provides detailed supporting statistics and analysis for Appendix 6. It cannot be sensibly refuted since the data was professionally and independently sourced from federal and state government budget papers and reports.

The attachments prove that the effect of Australia’s human production of carbon dioxide has never been specified or quantified in any way. Yet sound legislation should be based on quantified and measurable evidence so that we can assess its cost-benefit and measure implementation to track whether the legislation is effective and achieves the desired outcomes.

This is impossible with current climate and related energy policy and the government’s latest climate change bill.

I hope that you, as a fellow member of parliament, share my commitment to doing our due diligence in fulfilling our duty to serve our constituents, state and nation. I hope that the attachments are of assistance to you in fulfilling our duty to the people of Australia.

I would welcome meeting with the committee and welcome an opportunity for me and my team to address the committee in its hearings to afford senators an opportunity to scrutinise our scientific team. We welcome you holding us accountable

Our principal scientist has legally gathered 24, 000 datasets worldwide on climate and energy from peer-reviewed scientific papers, institutes and government agencies including CSIRO and BOM. He is the recipient of an Order of Australia Medal for his services to research.

I hope every member of the committee agrees that in assessing legislation we each have the onus to produce the logical scientific points including the specific, quantified effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate or weather. As senators and before endorsing legislation we each have the onus to prove that carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut as proposed in government legislation currently before the committee and before all senators in parliament.

The attachments reveal the need for detailed scrutiny and serious consideration of all climate and related energy legislation.

Our Earth’s climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Historical empirical scientific evidence shows there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current temperatures or weather events.

Climate science has been hijacked. Special interest groups pushing ideological societal change, rent-seekers wanting to profit from taxpayer subsidies and politicians looking for easy new ways to tax citizens are hijacking our nation’s governance and sovereignty. Alarmingly, once highly regarded agencies such as the CSIRO and BOM, have allowed themselves to become a part of the climate change industry and have failed to provide government with robust competent science advice, upon which to base policy.

There is no logical scientific point with empirical evidence linking carbon dioxide from human activity as the cause of climate variability. No entity or person has ever proven that the ongoing natural climate variability is not entirely natural.

This lack of vigorously tested evidence has allowed governments to create policy that is permanently damaging our once cheap and reliable electricity system. Our manufacturing industries are disappearing overseas, families are struggling to pay their exorbitant power bills, farmers are under pressure, and our once reliable electricity system is on its knees, due to government regulations forcing intermittent wind and solar into the electricity grid.

Even our children are not safe from this alarmism, with eco-anxiety finding its way into the innocent world of our children.

Nor is the environment safe due to the lack of recycling of many solar, wind and battery components with relatively short working lives and due to other inherently damaging aspects of solar and wind.

I implore you to apply the utmost of analytical and sceptical scrutiny to the claims underpinning climate and related energy policy. The effects of climate policy are historic, and Australia has never before faced such a fundamental and arguably monumental change to our way of life and lifestyle. Your extra scrutiny on the claims underpinning climate and related energy policy could be the difference between millions of Australians suffering if the proposed legislation is passed, or alternatively, having a more prosperous nation if existing climate and related energy legislation is rescinded.

I sincerely hope that your decision on legislation is mindful of the costs and burdens on our constituents, on our nation and on our national security. Your vote if in favour of the climate change bill will prevent sound governance while your vote against the bill will enable sound governance, fairness and integrity.

A mandate for a policy and legislation lacking the claimed scientific basis is a mandate based on lies or misrepresentations. As such it is not a mandate.

Every one of us though has a mandate and responsibility to tell the truth and to vote with integrity.

CONCLUSION

After 14 years studying and investigating climate science, along with in-depth research into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and profound cross-examining of CSIRO and BOM, we know there is no empirical scientific data as evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity has changed or will change temperature or any climate or weather factor.

Importantly, the effect, if any, of carbon dioxide from human activity on any climate or weather variable has never been quantified.

In its presentations to my team and I, the CSIRO stated that there is no danger from carbon dioxide from human activity and that there is nothing unprecedented about our planet’s temperature.  Therefore, there is no scientific justification for any government to introduce policies designed to reduce carbon dioxide from human activity.

We are calling for all climate-based policies and subsidies for renewable energy to be rescinded. The consequences of climate alarmism cost the Australian economy in productivity and growth, and in our ability to compete in the highly competitive international arena.

Clearly, it is time to change our approach to climate change.  These Bills must be rejected.

Yours sincerely,

Malcolm Roberts

Enclosures: Attachments 1 through 9

On this episode I talk to Paul Withall and Amanda Sillers about parental alienation, male suicide and family law.

Paul is the Founder of Zero Suicide a not-for-profit organisation that advocates to make bulk change on the issues in society that cause people to have suicide attempts or thoughts at an institutional and government level. Zero Suicide does not accept money, grants or raise funds through merchandise. They run on love and fight for the truth. Paul is also lobbying for a Minister for Men.

Amanda is one of Australia’s most renowned research advocates in the Parental Alienation space. Her foundation, Eeny Meeny Miney Mo, is a support group for parents and children who are experiencing alienation.  She knows about this because she has lived experience. This experience and her research puts Amanda in a powerful position to unpack parental alienation and how it is harmful for both parents and children. Amanda is dedication to have parental alienation recognised as a form of child abuse across the Family Court and Domestic and Family Violence legislation.

Transcript

Speaker 1:

You’re with Senator Malcolm Roberts on today’s news talk radio, TNT.

Malcolm:

This is today’s news talk radio, tntradio.live. And I’m Senator Malcolm Roberts. And I’m very, very proud to be a host on TNT radio because we’re putting out both sides of the news. I want to move now to a man I met a couple of years ago in Maryborough, which is on the Queensland coast and his name is Paul Vittles. And he struck me as being very knowledgeable, very dedicated, and very caring man, who has a passion for helping people. Very, very caring. He was passionate, he was very active, energetic, but he was not overbearing. He just knew his stuff and he wanted to share it and he wants a voice. We’re going to give it to him now. Paul Vittles is the founder of Zero Suicide, a not for profit organisation that advocates to make bulk change on the issues in society that cause people to have suicide attempts or thoughts at an institutional and government level. Zero Suicide does not accept money, grants or raised funds through merchandise. They run on love and fight for the truth. Paul is lobbying for minister for men. Welcome Paul.

Paul:

Thank you, Malcolm. Thanks for the opportunity.

Malcolm:

Tell me something you appreciate, anything at all?

Paul:

Being in a position to be able to help other people and getting opportunities to make a difference in the community.

Malcolm:

Well we hear, Paul, a lot about the plight of women during family breakdowns, but how badly are men suffering?

Paul:

It’s not just the suffering, it’s the lack of support, the reason why they’re suffering. There’s no housing directly for men that are going through anything. They can’t get funding for free legal. When they’re in family court, there’s people that are making false accusations and restraining orders, and there’s no services for these men to turn to, to get assistance. So in turn, it makes them lonely and causes them issues.

Malcolm:

I mean, our previous guests today have said pretty much the same thing. Is there something unique about men compared with women? Women, when they get under pressure, they tend to run off to other women and they seek each other. And then the other women actually like that. If you know what I mean? Because they’re given the opportunity to care and humans love to care. Men and women love to care. So when we ask for things, we’re giving the other person who we’re looking for care from a real opportunity to express themselves, men don’t seem to think that way.

Paul:

No, they don’t. It’s not that they don’t think that way, I don’t believe. I believe it’s because they don’t have the opportunity to reach out that way. So men feel that if they’re going through something, they can talk to their mates about it. But if it’s something like you’ve lost your children, they’re worried that they’re going to be branded more so through relationship breakdown, if they’re having problems in their relationship, a domestic dispute with their partner or just niggles in the relationship. They don’t want to tell other people that, because it can in turn cause them more problems. People ask questions and if they put it out on social media, in turn, other people will attack them. And for that reason, it makes them stay silent, it’s because of the way society is.

Malcolm:

And that’s the very worst thing that someone can do rather than share it. And when we share we give someone the opportunity to care, even if sometimes they might reject us because they’ve got issues themselves, but it gives them the opportunity to care.

Paul:

Yeah. But men are scared. That’s the thing, men are scared now because society’s changed to the place where men are put in a corner and they’ve got to fight their way out of that corner. And whether there’s no services and we reach out to politicians and other services, there’s just simply nothing there to actually deal with the three issues that men deal with the most. And that’s like you say, one of the top things, relationship breakdown’s the main reason for men’s suicide.

Malcolm:

What are the other two?

Paul:

First one’s relationship breakdown and divorce, the second one’s loss of children or access to children and the last one’s financial or court. And to actually add to that with the mental health banner that everyone talks about when they link suicide and mental health together, men’s suicide’s just under 50% mental health related.

Malcolm:

And all three of the top causes for suicide are involved in the family law court system, all three.

Paul:

100% spot on. And when these men go to family court, there’s no one in court to actually talk to the people or assess the nature of how they’re dealing with the process. And especially men, they’re losing their children. The people that they’ve loved and cared for, and they’ve built their whole life around. Even their partner, even if the family’s broken down they’re losing that partner as well, even if they’ve had the fight and things are bad, but there’s nothing for them. So in turn, these men that have fought their whole life to become a father and to have a happy, healthy relationship when that breaks they’re broken. And there’s nothing there, the family court for these men to turn to, there’s more to it, but that’s the basis of what happens.

Malcolm:

So, let’s explore that a bit more by looking at what men do differently, compared with women during times of family distress, what do men do that women don’t do? And what do women do that men don’t do?

Paul:

Well, men will isolate they’ll… I suppose both genders would drink. But men will isolate because they have to isolate because there’s nowhere for them to go. They can’t reach out to a solicitor and get help. While they’re going through family court, for instance, 40% of men that go through your family court it costs them a minimum of $11,000. Some men don’t have that and it’s really hard to get legal aid in a small community town because there’s a conflict of interest there. So for that reason, they may-

Malcolm:

What the conflict of interest?

Paul:

Conflict of interest is when you have one solicitor that’s being used, say the local legal aid solicitor, and another solicitor comes in. I mean, someone wants to use the solicitor, but there’s none in the town. They actually physically cannot get a solicitor.

Malcolm:

So, if the spouse’s signed up with that solicitor tough luck, you can’t sign up with that solicitor?

Paul:

Yep. And that solicitor might be the local legal aid solicitor, and they’re being funded because men can’t get free legal when it comes to family court. Whereas women, with no disrespect, if they make a claim of domestic violence or anything like that, they can get free legal for those reasons. And during that process, they’re being funded as well with housing, with food, food parcels, food vouchers, and many other things. But men can’t get that assistance. So when they’re going through the process, they feel even further isolated pushed back further into the corner.

Malcolm:

So they see the system is different for them, and they’re probably wondering why. And they may not even know that women get all these things, but they just know that they’re isolated and alone, and they’re very vulnerable. And they just dig deeper into themselves, whereas they should be reaching out.

Paul:

They should be reaching out. But where do you reach out to, Malcolm, when there are no services that are individual for men? I challenge anyone in Australia, look through and find a domestic violence service for men, look through, find… even trying to get just normal alcohol or drug counselling. They’re there but the waiting list is three to six months. So if someone in family court, a male turns to alcohol or starts drinking heavily, or starts using drugs more, or for whatever reason during that process, there’s no service for them to get help, to deal with that issue, which causes further depression.

Malcolm:

I’ve got some other questions prepared, but I want to, before we get onto those other questions, you’ve compiled a report on men’s suicides based on government statistics. And the final copy of that is being released next week. Is that true?

Paul:

Yes, it is.

Malcolm:

And it’s titled… I have it here with me, I haven’t read it because it is long and it’s detailed, Zero Suicide Report on Men’s Suicide in Australia. And I think there’s a Facebook page?

Paul:

Yeah.

Malcolm:

What is that?

Paul:

Our Facebook page is… Good question, Malcolm. It’s ZeroSuicide Community Awareness Programme and Walks To Prevent Mens Suicide.

Malcolm:

So we’ll do that again. ZeroSuicide Community Awareness Programme And Walks To Prevent Mens Suicide. What do you mean by walks to prevent men’s suicide?

Paul:

We launched a proposal in state minister for men on the basis of suicide two years ago. When we did that, we did that around three states and it was walks. So we walked from one place to the parliament house to announce the proposal. And basically it was a protest.

Malcolm:

What sort of distance?

Paul:

2 and 3K. Not far walks, but it was more about the… We were hurt, we wanted to get our message out. So as we were walking along the streets, we were handing out flyers about the proposal, we were trying to engage with people and show them what was going on. When we got to parliament house, it was a really good feeling just to be proud that we’d had the proposal and from there we got other people were coming up to us. Even after that walk, our leadership team of 12 in Victoria, we all walked separate ways and walked through the whole city, handing out all the leftover flyers of 150.

Malcolm:

Hang on. You just told me a leadership team in Victoria. Is this a national crusade?

Paul:

No. So we launched it in Victoria two years ago, we had a lady, Kathy Cooper that was passionate about our work and she’s from New South Wales. So we ended up forming a Zero Suicide in New South Wales.

Malcolm:

So you’re from Queensland.

Paul:

I’m from Victoria.

Malcolm:

Oh, you’re from Victoria. That’s right.

Paul:

Yep.

Malcolm:

That’s right. You’re you’re in the show society.

Paul:

Yep, so [inaudible 00:10:01]-

Malcolm:

That’s right.

Paul:

That’s why I became the leader, so to speak-

Malcolm:

[inaudible 00:10:04] as Queenslander.

Paul:

Because being a travelling show person, I’ve got the capacity to get to the government offices in all the different states to get to all these different places. And that’s what made Kathy from Zero Suicide join the team because she knew I had the capacity, she’d seen what I was doing. She’s like, “I need to help you, I’m in New South Wales. What can I do?” And here she is out there flown up today and she’s outside in our Zero Suicide tent today leading the way. We’ve got walk to… We’ll talk about that later, we’ve got event coming up at parliament house in Canberra that she’s instigated.

Malcolm:

Do you want to talk about that now or deliberately leave it till later? Whatever.

Paul:

I’ll leave it till later.

Malcolm:

Okay. When’s when’s later?

Paul:

When we’re about to wrap it up.

Malcolm:

Okay. Okay. Now we’ve talked about dads and moms who really in a lot of trouble and hurting, but children are missing out on their dads during family breakdowns. What do you see happening in this space?

Paul:

Suicide. Oh my God.

Malcolm:

Of children?

Paul:

Oh, you wouldn’t believe it. There was a 10 year old last week committed suicide.

Malcolm:

10?

Paul:

10. Yep, in Wollongong. 10 years old, that’s how bad this is getting. Now, we can’t honestly say we know exactly what his cause was because I didn’t deal with that child. But there’s 10 year olds, there’s 14 year olds. And you’ll see in this report that I’ve given you that some of the statistics it’s horrible. But what happens, it’s not just suicide. These children get bullied at school, we know bullying at school causes suicidal thoughts in children. This is when the children realise that, “Hang on, my dad will think that my mom or dad doesn’t love me.” So they have that opportunity to have their first try of drugs or go to that party. That’s when that starts. That’s when they think, “Well, they don’t care about me. I might as well do it.”

Paul:

So that starts the whole cycle. And in turn, once you live at home is what you see. And if you’re not getting the love, or even if you are getting the love, if you alienated against or any of that, it all starts at home or with your peers that you work around. And that’s why children are killing themselves. And not just killing themselves, starting that process of having an unhealthy life as a teen. Because when teenagers go through that, they don’t understand. And they might say they do, they don’t understand. And because they say they understand they don’t get the assistance that they need from the people that need to help them.

Malcolm:

So you won’t hear this in the Mockingbird media, the legacy media, the tainted media, the mainstream media, you will hear it on tntradio.live because the only mandate at tntradio.live is to tell the bloody truth. And that’s why we want to give a voice to people like Paul right now. So Paul, one of your pet strategies is to get a minister for men. How will such a thing make a difference for our society?

Paul:

There’s literally hundreds of ways. Firstly, having a minister for men instated, we can start dealing with the issues that are facing men in society that make them want to take their own life.

Malcolm:

So in some ways it’s a bit of a flag, but men have arrived. The issue is real.

Paul:

Yes.

Malcolm:

So it’s symbolic. It’s a flag.

Paul:

Yep.

Malcolm:

Okay.

Paul:

We have ministers for women, at the state and federal level all over our country. We don’t have ministers for men. Isn’t that the most inner quality you could talk about when it comes to our parliament? I mean, at the end of the day, let’s can even make the minister for men, a woman. It doesn’t matter so long as they’re trying to deal with the issues before the thought takes place. So we need to instigate, we need to get some simple answers. They could have the men’s sheds. They could be government funded, we can use the youth programme. So with the correctional facilities, we have these children that go out and do… Young boys that are going out, cleaning graffiti off with other criminals.

Paul:

Instead, we could put these into the men’s shed where they’ve got old heads working together to learn from each other. If that was funded, we could make change. There’s lots of different things. We have people screaming that men are the instigators to domestic violence. Okay. Don’t blame, let’s instate the minister for men, let’s research the reasons why. From that, we can instil the things that need to change in men. In turn, we drop the suicide rate. We can deal with the domestic violence issues. You know that you can’t take a child to a refuge in Australia if you’re a man?

Malcolm:

Well, what do you mean?

Paul:

You can’t. There’s no one refuge in Australia that a man can leave domestic violence with their child and go into. None.

Malcolm:

So if a man is suffering from domestic violence, then he can’t take his child with him?

Paul:

And in turn that causes domestic violence. It forces these men to stay in the home. Quite and often men are threatened, “If you do this, you’re going to lose your kid.” We’ve all heard this before, we’ve all heard the sentence. That forces men to stay in toxic environments, and some of these men are not violent. Of course they are but if they stay in that environment, the children see it. Like I said, it goes through that, that causes children to feel bad. It educates them that’s the wrong relationship.

Malcolm:

We need to go to an outbreak. And so this will be the last question for you, Paul. But while I understand now, the minister for men is a flag to say, “Hey, men have problems too.” And I, and I get that. And that’s a positive reason for doing it. I think that it’s a need to get back to basics for both men and women in our country. Need to get back to basics for Aboriginals in our country. And need to get back to basics for so many groups of people in our country.

Malcolm:

And so I would put it to you that while the minister for men might be a nice flag, until we fix family law, until we fix the tax system, until we fix the energy system that man has caused, government has created. Until we fix cost of living, until we fix overregulation, we will be continuing this spiral of misery because government seems to think that they have to be the solution when they’ve caused the bloody problem in the first place. Government’s duty is to create the environment in which people can operate sociably and effectively. They don’t have to be the environment, they have to create the environment. And if we got back to basics we’d have one spouse at home because the taxation system would be reasonable and we’d have so much nurturing, so much of a better environment for a decent family.

Paul:

You’re right. But at the end of the day, because they haven’t done that suicide and all suicide is now nearly 80% men. And that’s because that hasn’t happened, Malcolm. That’s why we need to instate the minister for men. In talking 80% of all suicides of men, clearly there’s something wrong with our society. That’s why I fight for the minister for men, the segregation, just because you’re Aboriginal, you look through those stats. Most of those people will be men and all the same problems, family relationship breakdown, loss of children. And it’s all the same thing. The LGBTQI community, same thing. You’ll find it’s mostly the trans or the gay men. And that’s why we need this minister for men because it’s 40 years now, this is [inaudible 00:17:24]. 40 years, men’s suicide has been 70% of all suicides.

Malcolm:

Wow. We need to do something about this so well, we can see that the need for minister for men to draw attention to it. We need to get back to basics in this country and fix the governance. So thank you so much, Paul, for coming in. We’ll now go to an ad break.

Paul:

Thank you for your time, Malcolm. And I appreciate it.

Malcolm:

This is Senator Malcolm Roberts again, back with a new guest on parental alienation behaviours. We’re going to move from the term parental alienation to parental alienation behaviours. So my guest is Amanda Sillars and she’s with Eeny Meeny Miney Mo Foundation, and we’re going to talk more about that later. Amanda is one of Australia’s most renowned research advocates in the parental alienation behaviours space. Her foundation, Eeny Meeny Miney Mo is a support group for parents and children who are experiencing alienation. She knows about this because she has lived experience, this experience as both a child and as a parent later. And her research puts Amanda in a powerful position to unpack parental alienation and how it’s harmful for both parents and children. Amanda is dedicated to have parental determined and dedicated to having parental alienation recognised as a form of child abuse across the family court and domestic and family violence legislation.

Malcolm:

And I must give her an apology because she contacted me some time ago and I put a note in my calendar, “Call Amanda Sillars.” But I kept trying to find her number. So anyway, here we are face-to-face and what a beautiful smile she’s got. Anyway, welcome Amanda.

Amanda:

Hi, it’s great to be here.

Malcolm:

First thing, tell me something you appreciate can be about anything?

Amanda:

I guess, despite the things that I’ve been through in life, I’ve had a lot of trauma and things like that as a child and as a parent as well. I’m grateful that I’ve got that experience, that I can better understand others who go through these type of things. It’s a strange thing to be grateful for, but I’ve learned so much from it and I’ve become a better person and less judgemental and more understanding.

Malcolm:

Thank you. I appreciate your smile, very much. Childhood Amanda is such an impressionable time and a child’s adoration for their parents, makes them especially vulnerable. How easily can children be manipulated by one parent?

Amanda:

Oh, extremely easy. From the day that we’re born, we look to our parents for the facial expressions of what’s happy, what’s sad, what’s surprising and the angry face and all that sort of stuff. So, starting off with some of the naive alienating behaviours is the nonverbal communications. So, if a parent’s showing that they’re bitter towards another parent, or they’re angry or they’re horrified, things like that is that children will look at their parent for these cues and they’ll respond to these cues. So if you’ve got a caretaker that’s showing that they’re really angry at the other parent, and the child starts to associate that when the moms or dad’s angry with the other parent, “But this parent’s making them upset.” And so, they can start withdrawing from the other parent as a result of simply the non-verbal communications.

Malcolm:

Well, I imagine it actually probably goes even deeper and you correct me if I’m wrong, because you’ve been through it and you’ve done the research. But if a child loves both parents and they’ve got good reason to, and one parent suddenly starts trashing the other parent, then the child is going to be, “Hang on, well I don’t see that.” So that child is going to be very confused, they’re very much doubting what they are seeing and they’re going to doubt themselves and reduce their self-confidence. Because they’re saying, “Mum is saying this, but dad is not that way. There must be something wrong with me, the child.” Is that valid?

Amanda:

I guess, when you’re criticising the other parent, you’re criticising the child as well, because the parent’s part of them. I’ve got a huge list of all the-

Malcolm:

This lady is prepared.

Amanda:

I know. I’ve got a… so we’ve got things like, obviously we talk about the denigrating, the parent to the child. Maybe we’ve got the vilification of the targeted parent without any adequate supportive evidence. And unreasonably interfering with communications, and the time the child spends with the targeted parent. Eradicating the targeted parent from the child’s life, purposely withholding information about the child from the targeted parent. So these are all alienating behaviours. Interrogating the child for information about the targeted parent and the time spent with them. This is the really serious one, because parents can start questioning the child. Like, “What did you do with the other parent? Who did you see? What did you get fed?”

Amanda:

And the child will respond, and sometimes they’ll start responding in a way that they’re trying to please that parent, because they see that parent’s fishing for information. So what will happen is sometimes we have a situation like the parent might have got upset with them over something. And the child learns to catastrophize things because they’re with the parent that has these cognitive distortions, where they catastrophize, they’ve got this black and white thinking, like they’re all good. The other parents all bad. And so this is quite distressing for a child to start learning these kind of behaviours. And it does affect them. So kids will start reporting back things that didn’t happen. Because I thought it was all about just a parent, not just, but a parent denigrating the other parent. But it’s not, it’s actually the children can start confessing to things that didn’t happen.

Amanda:

And there’s a study that’s called The Mousetrap Study and they asked a series of questions over a number of weeks. And there was one question that remained the same. And that is, have you ever had your finger caught in a mouse trap? In the first week none of the children… These were school-aged children, none of the children had had their finger caught in the mouse trap. By the second and third week the children started reporting back, “Oh yeah, my little sister, she got it caught in, I got my finger caught in. It was in the attic.” And they started elaborating on it. So it just shows you that you ask a child the same question again and again, eventually they’ll tell that child what they think that their parent’s fishing for, and naturally children want to be helpful and they want to please their parent.

Amanda:

So you can imagine that I’ll give you our worst case scenario. So, we’ve had cases where the father might have been bathing the child in the bath. And then the mother who’s now separated from him and is like, “Well, what was he doing? Did he touch you down there? Did you touch your private areas?” And the child’s like… Oh, maybe the first time they’re saying, “No, it didn’t. I just washed myself.” And then the child will come back the second time, if they’re washing… The father might not even wash the child anywhere in their private areas.

Malcolm:

So, the child is sensing that he or she would please the mother if he or she said these certain things?

Amanda:

Yeah, absolutely. And so we see a lot of cases where, and it’s not just fathers that are being accused, we’ve got moms that have been accused of things like that as well. So this is not gendered, this comes back to those problematic personality traits, which we do highlight on our website of all the different… Sorry, I just go through my… I’ve got so many pages that are printed out here today.

Malcolm:

I don’t know that you need those pages because you seem to know it pretty well.

Amanda:

Yeah, well… Yeah, sorry.

Malcolm:

But she’s thorough, she’s thorough.

Amanda:

I just want to make sure, because my… Here we go. So what we’re looking at, the characteristics of alienating parents are the problematic personality traits, which are under the narcissistic personality, borderline personality, paranoid personality, and the histrionic personality traits. And then we’ve got the cognitive distortions, which I said before is those really unhelpful thinking traps, like they’re never wrong. They catastrophize, they overgeneralize, all those sort of behaviours. And then we’ve got externalising unwanted emotions and responsibilities, and unable to accept their own problems. And they tend to blame other people that projection and abnormal grieving responses, when people are in an intact relationship, everything’s okay. But then once they break up, some people can’t transition into that co-parenting, that separated environment.

Amanda:

And they have to reformulate things to make them hate that person, because they’re not able to manage with that separation. So they can basically start saying that whole relationship was abusive or it was really bad, that whole entire time just to get them to hate this person, because they’re not able to transition into that separated environment type of thing.

Malcolm:

So aren’t these… Well, in my ignorance and my lack of experience, they seem to be symptoms of underlying mental health problems in the parent that is trying to alienate another person.

Amanda:

Absolutely.

Malcolm:

So sometimes done deliberately for ulterior motives, sometimes just done almost habitually without even knowing.

Amanda:

Yeah. Naively, they can be naively done. When someone’s got residual, there’s a little bit of alienation in most separations. But if you’ve got somebody who’s got a mental illness or a mental disorder, it’s going to be worse.

Malcolm:

Mm-hmm.

Amanda:

Yeah.

Malcolm:

What’s the experience and impact for the parent who’s being alienated from their child or children?

Amanda:

Oh, it’s such a helpless-

Malcolm:

Because you had that experience?

Amanda:

Yeah. I’ve actually been through that. And the thing is it’s being judged, when you’re being vilified.

Malcolm:

Judged by the child?

Amanda:

When you’re being judged by the family court system, or if people have had child protection involved or police involved and things like that. You’re guilty until you prove your innocence. And so you’ll spend all your time trying to explain yourself, and sometimes you’ll give that much detail in a sentence. It’s like that of an affidavit because you’re feeling like you have to prove yourself all the time.

Malcolm:

Justify.

Amanda:

And sometimes because you’re not getting support, there’s not enough support for these people in these situations that you can become quite unhinged. So can you imagine if you’re going for a single expert report and you’ve been vilified, you’re not seeing your children, you’re now being financially abused with the incentives of child support to the abuser. People become, as I said, unhinged. And so you’ve got one hour appointment with a single expert and you’ve got that period of time to tell what’s going on in your life. And when you’ve got one hour and they haven’t looked at the timeline, when they haven’t interviewed other people in the family or in your community and stuff like that.

Amanda:

And you’ve only got that one hour to tell your story. That one hour you could come across as a absolute… really unwell and unregulated, you can sound dysfunctional. So, a lot of people aren’t trauma-informed, so they don’t understand this.

Malcolm:

So there’s another symptom of the system that’s failing, the system that’s diseased, the family law system. It has to be canned and you can’t understand someone in an hour.

Amanda:

No, definitely not. No, you really need longitudinal interview process and more people in the community that’s associated to the children and the parents to be interviewed. You can’t base it on one hour with the children, one hour with each parent. That’s just not enough.

Malcolm:

And can there be… We’ve been talking all day, all this show about parents who separate, who divorced, who are going through those proceedings, can this happen in a marriage, one parent be alienated?

Amanda:

Oh absolutely. You can have one parent that’s undermining the other parent’s rules in the house. You can have one keeping secrets from the other parent or trying to find out information on what they’re doing and stuff like that. Or, it’s very much like the alienating tactics that are after the separation. Let’s say it’s someone’s birthday, but then minimising things that are important about that person and making them less important.

Malcolm:

Or even downright putting the other person down.

Amanda:

Yeah.

Malcolm:

Either in front of her or behind his back or wherever.

Amanda:

Yeah. Talking down about the other parent. Absolutely. Yeah. Like, if they’re making the child a meal and it’s not what the other parent thinks is appropriate, they might just, “Oh, you’re always make him unhealthy food.” And you just even add the little simple things that the child starts to get this perspective of this parent. So you can imagine once you’ve got the separation, how that can just magnify.

Malcolm:

So a lot of the parental alienation seems to be about control, to try and hurt the other parent, not recognising that they’re hurting the child in the process. So what are some of the things… What’s the experience and impact for the child that’s being subjected to this manipulative behaviour?

Amanda:

Okay.

Malcolm:

Can it stay with them for a lifetime?

Amanda:

Absolutely, it can. I’ve got… Okay. It’s traumatic. We did a study recently and there was people that came forward to participate in the research that just are not in the frame of mind to be able to participate, that’s how damaged they are as the result of from-

Malcolm:

From being children-

Amanda:

… from being alienated. So they’re now adults.

Malcolm:

Yeah.

Amanda:

But they are so harmed that we could not have them participate in the study.

Malcolm:

In what way?

Amanda:

Suicidal dysregulated, you just can’t have people participate in research, because what it is it’s-

Malcolm:

So their wounds are that deep.

Amanda:

Yeah. Well their interview, so you ask a series of questions, you’re not just ticking a survey. Yeah.

Malcolm:

And that interview would break down because the adult who was once a child victim of parental alienation behaviours just couldn’t cope?

Amanda:

No, they can’t cope through it. Yeah. It’s just unethical. It’s unethical to interview somebody who’s that traumatised.

Malcolm:

So how will that make them as parents?

Amanda:

Yeah. Well, I can’t really cover this.

Malcolm:

Wow.

Amanda:

Yeah. History will probably repeat itself. Either they might become an alienating parent or they might become alienated because that’s the cycle. But what we’re seeing in the impact is that we’re seeing disrupted social and emotional development. We’re seeing insecure attachment styles. So what you see in the prisons, a lot of people that are in prison have the antisocial attachment style. Is interpersonal problems, the relationships they choose and how they manage those relationships. Paranoid thinking, obsessive compulsive tendencies, low self-esteem that’s without a doubt, we see so much low self-esteem. Resentment, grief, anger, depression, anxiety, somatic symptoms, physical symptoms, substance related problems and suicide. And then family violence and abuse they can end up into in relationships with family violence.

Malcolm:

So, because they went through that, they could become violent or they could become attracted to someone who is going to become violent later.

Amanda:

Yeah. Yeah. Because some people-

Malcolm:

We seem to have these contracts, the way I listen to people sometimes it’s almost like they’re contracted to marry someone who will teach them that lesson by the experience.

Amanda:

Yeah. Well, sometimes it’s what’s familiar. I know with my own situation, I had a father that was really good at telling people what they want to hear and very manipulative, but behind closed doors, he would grind you down, belittle you and things like that. And so that was a familiar thing for me. And so that’s what I chose in my partner. I chose very similar behaviours, even down to their birthdays, being a couple of days apart and looks were very similar as well. Big white teeth, broad shoulders, tall, everything was just so much alike, because it was familiar. And I was used to being treated that way. As a problem, because my dad used to always say things about my mom. Like, “Oh, you just…” He’d make negative comments about my mom. So I learn that was a bad thing, but that was okay to be spoken to that way. So, that’s what happens with this. It’s what’s familiar to you and you compromise yourself for other people and your own thoughts and feelings are minimised. You don’t matter.

Malcolm:

Well, thank you very much Amanda, for sharing that insight into your personal behaviour. It’s a strong woman who can do that, a strong person who can do that. We’re going to take an ad break and then we’re going to come back again with Amanda Sillars, and talk more about parental alienation behaviours.

Speaker 1:

[inaudible 00:36:53] weaponizing weather with reality and perspective.

Malcolm:

Al Gore effect warning. This is a warning, is in effect because of the media misinformation media. They’re not telling you about how much rain the Colorado river basin has had this monsoonal season and how much more is coming. It may be the wettest four month period on record in the so-called desert Southwest, which looks more like the swampy Southwest. But wait, there’s more. Texas has been in a hot dry summer, there is a drought in Texas right now. Not as bad as the 1950s and for the United States, not as bad as the 1930s, but a monster reversal is coming. In fact, what we’re telling our clients is Texas is going to go from dust to mud and floods, especially up across the Northern part of the state.

Malcolm:

Do you think you’d hear any of that from the media misinformation media? Of course not. This is weatherbell.com meteorologist Joe Bastardi for TNT radio, reminding you to enjoy the weather, it’s the only weather you got.

Malcolm:

And this is Senator Malcolm Roberts back again with Amanda Sillars. Now Amanda is not one to mark around. So she’s told me what she would like to talk about next. So guests usually have charge in my interview because they know the topic, I don’t. So, okay, Amanda, over to you, tell us what the topic is and what you’d like me to ask, or just go into it. Don’t worry about me, just go into it.

Amanda:

Good eye, science of social influences that support parental alienation theory. So what we do know from the research is that false memories can be implanted.

Malcolm:

We know that from parliament?

Amanda:

Suggestion and questions can lead to the corruption of memory and perception, and the cues of others shape our own perception. And this is true in influence children, teens then even adults. The mechanism of influence includes social pressure, visualisation, suggestive questioning, repetition, compliance, patternicity and confirmation bias. So that’s when someone who searches for information that supports their beliefs or values.

Amanda:

And going back to the interviewing is that interviewing, questioning and counselling techniques used with children can be so suggestive that they have the capacity to substantially alter the child’s recollections of events and thus compromise the reliability of the child’s personal knowledge. So you’re talking about in court situations where children are interviewed by somebody who’s not trained in how to interview children appropriately, they can start off with suggestive questions like, “Oh, does daddy hurt you?” Or, “Does mommy slap you?” They start with those leading questions kind of thing.

Amanda:

And this is quite common. We hear it a lot in child protection, we hear it with some police will be like that, suggestive with their questioning. Even though you’ve got people in units that are highly trained in the area, if they’re on site and you’ve got somebody who’s questioning a child and the child’s already had those questions asked by a parent and they’ve sort of giving into that parent, the child will start elaborating. The story will get bigger and better over time. So you can imagine when you get more and more people involved, how a case that could be so innocent with somebody telling the child often. Then now the parents abusing them and now they’ve been abusing them their whole life, and they’ve always done it and they’ve even done it to the other people. And, this is the hour of suggestibility.

Malcolm:

And children are very vulnerable, especially young children because they want to please.

Amanda:

Yeah.

Malcolm:

It’s important for their survival. So just building on that, I’ve prepared a question here. I understand that false allegations of abuse account for nearly 80% of cases during family court proceedings and this alienation is a way of permanently severing the parent child relationship. That’s a very high percentage for such destructive behaviour. Why do people make false allegations in custody disputes?

Amanda:

Well, I’ve written an article about this and again, instead of articles, I have list supports.

Malcolm:

Okay. Go through your list.

Amanda:

Yeah. So, buy some time to manipulate, brainwash and coach the children, gain an advantage in divorce, quickly put a parent out of the house without eviction or a court mentioned hearing to get vengeance, to control or manipulate a parent or get leverage in some way. Sometimes to put a parent in jail, they can set them up and bait the other parent. To emotionally and psychologically damage the other parent, they can get financial support and compensation from social services or victims compensation groups. I’ve seen that happen a lot of times. And when you question the victims of compensation, they don’t investigate. So you can go basically with nil evidence and just make claims that a parent has physically or sexually abused a child and a parent can get a compensation that will help them move into state, that will get them a new phone account and things like that. And then the child will be compensated a substantial amount of money when they turn 18.

Amanda:

So the child will hit 18 and they get a compensation to say that they’ve been sexually abused. When they in alienation cases, they haven’t been sexually abused and might have been, it would be exonerated by the police. It’ll be exonerated by the courts and everything like that. But this parent will still go and make these claims. I’m not saying in any way that the children aren’t genuinely… this doesn’t happen, but this gets misused, so you can see how it can get misused and easily get misused. So you can misrepresent a parent as being dangerous to officials or the children. And they can take that to schools and say, “Here’s my restraining order. Or…” And they might not have had the time to appeal that restraining order yet. But the parent will go and use that as evidence to vilify that parent even further.

Malcolm:

It’s a tactic.

Amanda:

As a tactic.

Malcolm:

As Rick said, it’s weaponized.

Amanda:

Yeah, absolutely.

Malcolm:

Becomes a weapon.

Amanda:

Yeah. And so it can socially isolate someone. It can gain 100% custody for child support purposes. So not just in my… Because that happened, my kids were abducted on a Saturday and on the Monday morning at 9:05 in the morning, there was a 100% child support claim put in against me by their father. So this is the stuff that goes on. I mean, my story is just one of like literally millions of people this is happening to.

Malcolm:

Men and women.

Amanda:

Men and women.

Malcolm:

It’s not just men, men and women.

Amanda:

Yeah. Well, our support group’s made up of 60% women now in our groups, since I’ve been advocating, we’ve had women coming out of the woodwork. And what happens is you get a lot of people that might get the term incorrect. They’ll say, “Oh, I’m alienated.” But their children aren’t actually rejecting them. They’ll come running to them, they see them every other weekend, but they claim that they’re alienated. And they might get contact denial, contact denial is an alienating tactical behaviour, but it’s not parental alienation in its entirety. Because the children aren’t being condition, or brainwashed, or punished and reward systems and stuff like that. So it’s important for people to understand that even though you are being denied contact, it’s not parental alienation in it’s entirety.

Malcolm:

Okay.

Amanda:

Yeah. Because the children are [inaudible 00:45:55].

Malcolm:

Have you finished your list on that one?

Amanda:

No, I haven’t.

Malcolm:

Keep going, I love those lists.

Amanda:

Give them a reason to tell the children that the other parent is so dangerous that they had to get a restraining order to protect themselves, give the applicant justification to badmouth the other parent all over town to make them look like the child protector and saviour, and the best parent which supports the image of parent of the year.

Malcolm:

Yeah.

Amanda:

And to keep everything in the house once the other parent is removed, to allow the complainant to get a new boyfriend or girlfriend of the picture and the other parent out. It’s just these tactics that people use by making false allegations.

Malcolm:

So, let’s just check my understanding. Sometimes the parent who’s doing the alienating of the other parent can be harsh and direct with the child to alienate the other parent. Sometimes the parent who’s doing the alienating can be subtle and implicit, and sometimes they can be doing unintentionally because they just want to get some form of control. Actually, all of these are forms of control. Control of the child, control of the other parent, control of the situation. Always beneath control, in my experience, there is fear. So the person doing the alienating is actually afraid and using it as a means of [inaudible 00:47:16] their own inadequacies.

Amanda:

Well, I guess what we’ve got to look at is coercive controllers at the heart of parental alienation. And so, the coercive controlling behaviour, looking at it, would pressure the child to feel allegiance or loyalty to them. Pressure or reward the child to reject the targeted parent, make the child afraid of the target parent in the absence of a real threat. And coerce the child to be defiant towards target parent. So they will teach them to undermine their rule, things like that. “Oh, you don’t have to do that.” Or they’ll teach the child that that parent all they’re there for is money. So the child will demand things from that parent, but yet the parent might want to see them, spend time with them, but they will reject that and they just want, “Oh, well I need a new pair of shoes.” Or, “I want the latest iPhone,” and things like that.

Malcolm:

So, kids can play the game?

Amanda:

Absolutely. But it’s because they’re being coerced to do it and it’s not even their fault. They’re being manipulated to do it. Yeah.

Malcolm:

Your foundation is calling, Amanda for legislative change to acknowledge parental alienating behaviours. How do you see that working?

Amanda:

Well, I guess we need to recognise parental alienating behaviours as child abuse and family violence. And it needs to be clearly defined what those behaviours are. And then we need a legislation that basically… Yeah.

Malcolm:

So you want to basically identify the parental alienation behaviours, because that’s been your term. You’re not talking about parental alienation, you’re talking about parental alienating behaviour.

Amanda:

Alienating behaviours. Yeah.

Malcolm:

So you identify them and get them ingrained as symptomatic of child abuse?

Amanda:

There’s certain tactics that are used like I guess it’s, yeah, not really… Yeah, what they are is they’re parental alienating behaviours. And we’ve got a huge list of on our website of all these behaviours. We just want to get them recognised as child abuse because the research that we’re doing is showing the outcomes of the impact of what these [inaudible 00:49:32] talking about… Its been a long day, I’m getting my moods fixed.

Malcolm:

You’re doing fine. So where can people find that website? Can you tell us?

Amanda:

Yeah, well, we’ve got EMMM, which is emmm.org.au. That’s M for Mary.

Malcolm:

So that’s Eeny Meeny Miney Mo, E-M-M-M.

Amanda:

.Org.au. And we’ve also got a Facebook page because we are a advancing education and health services charity. We’re not funded. And we also have a Facebook page that we have a support group that’s associated to that [inaudible 00:50:10].

Malcolm:

How would they find that? Eeny Meeny Miney Mo?

Amanda:

From EMMM Foundation on Facebook, type in @, and then EMMM Foundation. I actually manage the intake of that group because I screen the people that come into the group, and I managed all that myself to make it a safer space for people to be able to talk about the situation.

Malcolm:

Because you want people to be open and honest about their circumstances.

Amanda:

I’ll be able to reach out for support.

Malcolm:

Yes.

Amanda:

And talk about how they’re feeling and things that they’re going through, and get support from others who are going through. We have grandparents in the group as well. And we have some stepparents in the group who are supporting the alienated parent. We also run workshops with the University of Tasmania that are psychoeducational. So it teaches parents about what parental alienation is and what it isn’t and how to manage the situation better.

Malcolm:

We’re getting close to the end of the show. So there are a couple of things I want to get through. I want to make sure that people are introduced to your Eeny Meeny Miney Mo Foundation petition that’s running. You’ve already got 20,000 signatures and now aiming for your next target of 25,000. Where can people find the petition and where to from there?

Amanda:

Okay. Well, on our website, on the homepage, we’ve actually got the petition on there. So if you follow the links, sometimes ask you to donate to Change. Just ignore that little prompt.

Malcolm:

Thank you for that. I almost did, because I think your cause is well worth donating to, and I almost donated to change.org. No, no.

Amanda:

No, no. Don’t do that. Just sign the petition and if you’re able to share, it would be greatly appreciated because-

Malcolm:

Oh, so when you showed me on the phone, that was your website.

Amanda:

Yeah.

Malcolm:

Oh.

Amanda:

Oh no. No, that was a Change website.

Malcolm:

Yeah.

Amanda:

Okay. Yeah. So, but after you sign the petition, it sometimes wants to push you to sign other petitions or to donate to them.

Malcolm:

Yeah. So be careful if you’re wanting to sign the petition that you don’t end up donating to change.org, is it?

Amanda:

Yeah. Yeah.

Malcolm:

Okay. All right.

Amanda:

Yeah. Absolutely.

Malcolm:

One final thing for a couple of minutes. Could you tell us about the research you’re doing in the area of parental alienation behaviours with the University of Tasmania?

Amanda:

Yeah, absolutely. The first studies that we did was the targeted parent perspective that has gathered so much. Oh, sorry. [inaudible 00:52:33].

Malcolm:

No, no, you’re right. I’m just getting a warning that we’ve got two minutes left. That’s all.

Amanda:

All. Okay. We’ve done the targeted parent perspective, we’ve done the alienated child perspective, and recently we’ve done the grandparent perspective. And it definitely fits the definition of child abuse and family violence. And with the grandparent, it fits the definition of elder abuse. If they’re on the receiving end of parental alienating behaviours. And we have continuing… We’ve got more studies that are coming out. And I’m hoping to do a study with veterans who are experiencing parental alienation. Because not only are they experiencing things like PTSD and physical injuries and stuff, then they’re cut off from the children as well, which compounds their mental health. And so I think it’s critical that we get some research happening in that area.

Malcolm:

Well, I know we are right near the end. So as a child, you were hijacked to America.

Amanda:

Abducted.

Malcolm:

Abducted. Yeah, that’s the word. You abducted to America and you suffered from parental alienation.

Amanda:

Yeah.

Malcolm:

Then as a married mother, you were alienated from your child. So the other person that’s not involved. Sorry, that is involved and hurts is the grandparents. So we got 30 seconds. That seems to be someone who always left out the grandparents.

Amanda:

Oh, absolutely, grandparents. So I have a lot of people who follow my page now who always say, “What about us grandparents?” And so I’ve started our grandparent page on our website now, so we can actually share our research and provide some videos on there as well.

Malcolm:

I want to thank you so much, Amanda Sillars for doing what you’re doing. Eeny Meeny Miney Mo. Fabulous lady. Get behind it.

Amanda:

Thank you.

On this episode I talk to Cody Beck, Leisa Young and Rick Young about parental alienation.

Cody has worked extensively advocating for fathers within the system, first with ABF (Australian Brotherhood of Fathers) including giving submissions at the Family Law Inquiry, and now independently with his own firm Beck Law in Southport.  Cody supports the organisation DADS and advocates to raise awareness for parental alienation.  He knows this affects so many Australian families and is committed to supporting similar organisations that are working tirelessly for change and awareness in this space.

The money being raised at the even we recorded at is going towards building a DADS support centre.  Its aim is to provide face to face support for families who are going through domestic and family violence, family court proceedings and suffering the effects of parental alienation.  The energy behind the Parental Alienation Awareness ride are Ric and Leisa Young and they joined me to talk about the amazing day that unfolded at the show grounds.

Transcript

Malcolm Roberts:

Today’s news talk radio tntradio.live. Thank you so much for having me as your guest, whether it’s in your kitchen, your car, your shed, or wherever you are right now. I always say this, the two most important themes for my programmes are freedom, especially freedom versus control, and secondly, personal responsibility and integrity. Both are fundamental for human progress and people’s livelihoods. Today, I am broadcasting live from Redland Showgrounds in Brisbane, and we’ve got five people. So in the last couple of weeks, last couple of episodes, I’ve had one person for the last four hours. Today we’re going to have five people for the two hours. Before talking about that. I want to say that I must express my sincere regrets to tntradio.live for what happened on Wednesday. We had a phenomenal COVID under question two. It was our second COVID under question, called Opening Eyes and Hearts.

Malcolm Roberts:

We were using the parliamentary wifi in the Commonwealth buildings, and it was absolutely atrocious quality. We just could not give our feed to TNT Radio because it was so poor. We wanted to save that, but we didn’t. We got lost in that communications and caused a bit of a panic, which is sincerely regrettable. So we’ll let you know when the videos are processed because some really startling material coming out of that. So back to today. Today I’m broadcasting live from Redland Showgrounds, which is a suburb of Brisbane. I have five guests joining me to talk about parental alienation, because today is the second parental alienation awareness cruise. This cruise is one of the largest car bike and truck cruises that Brisbane has ever seen. It is a fundraiser event to raise money to build a centre for the family support group DADS, D-A-D-S, which we’ll talk more about later in the hour.

Malcolm Roberts:

I want to say that I had the privilege of being invited and participating in last year’s cruise. And we went from Brisbane, out into the farmlands around Gatton Lockyer, and it was just phenomenal. The amazing energy. It was really stunning. What a great group of people to be with. First, let’s talk about parental alienation, which is not a term we hear often. It’s estimated at the least one million Australian children are currently alienated from one parent by the other parent. And this typically happens during family breakdowns. Essentially it’s about one parent’s persistent attempt to damage their child’s relationship with the other parent. And it doesn’t just hurt the other parent. It devastates the children, scars them for life. It’s really about one parent controlling the other parent, and controlling the child. It affects moms and dads, moms and dads both. During family breakdowns, dads, though, more often find themselves as the parent that has become alienated from their children.

Malcolm Roberts:

Not only do the dads miss out, the children miss out, and this can cause lifelong mental health issues. Support for dads is often forgotten about. And today our guests are going to share their passions for supporting grieving families, moms and dads, through this process with a focus on fathers. We will be listening to experts and we’ll be listening to mums. Now, my first guest is Cody Beck, who I met some years ago through the Australian Brotherhood of Fathers in Southport on the Gold Coast. Cody is a lawyer who has worked extensively advocating for fathers within the system. First with the Australian Brotherhood of Fathers, including giving submissions at the Family Law Inquiry, and now independently with his own firm Beck Law, in surfers’ paradise, Gold Coast. Cody supports the organisation, DADS, which stands for Dads Against Discrimination Support. We’ll explain that later. And advocates to raise awareness for parental alienation. He knows this affects so many Australian families and he’s committed to supporting similar organisations that are working tirelessly for change and awareness in this space. Welcome Cody. Good to see you again.

Cody Beck:

Good to see you again, Malcolm.

Malcolm Roberts:

There’s so much recognition and services provided to women these days, Cody, during domestic and family violence issues, yet we rarely hear about what is available for men. Are they being under serviced in this area?

Cody Beck:

Men are very much under serviced. There’s a lot of government support for women going through family breakdown, family court, things like that. For men there just isn’t the same support apart from groups like the Australian Brotherhood or Fathers, DADS, other groups like that will help out dads and understanding what they go through. But unfortunately for men, they seem to get left out, which is disappointing in circumstances where you’ve got things like Queensland Women’s Legal Service and things like that, which the government donates a lot of money to. There’s nothing like that for men. And in fact, I’ve had my firm now for a few years, we try to get on the legal aid panel, to get legal aid to be able to help dads who aren’t financial. And we were knocked back because we were deemed a gendered service. Legal Aid wouldn’t allow us to go on the Legal Aid panel.

Malcolm Roberts:

But we can have plenty of gendered female services.

Cody Beck:

Yeah. Yep. That’s all fine.

Malcolm Roberts:

So why is this ready cash for female services, but not available for male services?

Cody Beck:

I can’t answer that question. It amazes me that particularly in a society now where everybody screams about equality and carries on about sexism and all that kind of thing, for it to be so skewed against one gender, it blows my mind and it, and it’s not getting any better. And it’s only, and I said this to a lot of people, it’s only you and Pauline who are the ones who are talking about this, other members of government just aren’t interested in it. They don’t want to touch it.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. I’m very surprised by it as well. And the only thing I can think of, Cody, is that it’s got something to do with the fact that some people have really been spread… It’s the bloody Greens. Okay. And some members of the Labour Party. What they’re spreading is bullshit about, it’s only the women who are victims. Well, that’s crap. 50% of the victims in this space are men. And you know that, you’ve had much experience with that. But it’s not the right thing. It’s not politically correct to talk about the men needing support, because they’re supposed to be the perpetrators, which is rubbish. Sometimes they are, sometimes it’s the women. So would that be some possible explanation?

Cody Beck:

Yeah. Look, the government and the media are peddling this thing that women are all victims and men are all perpetrators. It’s just not the case. Don’t get me wrong. Domestic violence happens and it’s very bad. And we should be dealing with it. But the reality is, the way the system is at the moment, it gives women an incentive to make false allegations. And I see false allegations constantly. Every day at work we’re dealing with false allegations. We’re consistently seeing a situation where a woman will make allegations. And basically the reality is, as a male, you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent, and the time and the cost to prove yourself innocent is significant. Going through the family court, you’re looking at somewhere about 18 months to get a trial at best. And with a lot of firms, you’re spending upwards of a hundred thousand dollars to be able to defend yourself when allegations, are made and the court will act protectively.

Cody Beck:

So they’ll essentially put mechanisms in place such as supervised visits and things like that, because they’re not sure if the allegations are true or not, and they can’t make a decision on that until you get to a trial. I was speaking to Pauline about this earlier. I think the best thing that the government could implement, and it would be a little bit resource heavy at the front end, but in the long run, I think it would unclog the system a lot, would be on day one of when you first get to family court, on day one, if there’s allegations made, serious allegations, about domestic violence or inappropriate sexual contact or anything like that, I think both people should be on the witness box on day one and be cross examined, even if it’s a limited amount of time, so the court can get to the bottom of that at the start, rather than it clogging up the system, having five or six court days before a trial, 18 months down the track, and the cost involved in that.

Cody Beck:

Not just financial cost, but the psychological cost for a dad who’s not seeing his kids. And then because what we are constantly getting is, when we finally do get to a trial, probably four out of five of our matters where there’s been allegations made, we get to day one of trial and the mother will come to us with an offer, something along the lines of five nights a fortnight, half school holidays. And it’s like, what she’s been talking about the last 18 months just didn’t happen. Happens all the time.

Malcolm Roberts:

I’ve heard that a lot. But the bias against men extends right through parliament. Pauline, as you know, got the joint select inquiry into the family law system and family court. And I attended the first session because the Greens and the Labour Party were bagging Pauline for months beforehand. They were really annoyed that the previous government gave us that inquiry. They were really worried about Pauline speaking. They tried ruthlessly to get it out. They were even moving motions to that effect, the Greens and the Labour Party. And so I turned up at the first hearing with intention of staying for many of the hearings, just to support Pauline, right?

Malcolm Roberts:

Ah, she didn’t need it. She’s a strong lady, she’s a strong woman. But the tone in that first hearing was atrocious. It was about men being the perpetrators, females being the victims. That came from the Greens, especially, and the Labour Party, but you know what? Pauline and the others had organised so many witnesses to come forward, that at the end of that whole series of inquiries, which went around the country, the Labour Party members had walked up to Pauline and said, we didn’t realise it was that bad. They admitted Pauline was right. So that’s the bias that’s in our society when members of parliament don’t even understand that themselves.

Cody Beck:

And it was huge. I made submissions with the ABF to the inquiry, and then we also did a Zoom call and I had a bit of a barney with some of the Greens and Labour-

Malcolm Roberts:

Good on you.

Cody Beck:

… people. Because the bias was just was out of control. And it’s good to hear that by the end of it, that they may have had a slightly different view, because at the start they were ruthless. They hated the fact that we were supporting men and that we were saying that men can be victims as well. And some women can be perpetrators. They didn’t like that at all.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, what do you expect in a parliament that refused to endorse a motion saying All Lives Matter? So that’s quite clear. So what are the general issues then, Cody, and the struggles fathers face with contact with their children, following allegations of domestic or family violence?

Cody Beck:

Look, as I said before, basically as a male, you’re guilty till you prove yourself innocent. So allegations can be made. There can be no evidence apart from the allegation from the ex-wife or ex-partner. And once those allegations are made, you’ve got dads dealing with having to have supervised visits. I had a situation where one of our clients was getting remarried. And at the wedding table, it was husband and wife, and then there was a supervisor sat next to the husband, and then the children were on the other side of him during his wedding.

Cody Beck:

And that’s another case where the mother made all these allegations about mental health and violence and things like that. And when we got to trial, on day one, she came with an offer for five nights a fortnight, half school holidays, which we took. And then funnily enough, after him fighting for about 18 months to get that time with his daughter, she then decided that she was going to move to, I think, Melbourne, with her new partner and basically dropped the kids off to the dad. He now has them full time. She has only school holiday time.

Malcolm Roberts:

That’s what we hear a lot, that the mother usually uses, sorry, not usually, the mother sometimes uses this as a bargaining ploy to extract a better deal from the court system. So what support services are available for men in comparison with the services available to women, Cody, when they get to the magistrate’s court?

Cody Beck:

From a government perspective, very little. They do have duty lawyers at the courts. There’s organisations, obviously, like the ABF and DADS that offer support as well. But you’ll find, for example, at the Southport courthouse, where I’m at frequently, there’s a domestic violence room where the women go to. It takes up probably about a quarter of level two of the court. There’s no room for men. Men don’t get to go there. And in fact, if I want to go and talk to an applicant, as a solicitor representing one of my clients, they won’t allow me to go in that room. It’s a women only room, and there’s nothing like that for men.

Cody Beck:

And previously, they didn’t even have duty to lawyers for men. They just had centre care would be at the court, but they’d only be there for a couple of hours a day. Whereas you’ll find frequently women will go into this safety room. Even when they’re the respondent in an affidavit, they still go in the safety room. The men don’t get to go in there. And then when they go to court, there’ll be one or two support people with the women. So there’s a lot of resources there at the Southport court. And it’s all over the state as well. But there’s nothing like that for men.

Malcolm Roberts:

So men are second class citizens then. We’re going to go to an ad break next, after this question, Cody. It’s complex. What’s it look and feel like? Give people a feel for what men are going through, because they must feel guilty with accusations. They feel powerless. And so we have a very high suicide rate. So that indicates something is horribly wrong with treating men as second class citizens. They’re frustrated, they’re boxed in. They don’t know what to do.

Cody Beck:

Mate, it’s heartbreaking. Day after day, you’re dealing with good men, who, all they want to do is see their kid. All they want to do is spend time with their children. And you’ve got all these blocks in the way. You’ve got a vengeful ex who’s using the system. And unfortunately, the system is there for them to use, using the system to make their life as difficult as possible. And frequently we’re seeing it’s just out of spite, that this is the only way that they can now inflict pain on this person, is by reducing their relationship with their children. It’s heartbreaking.

Malcolm Roberts:

So that’s how much the system has deteriorated that women and men, some men too, can use the system to try and break the other person, and in the process destroy their own children’s lives. That’s how ego driven and egocentric it’s become. Thank you so much, Cody, for being here today. It’s been a real delight having you, and thank you for speaking so forcefully and direct. Appreciate it.

Cody Beck:

All right. Thanks for having me. Cheers.

Malcolm Roberts:

The money being raised today at today’s cruise is going towards building a DADS support centre. It’s aim is to provide face to face support for families going through domestic and family violence, family court proceedings, and suffering the effects of parental alienation. The energy behind the parental alienation awareness ride are Rick and Lisa Young. And they join me now to talk about the amazing day that is unfolding right here at the red Redland Showgrounds. So welcome, Rick and Lisa. Good to catch up with you today.

Lisa Young:

Hi, Malcolm. Good to see you.

Rick Young:

Hi, Malcolm. Thanks for having us.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, I want to thank you for last year. That was a stunning event. I got to ride on a Harley for the first time ever, and I enjoyed the whole trip all the way out to Gatton, 80ks or whatever it was. Something you appreciate. Just tell us anything. We always start with appreciation.

Lisa Young:

I’m going to say always appreciation for family. Absolutely, a hundred percent.

Rick Young:

I’d say the appreciation would be the support that the people have shown today, for coming out and bringing their families out and really just making a presence today. It shows us that we’re needed and that we’ll keep going.

Malcolm Roberts:

There are a lot of hurting people here who value highly what you’re doing. I noticed that last year, brought me to tears at times. It was just stunning. Why DADS, D-A-D-S, Dad’s Against Discrimination Support.

Lisa Young:

I guess when we started the community support page on Facebook, we wanted to capsulate the fact that it was fathers that needed the support, but also the discrimination side of things in the system, and wanting to take away that gender bias. So for us, it was about basically acknowledging that there is a loop here, there’s a hole in the system, and that is that there’s a lack of support for fathers, but also that there’s quite a discrimination against services that are out there, because predominantly the services for domestic and family violence are there for women.

Malcolm Roberts:

Right. We’ve noticed that everywhere for a few years now. And no one in government seems to be at all interested. They seem to be too timid about fixing this. So why is that?

Lisa Young:

Oh, I think we’ve all got our theories around that, Malcolm, but to be quite honest, I think there’s a lot of funding that goes into women. When you look at the Duluth model, which is the domestic and family violence model of, not just legislation, but the model itself, it’s written for women. And I am a woman, so I know that I can get a bit of a slack when I come out and I speak about it the way that I do. But at the end of the day, I think domestic violence isn’t a gender issue, it’s a humanities issue. And when we start looking at it from that point of view, we’re going to see a difference. And we’re going to see reform in the sector. We’re going to see a difference in the cycle of abuse when we start treating humans as humans, whether that be a man, a woman, or a child.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well said. It isn’t a gender issue, it’s a humanity issue. And you alluded, you didn’t state clearly, but you alluded to the fact that women sometimes are the victims, men sometimes are the victims, and you will help both. This is not just about males. This is about males and females. It’s not a gender issue, it’s a human issue. So you both have enormous passion for this. I can tell. I noticed it first, last year, as soon as I met you both. How has this passion come about and why this cause?

Lisa Young:

Oh, you can jump in here.

Malcolm Roberts:

Follow instructions now.

Rick Young:

It just comes down to a lived personal experience. Going through the family court, domestic violence systems and being a father, you soon come to the realisation that there’s little to no support for men, let alone fathers. And basically from there, we started the Facebook page and the response from that, and I think the big thing for DADS is the message is to people going through parental alienation, or going through family court, or facing false allegations, is that just to know that you’re not alone, because it can be of a very lonely feeling and a process.

Lisa Young:

It’s very isolating, I think, for a lot of families, particularly if they, or fathers or parents in general, if they don’t have a lot of family support, it’s very isolating. They don’t know where to turn to. With even just the allegations of any kind of domestic violence, they can lose their friendship, their network, their peers at work look at them differently. It’s such a flow on, it’s a ripple effect across the whole broad, but from our lived experience, we noted that there needed to be some support out there. And with me working in the sector, I had the tools and some of the resources and learning every day, as you do. And I knew that I had to get in there and jump in and help.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, that couldn’t be clearer. But what you said, Rick, I’ve noticed that so many times with fathers who are broken, because they feel lonely, like you said. There’s no one to help them, and they feel incredible shame. Just thinking of that-

Rick Young:

Absolutely ashamed.

Malcolm Roberts:

… brings tears-

Rick Young:

The stigma.

Malcolm Roberts:

… to my eyes. Yeah. The stigma.

Rick Young:

The stigma that goes with it.

Malcolm Roberts:

Sometimes one of the couple will invoke a complete bullshit argument, an allegation against the father, usually, sometimes against mother, but it’s usually against a father. That father is labelled in public as perpetrator of domestic violence or child abuse. And it’s false. And so imagine the shame of that. I couldn’t think of anything more shameful for a man than to be accused of hurting or even molesting, for goodness sake, his children. And that’s done deliberately sometimes with no evidence, not even the hint of it happening, and the children denying it, and the mother, or sometimes the father, do that. So then fathers feel hopeless, and they’re trapped.

Rick Young:

Yeah, look, absolutely. And I refer to domestic violence orders as being the silver bullet, it’s the weapon of choice for separation. It’s the first weapon of choice. The first thing is what comes usually that we see and experience talking to dads is the false allegations during separation or the start of separation, and that essentially then alienates that other parent straight away. The process to clear one’s name to in the family court or the domestic violence can take years before you get a day in court

Malcolm Roberts:

And a lot of cash.

Rick Young:

With parental alienation, I think, one thing I’d like to raise is grandparents who are the forgotten victims of all this. And I can tell you now, just with the fathers that we talked to and the mums that we talked to, it’s the grandparents that are funding a lot of these hundred thousand dollars family law costs. It’s the grandparents that are selling their caravan, refinance their homes, putting off retirement to pay for their son or their daughter to go through the family court process. It’s a money making machine, and it’s not right. It’s certainly broken.

Malcolm Roberts:

There’s no doubt it’s broken. Because we are scrunched over one microphone, I’m looking very closely at these people’s eyes and there’s real glint in their eyes, there’s real energy coming out of these people. It’s wonderful to see Rick and Lisa. Now one of the things that might surprise people is, we’re on a cruise for vintage cars, not [inaudible 00:24:52] what do you call them? 1960s, muscle cars.

Rick Young:

Yeah. Just muscle cars.

Malcolm Roberts:

Trucks, motorbikes and [inaudible 00:24:58] There’s some wonderful machinery here. There’s some in cars, like me.

Rick Young:

Yeah, absolutely.

Malcolm Roberts:

I’m not in an ordinary car, but there’s so many cars like the one I’ve got, which is ordinary, but what are the backgrounds? There are construction workers, there are lawyers.

Rick Young:

Well, I was just going to say, just to give an indication, the CFMEU union really got behind the dads just recently. And one of the guys there, Stuart Burgess, he’s a construction worker, commercial work, obviously a union member on their sites and all their foremans, all their heads are really getting behind that. And what’s been put to the unions is how many fathers don’t turn up to work? How many fathers have accidents on sites, because they’re not focused? Because they’re stressing about family court costs. They’re facing false allegations. They’re not seeing their kids for a year, two years. It’s just all these statistics, like I said, on sites, particularly the high rise commercial sites, where it’s quite dangerous and a lot of risk. You’ve got guys on site that are, like I said, they’re not focused or they’re not turning up to work, or they’re ending it. They’re not there next week.

Malcolm Roberts:

It’s literally a matter of life and death. Not only the suicide rate being so high, but literally someone’s mind being elsewhere, feeling hopeless-

Rick Young:

Endangering others.

Malcolm Roberts:

… and endangering others and himself or herself at work. But there are all kinds of professions involved. It’s not just people who like bikes. It’s not just people who are construction workers. It’s not just people who are professionals. All kinds of people are being victimised in this. The only thing that seems to be common, it’s not always the case, is the fact that they’re men.

Rick Young:

Yeah.

Lisa Young:

Yeah. It would be very safe to say that. And I think if you asked me this 10 years ago, I probably would’ve disagreed, and that’s just putting it out there. But now that I’ve worked in the sector, experienced the sector from a lived experience, I can see that I was probably living under a cloud or head in the sand, because unless you’ve actually experienced the system firsthand or you know someone that has, you’re not aware of this, and it goes the same with child protection matters. When you’re talking child protection and I work in that space alongside child safety, and you’re working with families to try and give them the tools that they need to keep the children safely in the home. You wouldn’t believe or breathe of it what we see and what we experience as a practitioner.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah, I must say, my eyes were opened by Leith Erickson. He did a phenomenal job at Australian Brotherhood of Fathers, still doing it. Man’s amazing. You could see the anger in him, and I think eventually Leith worked it out. He had to process his own anger to be more effective, and I’m not speaking on behalf of Leith, this is just my opinion, but he transformed into someone who’s very calm and unflappable, and because he recognised that was necessary. And so it was just a pleasure to see Leith that way. But you mentioned, a few minutes ago, Rick, the weapon of choice is the domestic violence allegation, and it alienates parents and shatters kids.

Rick Young:

Well, it does a lot of things, Malcolm, it does exactly that. And the damage to the kids can be irreparable and life lasting. Parental alienation, children, one minute seeing a parent saying goodnight, getting up, then all of a sudden, not seeing that parent. They’re gone. It’s also this system financially rewards that parent for doing that. And then we start digging into things like child support and family tax benefit A and B, and rent assistance. So it’s almost an incentive to some parents, and believe it or not, there’s plenty of them. I know parents, where they get their kids during afternoons, after school, for example, they might get the kids five days a week after school.

Rick Young:

Mom’s happy to hand the kids over. But they will not have an overnight, because when it comes to overnights, that’s when it affects the dollars. And the standard every second weekend for a dad, that’s because if it’s three nights a fortnight, it goes over into a different threshold for child support. That’s the other thing. So these are all the things, it’s nothing to do with the best interest of the children. It’s just that it’s a financial reward. And that’s sad that people would use kids. But that’s the reality of it.

Malcolm Roberts:

And it’s sometimes a financial reward to get money, but other times it’s a financial reward to make sure the partner doesn’t get money. It’s a get even session.

Rick Young:

Look, and particularly at the start of a family court proceeding, it comes down to percentage of care when you talk property settlements. A parent might have the children, 80% care. Come time to share the property pool and divvy it out, there’s an automatic assumption that, that person with a kid, that has them as majority of care will get an absolute bigger piece of the pie, if that makes sense. I’m sure Cody could go into that further. And then you’ll find in a lot of cases that I particularly hear about, is after the trial, after it’s all divvied out, you can have the kids whenever you want now.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yep.

Rick Young:

So it’s-

Malcolm Roberts:

So we’ve talked a lot about the problem. The support centre sounds like it will have many services on offer. Can you tell us a little bit more about how you see it working? What types of services are needed?

Lisa Young:

Yeah. So I think the whole point of having the service centre here in the Redlands, because there’s nothing like it well anywhere really, but there’s nothing like it here in the Redlands, specifically, but it’ll allow us to give that face to face support to our family so they can come in, they can talk to us if they need a food hamper, if they needed a go card or a fuel card or something like that. We may be able to provide some emergency relief for men that are fleeing domestic and family violence. There are no shelters for men that can accommodate men and children.

Malcolm Roberts:

That sounds like what women’s shelters do.

Lisa Young:

Yeah. It does sound like that. Except unfortunately, we don’t get the grant funding that they do. So we have to do things like this fundraiser to make sure that we can raise the funds to open this support centre and then support these families through what they’re going through. And they can come to us, paralegal administration, so we do help them work out their legal aid forms and things like that. We let Cody take care of the rest, because we’re not solicitors, but ultimately, most families don’t even know where to start. And sometimes it’s just good for them to come and talk and unpack it a little bit with someone and get it off their chest. Because unfortunately, solicitors just don’t have the timeframe to provide that emotional support. So that’s where we come in.

Malcolm Roberts:

So it’s counselling service, legal support, social network, unpacking their feelings, because men tend not to do that. Don’t we mate?

Rick Young:

Yeah, absolutely. And I think it comes down to that stigma of just, I’ll just deal with it, or generally that the ex-partner, she’s just angry right now and things will come around, but definitely, again, when you feel alone, you’re pretty less inclined to actually speak to people about it because you think, well, they don’t want to hear my, but you meet other guys today that will…

Lisa Young:

Well, the other thing is, like you were saying before, Malcolm, is the shame and it’s the judgement , right? So how did they talk about that with their normal friendship group if a judge has ordered that they can’t see their kids, or if they’re having supervised contact with their children in a supervised centre? Oh, there must be a reason for that. Or you must be a bad man. You must be a bad person. It isn’t always the case.

Rick Young:

Yeah. And I was going to say, well, I would’ve said the same thing, Malcolm, if you had to ask me, we’re sitting in a pub 10 years ago and you said to me, that guy over there, he hasn’t seen his kids in two years, the courts ordered that he can’t see them. You know what I mean? I honestly would have thought and I would have judged and just thought, well, our court systems don’t stop good parents from seeing kids. He must be a grub. He must deserve that. He must be a bad guy. Until you experience our justice system, not our justice system so much, but the family court proceedings, and the way it’s conducted, those blinkers come off and you start to realise, no, there are good dads, there are great dads that are not seeing their kids.

Malcolm Roberts:

And if you want to see a great person, look at someone who’s been deprived of his children. The whole world is his child or his children.

Rick Young:

Absolutely.

Malcolm Roberts:

Men have that same feeling towards their children as women do, and yet we’re treated sometimes as not.

Lisa Young:

Yeah. I hate that as a parent. I have children to, another father, before I met Rick, and my children, there’s no court orders, they get to see their dad as much or as little as either party wants. Do you know what I mean? And I think that’s the biggest thing that’s missing here is that these blokes, they’re not every second weekend babysitters, these guys are fathers. They deserve the same right. Just because they haven’t carried the child for the term of the pregnancy does not mean that they do not have the right to have that equal time with their children.

Malcolm Roberts:

So well said. We’re going to take an ad break now, and then we’re going to be back with Rick and Lisa. And I’m going to ask them about how well pets are protected. I’ve got that for a reason. See you in a couple of minutes, we’ll be right back.

Malcolm Roberts:

I’m on TNT Radio. I’m Senator Malcolm Roberts, and the reason I’m on TNT Radio is because I get to interview lots of wonderful people like the guests we’re having today, because they don’t have an alternative voice. The mainstream media is the mockingbird media, the lamestream media, the legacy media. They push a narrative. They don’t listen to both sides. And that’s what I’m sick and tired of in our political system, in this country as well. It’s based on bullshit. And we need to get all sides of the story. And that’s why I work with Pauline, because she listens and she pushes both sides of the story.

Malcolm Roberts:

She goes out, and we both go out and listen to people. So did you know that there are many ways you can listen to TNT Radio? Why not stream us direct from our website on your desktop, tablet or mobile device, or download our app from the app store. We even stream live on YouTube, Rumble and Odyssey. We’ve got you covered on TNT Radio. And we’re now going to hear an exclusive, tell us about how pets are looked after under this system when men can’t get attention, but pets can.

Rick Young:

Yeah, look, I think it was last year, it come to my attention, Malcolm, when the government was issuing the budget or announcing the budget, which children and women for domestic violence would get X amount of millions. What sort of pricked my ears up was when I’m waiting to see if they allocated any money towards men that year. And it was actually when they announced that there was pets of DV, so pets of domestic violence. And I believe that, that funding goes to things like your animal shelters, when there’s from a domestic violence home that needs caring. Which is great, because I love animals. But to me, that is a bit of a kick in the guts to, I suppose, the blokes out there who pay tax, that half that funding come from men, I assume. Population, whether it be 50/50, but I assume that the taxpayers being men as well, have contributed to that budget, yet $0 allocated to men when it comes to domestic violence. But the government allocate so many million to pets of domestic violence. I just found that appalling.

Malcolm Roberts:

That says so much, doesn’t it? And it’s not good, but I’m going to get you some dog tags and then maybe they’ll take better care of you, or get you a leash. Has he got a leash, Lisa?

Lisa Young:

Oh yeah, sometimes, if I keep you on it. If keep you on the leash.

Rick Young:

Short leash.

Malcolm Roberts:

So I think I know the answer to this question, but I was just wondering, how much of a demand is there for services such as the ones we’ve been talking about that are missing, and where are these people going now? I’m guessing they’re going nowhere.

Rick Young:

Look, I think there’s quite a few fathers’ Facebook pages and things like that. There are support groups. I know dads that have reached out to us today that said they would’ve loved to have come, but if their ex-partner found out they were here, they’d be in trouble.

Malcolm Roberts:

What?

Lisa Young:

Yeah, or it’d be used against them.

Rick Young:

Malcolm, recently we sold lapel pins to raise money. The DADS lapel pins. We’ve had judges tell fathers in the courtroom to take the lapel pin off, that it’s intimidating. So when we talk about where a dad’s going, they’re actually in fear. I’ve had one father who had a domestic violence order placed on him, a temporary protection order, private application, for wearing a DADS shirt.

Rick Young:

The supports there, but there’s dads out there that are scared to even, and this is a free country. This is Australia. It’s not the country that I served in the army for, where fathers can’t wear a DADS shirt or lapel pin to let them know they’re not alone when they’re in court. They’re feeling anxious, they feel alone. And they’ve told me, this is their feedback, that wearing that pin makes them feel that, you know what? I can finish court and come out, give Rick a call, tell him how I went. You know what I mean? And for these judges and magistrates to tell them to take the lapel pin off, that’s the system we are facing.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, first of all, thank you so much for your service to our country.

Rick Young:

My pleasure.

Malcolm Roberts:

And thank you for doing what you’re doing now. So many people are being rescued by you and Lisa and an army of people behind you.

Lisa Young:

We sure do.

Malcolm Roberts:

It’s wonderful.

Lisa Young:

It gets me every time, this guy. As soon as he starts talking, I just get all choked up. But he is right. He served this country and he served two tours for us, for what we have today, for what we’re doing today, to have this beautiful weather, this event and this community engagement. And he does it all for nothing.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, you’re achieving quite a bit, so that’s wonderful. The real story is that there is a need for you to do that. There shouldn’t be. That should be taken care of by our communities. But there’s also distortion of statistics. You know that the veterans who come back, even from overseas service have a very high rate of suicide. And when a dad takes his own life, because he feels hopeless and shamed, that’s sometimes put down to PTSD from Afghanistan or whatever. That dad’s issue is completely bulldozed. It’s completely-

Rick Young:

RSL DVA. Don’t want to touch it with a 10 foot pole. And I can tell you now, and this is from one fellow I served with. He faced false allegations, domestic violence. He was kept from his child. And the easy thing for them to do is simply, oh, he’s a veteran. Yeah. He’s been diagnosed with PTSD. Oh, that’s an easy one, suicide. PTSD. But in fact, he took his life because he didn’t see his daughter for two years. But they don’t want to link the veteran’s suicide to this. And where that comes in, Malcolm, is I’ve never been charged in my life, don’t have a criminal record, but a veterans training, their tours, and particularly if they’ve been diagnosed with PTSD, the stigma around that, in our courtrooms, from the judges, even police.

Malcolm Roberts:

The stigma of PTSD?

Rick Young:

Being a veteran with PTSD.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah.

Lisa Young:

Yeah.

Rick Young:

Yeah. Plenty of other services suffer PTSD, ambulance officers, police, first responders, that sort of stuff. But being a veteran, particularly a combat veteran, there’s a certain stigma that you are a risk to the community. You’ve never broken a law in your life. You’ve never hurt anyone in your life, but the sheer training and qualifications and your experience, you are treated absolutely differently, without justification. And that goes into the courtroom, where the courts… How do I put it? You’re portrayed as a trained killer, that you’re a potential risk to your children, simply because you’re a veteran, and I’ll tell you now, I’ve said it in court myself. I said, the funny thing is, two days a year you want to buy me a beer, the rest of the year I’m a risk. Which is it? You know what I mean? And we better have to think about the March come Anzac Day, because you got a lot of bad people getting together and marching, if we’re going to judge veterans as a risk based on just their service.

Malcolm Roberts:

Two days ago was Long Tan day.

Rick Young:

Yeah, it was.

Malcolm Roberts:

Vietnam veterans day. And I think about the people who went to Vietnam, especially the… Well no, including the conscriptees, not especially, everyone who went there, including the conscriptees, and they came back, and every previous war they were celebrated and given ticker tape parades. After Vietnam, they were shamed. Oh, you’re a Vietnam vet, you’re probably a drug killer. Now you’ve got a man or a woman, but a man in particular, who’s gone to, say, through training, had extensive training, being taught to do his manly job, if you like, defending the country, facing bullets, all of that. And he comes back and he’s accused of domestic violence when it didn’t happen. That’s not all the time, but sometimes it did happen. He’s accused, he feels shame and guilt. And he’s saying, what the hell am I doing here? And then that ends his life. That man, who’s got the discipline.

Rick Young:

It’s not just suicide. It goes into substance abuse, whether it be drugs, alcohol. It’s not just mental health. A lot of suicides… And I’m so happy that you’re going to be speaking to Paul today, from Zero Suicide, because he can really educate the people, listening about how suicide is just simply palmed off as, oh, it’s a mental health issue. No, no. Not seeing your kids, having kids in your life one minute and then getting told to get out of your house and you don’t see your kids for the next two, three years. That’s not normal. It’s inhumane to have someone say you don’t see your kids because of allegations have been put on that paper. You haven’t had a day in court yet.

Rick Young:

It’s just someone who’s made allegations, but you better get some money together, and you’ll get a day in court in about 12 months to two years. That’s not right. A big thing I really want to raise is, let’s just compare, and no disrespect to Anna Clark and those beautiful children, but let’s compare the attention that, that grab, that tragedy compared to Stanley Obi, who was a father, and his children and his partner, where his ex broke into his house, poured petrol on him and set him a light in his house.

Malcolm Roberts:

So most people would be saying, Stanley who?

Rick Young:

Who’s Stanley? Exactly. And that’s my point. There’s no benches, there’s no foundations, there’s no ribbon cutting.

Lisa Young:

ScoMo wasn’t at his funeral.

Rick Young:

Funeral. We went to the memorial walk with his family and friends, people who worked with him. He worked at an age care facility in Brisbane. Just a beautiful father. He just got custody of his kids, awarded custody. And he also got custody of his ex partner’s child as well. There was red flags. She was posting on social media what she was going to do. But yet, like I said, that shows where the media sits with this narrative. And it comes down to heartstrings. What’s going to pull a heartstring? Daisy and the kids or Stanley and the kids?

Malcolm Roberts:

That’s inhuman. Yeah. I think it’s important to say to people that no matter how bad life gets, life is better than suicide. It always comes good. It might take a while, but it always comes good. There’ve been times when I’ve been in challenges and I thought, my goodness, how am I going to survive this? But I did. And I look back on it and I go, thank goodness that happened because I learned from it. So I think it’s very important to… You’ve probably had to talk to people who are looking at committing suicide, and life is always better.

Rick Young:

Yeah. I think, again, Paul’s obviously a lot more educated on the suicide prevention, things like that. But I think by the time, particularly men reaching out publicly on Facebook saying, I’m really struggling, guys. I don’t want to be here anymore. That call for help, they’re really at their wit end. A lot of them, if they’re speaking out.

Malcolm Roberts:

So what do you say now, Rick and Lisa, to someone who might be thinking about that right now, or has felt that way for some time? What do you say to them?

Rick Young:

Well, a lot of times the guys that I talk to, particularly the dads, I explain to them that it consumes you and feels like this is your forever. That I’m never going to see those kids again, it’s never going to get better. And it does. It will, over time, and sometimes it might be five years, but it’s, like you said, it’s better to be here. We don’t know what’s around the corner next week. I used to say it to my kids all the time, you’re not getting to see me right now, or I might be doing supervised visits. It was two hours a fortnight. And I used to say to the kids, look, I know it’s not good. This is not a perfect situation, but you know what? I promise you, it’ll just get better. I just had a little bit of faith that it got better. I’d get the kids every second weekend and then end up getting the kids living with us. They have that attitude, particularly my daughter, oldest daughter, is that, you’re right, dad.

Lisa Young:

What may seem really heavy at the time and what you’re going through, and there’s no words, and a lot of people can’t even give you any empathy, in the sense that it’s going to make it feel all right for you. But I guess, what Rick is really singing home here is that you do need to be here and you do have people that love you. And there will always be someone there to talk to you. There will always be someone to help you through it. And if that’s not us, there will be somebody else. It could be a complete other stranger that has absolutely nothing to do with these organisations and what we do, but there will be somebody there. And eventually your heart will not hurt as much as what it might be at that one time. So you just got to-

Rick Young:

Might not go away.

Lisa Young:

Yeah, that’s right. It might not go away, but you just got to hang in and hang tight.

Malcolm Roberts:

And there’s a funny thing about we humans, we sometimes think that the feelings that are consuming us are us, and life is hell. But that’s not true. We’re not our feelings. So is there anything you can say to people, give them a website, Facebook page? How can people get in touch with you? What would you like them to do to support you? Anything like that? Did you like to say, give them a location website?

Lisa Young:

Yeah of course. So our website is the full name, which is dadsagainstdiscriminationsupport.com.au. You can email us at info@dads, with an S, d-a-d-s-q-l-d.com. And you can reach us on our social platform. So we are on Facebook and we are on Instagram and we are on TikTok as well. And all of our contact details are across our platforms, so you can reach us via phone. And it is a two man team at the moment. But once we have this community centre doors open, there’ll be much more than a two man team.

A new legal opinion published by Julian Gillespie LLB, BJuris and Peter Fam LLB casts doubt over the legal basis of AHPRA’s 9 March 2021 “gag order”. The opinion is accompanied by the following cover letter (click here to skip to the full opinion):

This email raises several issues which are of concern to the Australian public and Health Professionals and, we hope, you. Also, the attached Legal Opinion contains the report of Dr Phillip Altman, makes available to you and your colleagues a cutting edge update on the COVID-19 vaccinations, and a comprehensive analysis of associated Adverse Events in Australia, which together raise serious implications for Australian Personal Injury and Medical Negligence law.

Contingent to a joint statement received from AHPRA and the National Boards on 9 March 2021[1], Australian Health Professionals numbering over 825,000 were essentially forbidden from publicly questioning the science underlying the emerging COVID-19 injectables, let alone questioning any government messaging urging Australians to be vaccinated because these products were deemed ‘safe and effective’. The effect of this unilateral action was to undermine professional independence. However well intentioned, this gagging by bureaucratic decree inserted AHPRA and the National Boards between the Clinician and their Patient, which resulted in a serious failure of evidenced-based information being shared by Health Professionals with patients, being information required for patients to be fully-informed, for the purpose of their providing legally acceptable Informed Consent to receiving Covid-19 injectables.

This failure in Informed Consent across Australia has now occurred millions of times in respect of the Covid-19 injectables.

This failure in Informed Consent has likely resulted in 100s of 1,000s, if not millions of Australians agreeing to the administration of a Covid-19 injectables, where they would not have so agreed or Consented, had they been provided with all the available evidenced-based information concerning Covid-19 injectables, including that they expose a recipient to a real and significant risk of death, injury, or illness.

Indeed, now 17 months later and after numerous forms of pressure to take up the COVID-19 injectables in various age categories, a tremendous amount of data has been emerging from early 2021 and consistently into 2022, for accurately informing clinicians about these products.

This literature has included over one thousand[2] peer reviewed studies reporting of the harms being seen around the world, up to December 2021. In addition, it has become clear that the risk of serious illness and death attributable to COVID-19 disease is heavily weighted to the elderly and those with known co-morbidities, while in contrast, younger Australians are relatively resistant.  Also, since the advent of the Delta and Omicron variants, it is highly questionable whether the vaccines are preventing transmission or illness.

In any event, the implied and intended outcome of the gagging was to see Doctors and Health Professionals effectively mandated to support the government campaign to have the Australian population injected with drugs for which there was no adequate short-, medium-, or long-term safety or efficacy data. Indeed, the rush to market and Provisional Approval occurred despite the absence of the usual pre-clinical studies, including testing for Carcinogenicity and Genotoxicity. In this regard, it should be of serious interest that a peer-reviewed investigation[3] has demonstrated that mRNA-derived Spike proteins enter the cell nucleus and interfere with DNA. However, many critical facts like these became forbidden subjects for Health Professionals and Doctors to raise with their patients, let alone in public forums. Thus, we contend that the joint statement of 9 March 2021 has compromised proper and Informed Consent in Australia.

Especially given the lack of available pre-clinical research for each of these products, or clinical studies powered to detect early safety signals at the time of Provisional Approval, the need for ongoing critical appraisal of pharmacovigilance data remains paramount, to instruct responsible day to day practice by Medical Professionals. To date, none of the makers of the COVID-19 injectables have been able to stringently show their products to be Safe or properly Effective. To date, Adverse Events flowing from these products are at historically unprecedented levels globally and continue to rise. And again, to date, no other drugs in human history have reported more deaths, illnesses, injuries, and disabilities, which number as follows (to 28 June 2022):

Covid-19 Injectables                                      Adverse Event Reports                                  Deaths

European Medicines Agency[4]                     1,845,179[5]                                                           45,982

US VAERS[6]                                                           835,062[7]                                                               13,388

Australia TGA[8]                                                   132,155[9]                                                               889

UK Yellow Card[10]                                              458,463[11]                                                             2,191

                                                Total                      3,270,859                                                             62,450  

It is widely acknowledged that all Adverse Event reporting systems suffer from under-reporting[12], an inherent challenge for passive reporting systems and their interpretation. For US VAERS reporting in respect of the COVID-19 injectables, the Under-Reporting Factor (URF) has been estimated to be between 40-49x[13]. If a conservative URF of 10x is applied, the above figures begin to more realistically represent the likely true effects of the Covid-19 injectables:

                                                                                Adverse Event Reports                                  Deaths

                                                                                EU, US, AU, UK

                                                Total                      32,708,590                                                           624,500

To be clear, the TGA has received more Adverse Event reports in 2021 through June 2022 for the COVID-19 vaccines, than they have been seen for all other vaccines in the preceding 50-year period. A similar explosion in Adverse Event reports for the  COVID-19 injectables has occurred in all other countries that chose to deploy them[14], but in Australia, comparing the period from 1971[15] until the start of 2021 in respect of traditional protein-based vaccines, to the period from 1 February 2021 through 8 June 2022 in respect of the COVID-19 injectables, we observe the following:

Number of Adverse Event Reports non-COVID vaccines (50yrs):                                 19,330

Number of Adverse Event Reports COVID-19 injectables (18mths):                            132,668

Number of Reaction Types non-COVID vaccines (50yrs):                                                 1,492

Number of Reaction Types COVID -19 injectables (18mths):                                          3,660

Number of Adverse Reactions non-COVID vaccines (50yrs):                                           43,878

Number of Adverse Reactions COVID-19 injectables (18mths):                                     433,669

# Adverse Reactions per Adverse Event report non-COVID vaccines (50yrs):           2.27

# Adverse Reactions per Adverse Event report COVID-19 injectables (18mths):     3.27

To assist you to understand the causes leading to these concerning signals, we provide to you the comprehensive and up-to-date report of Dr Phillip Altman annexed to the Opinion. By way of background, Dr Altman’s report has been used in modified formats to assist the Courts in Australia and New Zealand to understand the scientific evidence behind the COVID-19 injectables. It is proving to be the long-awaited body of work needed by the Judicial, Medical and Scientific communities of Australia, to bring clarity by critical scientific appraisal during these controversial times of COVID-19.

Opinion

Legal Ramifications for Registered Health Practitioners

And AHPRA Public Officers

Re

The AHPRA and the National Boards joint statement of 9 March 2021

The Legal Opinion has been made publicly available by law firm Maat’s Method, and was authored by former barrister Mr Julian Gillespie and myself, Principal Lawyer Mr Peter Fam.

The Opinion establishes several conclusions that represent serious matters requiring immediate consideration by every Personal Injury/Medical Negligence lawyer whose community members have been adversely effected by the administering the Covid-19 injectables.

In essence, the Legal Opinion posits that the 9 March 2021 AHPRA ‘gag order’ was only an advisory, not even AHPRA policy.  It was made in contravention to the Codes of Conduct which supersede such an advisory in Law.  Even if made with good intentions as the experimental gene-based Covid-19 injectables were rolled out in an atmosphere of great hope, its outcomes have been to undermine the Codes of Conduct, the practitioner-patient/client relationship, and thwart the right of patients to fully-informed Informed Consent.

In short, the Legal Opinion establishes the following:

  • The publication of the 9 March 2021 joint statement by AHPRA and the National Boards was illegal.
  • At all times before and after publication of the March statement, Health Professionals were required to observe first their Codes of Conduct, irrespective of the various coercive and threatening statements made in the March statement.
  • Codes of Conduct are subordinate legislation deemed Statutory Rules; a failure to strictly observe Codes of Conduct amounts to a breach of the National Law.
  • Nothing in the March statement allowed any Health Professional to not observe their Code of Conduct in respect of the Covid-19 injectables.
  • Covid-19 injectables administered by a Health Professional who does or did not fully-inform patients of the known risks associated with the injectables, for the purpose of patients providing fully-informed Informed Consent, were and are in breach of the National Law.
  • Health Professionals who do not and/or did not fully-inform patients of the known risks associated with the Covid-19 injectables for the purpose of patients providing fully-informed Informed Consent, are now legally liable to ‘vaccine’ victims for Professional Negligence and/or Medical Negligence.
  • No Australian government has put in place any indemnity or immunity for Health Professionals in respect of their potential liability to patients to whom they administered Covid-19 injectables.
  • As a consequence of the 9 March statement being illegal, the public officers within AHPRA and the National Boards responsible for the publication of the statement, now appear to be personally liable to Covid-19 ‘vaccine’ victims. The reason for this would be due to the foreseeable harm arising from the statement ‘gagging’ Health Professionals from sharing evidenced-based information about the known risks associated with the Covid-19 injectables. This liability arises under the tort of Misfeasance in Public Office.
  • Lastly, Health Professionals who may indeed be professionally liable to ‘vaccine’ victims, may themselves be able to also sue the public officers within AHPRA and the National Boards responsible for the March statement, again by resort to the tort of Misfeasance in Public Office.

This Legal Opinion is likely to be tested widely in the courts in the coming months and years.  Therefore, in the spirit of collegiality, we have alerted you about the Legal Opinion so you may alert any Health Professionals who may be personally and professionally affected by the conclusions it contains, or alternatively, assist the many thousands of ‘vaccine’ victims across Australia seek proper redress for the harms that have befallen them.

We implore you as colleagues to give the information and resource contained in this email your greatest attention, with a view to sharing the same with your colleagues. There will doubtless be many questions arising from our email and we invite further discussion with you.

Full Opinion view/download


[1] https://www.ahpra.gov.au/News/2021-03-09-vaccination-statement.aspx

[2] https://www.covidmedicalnetwork.com/coronavirus-facts/vaccine/4_5902465845702954112.pdf

[3] https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73/htm

[4] https://www.adrreports.eu/en/covid19_message.html – Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen

[5] Individual reports refer to a single patient, where more than one adverse reaction is often included.

[6] https://openvaers.com/covid-data (only US/Territories) – Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca

[7] Individual reports refer to a single patient, where more than one adverse reaction is often included.

[8] https://www.tga.gov.au/periodic/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-safety-report-23-06-2022 – Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca

[9] Individual reports refer to a single patient, where more than one adverse reaction is often included.

[10] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting – Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca

[11] Individual reports refer to a single patient, where more than one adverse reaction is often included. The 458,463 reports received to 24 June 2022 reported a total of 1,495,273 various forms of adverse reaction.

[12] https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1&q=EMA+ADR+under-reporting&btnG=

https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html

[13] https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/latest-vaers-estimate-388000-americans

https://jessicar.substack.com/p/the-true-under-reporting-factor-urf

[14] https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/resources/covid-19-vaccine-pharmacovigilance-report/

[15] See DAEN website for no. of adverse events non-COVID vaccines and Covid injectables.

The COVID Inquiry 2.0 is a cross-party, non-parliamentary inquiry held on the 17th August 2022. The COVID Inquiry 2.0 followed COVID Under Question to interrogate breaches of the doctor-patient relationship and the regulatory capture of Australia’s health and drug regulators.

Witnesses from a range of backgrounds presented personal and scholarly evidence that was shocking and revealing. The day of questioning from 8am to 7:30pm was livestreamed and recordings of all witnesses are available below.

Please note: Captions on videos are machine generated. They contain a number of errors. The audio of the videos or transcripts linked under each video should be relied on as the accurate statement of what was said.

Welcome Video and Introduction

Transcript

CONTEXT AND DATA

Brook Jackson

Transcript. Brook Jackson was regional director of Ventavia Research Group. That company was contracted by Pfizer to provide three phase three test sites for the vaccine trial, the Pfizer vaccine trial, in Houston, Fort Worth and Keller, Texas. 12.22min

Dr Peter Parry

Transcript. Dr. Peter Parry, discusses mental health of children and adults. Associate Professor Peter Parry is a child and adolescent psychiatrist whose career encompasses that of a medical officer in the Royal Australian Navy, a GP and palliative care, prior to training in psychiatry from 1990. 11.15min

Dr Pierre Kory

Transcript. Dr. Pierre Kory from America. He’s a medical doctor, a master of public administration, a specialist in pulmonary diseases and critical care medicine. Won many awards, but two major international awards he received during the COVID are, in 2021 from South Africa, the SAHARI Foundation a Certificate of Appreciation to Humanity, in 2021 again from Malaysia, the Cheng Ho Multicultural Education Trust Benevolent award. 24.51min

Suzie Pollock

Transcript. Suzie Pollock graduated from the Queensland University of Technology in 1995 with a Bachelor of Law. She spent 11 years working for one of Australia’s big four banks. That’d be enough to do it in for you, wouldn’t it. Followed by roles in top tier law firms in Australia and Hong Hong Kong in international banking and finance law. 12.37min

Dr Philip Altman

Transcript. Dr. Phillip Altman, who has a bachelor of pharmacy honours degree in master of science and a PhD. He’s had a background in clinical research and regulatory affairs, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and biotechnology. 48.26min

Mary-Jane Stevens

Transcript. Mary-Jane Stevens who’s a mother of four, four children and until late September, 2021, she was a registered nurse in the emergency department of a Queensland Health hospital. She’s now been de-registered due to an Ahpra March, 2021 directive. 15.27min

Alan Dana

Transcript. Alan Dana learned to fly in the United Kingdom in 1988. He holds British, United States and Australian professional airline transport licences, including an FAA Accident Prevention Counsellor Designation. His total experience, over 35 years, is now exceeding 23,000 flight hours. Alan took the time on a career route for pilots, instructing pilots for 32 years. 17.13min

PFIZER AND THE VACCINES

Christine Dolan

Transcript. Christine Dolan is an American senior editor and chief investigative correspondent for CDM.press. She has a long history of tackling corruption, having worked at four American networks, served as CNN political director, covered three wars, and has investigated human trafficking in 140 countries for over 22 years, as well as the Catholic church globally. 28.03min

Warner Mendenhall

Transcript. Warner Mendenhall, who’s a United States lawyer. He’s a prominent activist attorney from the United States who is currently representing Ms. Brook Jackson in her lawsuit against Pfizer. Warner has a strong history of representing people being abused by government decisions and protecting whistleblowers fighting against injustice. 13.16min

Dr James Rowe

Transcript. Dr. James Rowe is a pharmaceutical scientist with over 40 years experience in the pharmaceutical industry and academia in the design development and testing of novel drug dosage forms. He has held academic positions at the University of London, University of Sydney, and Western Sydney University. 13.56min

Senator Gerard Rennick

Transcript. Senator Rennick was elected in Federal Parliament in 2019 representing the people of Queensland. He’s one of only a handful of politicians who is holding the government to account regarding the mismanagement of COVID, and he’s willing to question the science behind it. He did that not only with the current government, but he did it with the previous government, which was of his own party. 43.42min

Dr Robert Brennan

Transcript. Dr. Robert Brennan, is a man of a very high integrity. He’s co-director of Australian Medical Network, Australia’s largest and longest running dissident doctor group in the COVID era. He’s a member of the founding executive, so he dares to question things and he speaks up. A member of the founding executive of the Australian medical professional society, and a regular commentator and host on TNT radio.live. 13.32min

THE DOCTOR PATIENT RELATIONSHIP

Dr Chris Neil

Transcript. Dr. Neil became a cardiologist mid-career having been continuously engaged in medicine or the study of medicine for 26 years, quarter of century, since specialisation he has undertaken doctoral and post-doctoral studies being successful in obtaining research grants, completing investigation driven studies, and supervising, and co-supervising higher degree research students to completion as well as supervising and mentoring multiple physicians in training. Discusses doctor patient relationship. 24.22min

Julian Gillespie

Transcript. Mr. Julian Gillespie, who’s a lawyer and a former barrister. Julian is currently closely involved in the federal court judicial review case involving vaccine mandates. He’s deeply involved with issues relating to the oppressive approach that the government has taken with management of COVID-19 in the community. 29.16min

Dr Duncan Syme

Transcript. Dr. Syme winner of the Nicholas Collins Fellowship Achievement Award, the Australian Hospital in the Home Society 2018. Dr. Syme graduated from Monash University in 1987. He’s been in clinical practise for 34 years and a general practitioner for 27 years. Currently, his registration is suspended due to providing exemptions for patients who do not want to be injected by the COVID-19 medication. 24min

Dr Gary Fettke

Transcript. Dr. Gary Fettke is an orthopaedic surgeon and vocal proponent of nutrition being a major component of prevention and management of modern disease. In 2014, he became repeatedly targeted by the processed food industry for his opinion, culminating in a silencing by the AHPRA medical board. Prevention is the key to management in this recent COVID pandemic and future pandemics to come. 21.34min

Peter Fam

Transcript. Peter Fam is a lawyer on human rights. He’s a human rights specialist and the principal lawyer at Maat’s Method A human rights law firm in Sydney. He holds a degree in journalism as well. Peter is a defender and advocate of universal law, his aim is to assist restoring truth, justice, and balance to our world. 24.19min

Julian Gillespie

Transcript. Julian Gillespie talks about government manipulation. He spoke in his first session about the doctor-patient relationship being destroyed. Now he talks about the government manipulation that orchestrated that, and then about new legislation and declaration of demand. 47.01min

Dr Robert Brennan

Transcript. Dr. Robert Brennan, speaking about public health. 13.38min

CONDITIONING AND ETHICS

Dr Peter Parry

Transcript. Dr. Peter Parry, discusses social engineering. A psychiatrist perspective on social engineering based on human behaviour. 19.53min

Professor Iain Benson

Transcript. Professor Iain Benson, discusses medical ethics, not only the problems, but the solutions. He has four degrees, including a PhD. He’s professor of law at the University of Notre Dame, Australia. He’s published many academic articles and book chapters, work cited by both the Supreme Court of Canada, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, and in April 2019, the High Court of Gauteng, which is in Johannesburg, South Africa. He discusses the ethical problems involved with the forced use of experimental drugs. 29.05min

Carla Mardell

Transcript. Carla Mardell, who has a Bachelor of Education, is an EFT practitioner, Postgraduate Certificate of Digital and Collaborative Technology, NLP Coach Practitioner. She discusses how we have been programmed in our beliefs with conditioning. 27.47min

SUMMARY AND SOLUTIONS

Dr Gary Fettke

Transcript. Dr. Gary Fettke discusses solutions as to how people can better prepare their own health. 16.04min

Dr Philip Altman

Transcript. Dr. Altman talks about two things. One is a summary of the day. What have we learned? Then secondly, solutions. 24.27min