The Data on COVID Emerges – And history will show this Parliament is full of cowards

,

I have no doubt that, as the truth comes to light, history will judge those in this Parliament as cowards for failing to stand up against the COVID B.S.

Read the study, COVID-19 vaccines – An Australian Review by Conny Turni and Astrid Lefringhausen here.

Watch the COVID INQUIRY 2.0 videos here.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I note that at the European parliament inquiry into COVID two weeks ago, Janine Small, the President of International Developed Markets for Pfizer revealed that the Pfizer vaccine injection was never tested to see if it would prevent transmission—never tested. Small went on to say this was because Pfizer had to work at the speed of science. Well, it seems the speed of science and the velocity of money are the same thing. Shameful decisions were taken deliberately to facilitate big pharma getting their injections to market in time. The mouthpiece media have the same large investment funds on their share register as big pharma. It’s no surprise the mouthpiece media amplified the COVID scare, doubling down on fear porn and demonising anyone who clung to ‘my body, my choice’, just so the media’s shareholders could line their pockets with tens of billions of dollars in windfall profits.

I remember when the political left walked behind banners reading ‘my body, my choice’. Now real conservatives hold those banners high while the Left abuse us. How fast the Left abandon their principles when an opportunity to tell people what to do comes along, to control people. It was clear after just four months of COVID the scary Chinese videos of people dropping dead in the streets should not have been taken at face value. Measures taken out of an abundance of caution in March 2020 should have been re-examined just a few months later, as we requested and suggested. They never were. At the time, the data clearly showed COVID was no more deadly than a severe flu and well under anything the public would consider to be a pandemic. Let me support that statement.

The following data is from the Australian Bureau of Statistics published in part as a result of a One Nation document discovery a few weeks ago. In 2019, the year before COVID, the seasonal flu cost 4,126 lives. The next year, in 2020, Australia recorded 882 deaths from COVID and 2,287 deaths from the flu for a total of 3,196 deaths, 1,000 less than before COVID, almost a thousand less than the flu alone killed the previous year. In 2021, 1,137 deaths were recorded from COVID and 2,073 from the flu, for a total of 3,210. This means deaths from the flu including COVID across the first two years of the so-called pandemic were right on the long-term average of 3,255. There was nothing unusual about the Australian death rate in 2020 or 2021 yet the COVID substances—I won’t call them vaccines—the COVID injections, were given emergency approval. The only thing about our death rate in 2020 that was unusual was that it was at a seven-year low. These are facts. This makes a joke of provisional approval granted for injections out of urgency. There was no urgency. It is not just the vaccines that were inappropriately approved; dangerous drugs like the antiviral Remdesivir were waved through using the same false urgency. Remdesivir’s side effects include respiratory failure and organ failure. The perfectly safe but out-of-patent antiviral ivermectin was banned to make way for remdesivir—banned, proven, banned. The UK has recently put ivermectin back into use. We must as well. The conclusion an increasing number of Australians are coming to is that our health technocrats tore up our tried and true health systems to shift products for their mates in the pharmaceutical industry, and now people are dying from those same products.

Once the injection rollout started, there was a spike in deaths. It must be noted correlation is not causation. The link between the cause—vaccines—and the effect—death, injury and suffering—must be proven. Well, it has now been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. At my second COVID Under Question inquiry in August, many highly-qualified medical professionals from around the world established that link, providing evidence the injections were responsible for many more deaths than the health technocrats admit.

Late last month, the Clinical and Experimental Immunology journal published an article entitled ‘COVID-19 vaccines—an Australian review’. The authors are Conny Turni and Astrid Lefringhausen, from the University of Queensland. This article details the medical science behind the wide range of medical harms inflicted on Australians as a result of the hubris and the criminal negligence of health technocrats. I promised to hound you people down, and now science has done that for me. The issue of vaccine harm must be referred to a royal commission today. These criminals must be brought to justice. This report is reproduced on my website, and anyone who reads this report and still defends the fake vaccines is as guilty as the companies that made it.

It’s no surprise that COVID has spiked in correlation with the rollout of the fake vaccines. ABS data is not yet available for 2022, although Australian actuarial data is. In the first four months of 2022, death from all respiratory diseases—the flu, pneumonia and COVID taken together—is still at normal levels, yet deaths from cardiac and pulmonary events are up 11 per cent, and unexplained deaths are up 13 per cent. At this rate, an extra 10,000 Australians will die in 2022. Anyone reading the journal article I referred to will know exactly why this is happening. I refuse to believe our health technocrats do not know. A royal commission must ask what they knew and when.

In May 2020 I criticised fear-driven response to COVID in the Senate, within months of this mismanagement of COVID. At that time Senator Hanson and I were the lone voices of dissent in the Senate, and Craig Kelly and George Christensen were the lone voices in the other place, and Senators Rennick and Antic joined us—six representatives out of 227 people. Everyone else in both houses displayed an ignorance of proper scientific process, an inability to read empirical data and a misplaced trust of health bureaucrats. Health technocrats have spent their entire professional lives working closely with the pharmaceutical industry. And we expected them to be impartial. Come on! We delegated authority to the last people who should have been trusted with that authority.

The Senate is the house of review. Every aspect of our COVID response should have been scrutinised to the last detail. The Senate failed in that mission. COVID measures were beyond question, and it seems they still are. Rather than review, the Senate covered up. Senators Rennick and Antic, in company with myself and Senator Hanson, tried to draw out the truth and were demonised for doing so. Not one senator amongst the political Left entertained a moment’s thought that fear-driven response could be harming more people than it helped. ‘Resistance is futile’ was the message repeated at every press conference on every television in every house of parliament. New Zealand, Canada, the UK and America all joined in the circus of despair, designed to scare people into taking a substance they knew would cause serious harm and death.

Even today, vaccine mandates are still in place around Australia. The reality of a falling birth rate, unexplained increases in deaths and more than 130,000 cases of vaccine harm here in Australia is being ignored. Still, we are told the injection is safe and effective. Safe and effective is not one lie; it is two lies. The vaccine is neither safe nor effective. Medical practitioners who stood up for the rights of their patients were deregistered after action from big pharma’s enforcement arm, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency—under the direction, it seems, of CEO Martin Fletcher and Yvette D’Ath, as chair of the Health Ministers Meeting. They’re the ones who were in control. These technocrats decided they knew what was best for patients—better than the patient’s own doctor. AHPRA must be referred to the royal commission—and the TGA, ATAGI, the Chief Medical Officer, the secretary of the federal health department and Greg Hunt, the federal health minister at the time.

The vaccine emergency use authorisation expires early next year. An inquiry into how the vaccines went would normally be conducted, but they need to stop now. The emergency authorisation needs to stop. I do not have confidence the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA, and the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, ATAGI, will be honest and impartial in this inquiry. They have not been so far. Only a royal commission can decide all of the issues I have raised tonight. One royal commissioner will not be enough for the litany of legal and regulatory abuse, medical practice, financial malfeasance, conflict of interest, child abuse, human rights abuse and the shredding of international agreements Australia has endured for 2½ years.

The harm from our COVID response was foreseeable and preventable. If only the Senate, the ultimate house of review, had had the courage to stand up and call bullshit. The Senate did not.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Chandler ): Order! Senator Roberts, that language isn’t parliamentary. I ask that you withdraw or find another word.

Senator ROBERTS: I retract that—the brown stuff.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.

Senator ROBERTS: The Senate did not. As a result, the public has lost confidence in the medical profession, health administration and politicians. To his credit, member of parliament Dan Tehan publicly admitted his silence last year was wrong. This week a survey in the Daily Telegraph found that, based on the 50,000 respondents, 37 per cent of Australians who took the vaccine regret it. Only 43 per cent said they would do it again. The damage to the reputation of our once-trusted medical institutions can only be repaired with a royal commission to unravel the lies and get to the truth, and, in so doing, ensure this tyranny, this suffering and this loss of life never happens again.

I have no doubt that, when the truth comes to light, history will judge those in this place as being cowards all. We have one flag, we are one community, we are one nation, and Australians want justice.

/42 Comments/by

Malcolm Roberts’ review of Labor’s first budget

,

This budget will jack up power prices, keep inflation roaring to new heights and do nothing to help you from day to day. I joined Sky News the night it was delivered to talk about my initial reaction.

Transcript

Welcome back to our coverage of the budget. Tonight the Treasurer has laid out his economic plan, and while Labour has the numbers in the House of Reps, the Senate cross-bench will be critical for whether the government can pass its various measures. Here’s a reminder of the state of play: 39 votes are needed to pass bills into law. The government has 26, meaning it needs another 13 to get its agenda across the line. The Greens have 12 of those, with another five Senators representing minor parties, and one independent. Joining me live on the desk, is three of those crucial cross-benchers that could make or break the Labour budget. Senator Jacqui Lambie, One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts, and Greens Treasury spokesman, Nick McKim, great to see you all. Senator Lambie, let’s start with you. What did you think of Jim Chalmers’ first budget?

Oh, I have to say, they’ve played it very safe, haven’t they? It’s really is a mini budget. They’ve got five months up their sleeve, they’re buying time here. They’re gonna have to make some tough decisions by May. We’ve got a massive blowout in the NDIS. We’ve got the cost of living pressures out there, and I think we’ve just, I’ve just seen on the TV in the last five minutes, the gas prices are gonna go up 20% in two years. I tell you what, we are really under the pump in this country, and then we have a major deficit we’ve gotta payoff. That’s where we’re at, some tough decisions. They need to go back to the drawing board. It’s lovely, it’s all been touchy-feely. Let’s see what the May budget looks like, but they’re gonna have to make some cuts, and they’re gonna have to be tough.

Nick McKim, what’s your take on Jim Chalmers’ first effort?

Oh look, there’ll be a lot of disappointed people in the country, I reckon. I mean, this budget’s got more than a width of austerity about it. The government, and the Treasurer, have acknowledged the challenges, and Jacqui talked a little bit about those. I mean, they say they want wages to go up. Wages are gonna go down, then they’re gonna flat-line. They say they want employment to go up, but actually unemployment is going up. They say they want to be fair to people, but actually they’ve got stage-three tax cuts, which give a quarter of a trillion dollars in tax breaks, overwhelmingly benefiting the top end of town. And people who are really struggling to make ends meet, are not getting much assistance at all in this budget.

Malcolm Roberts, is it a budget for the times, as Jim Chalmers argues?

[Malcolm Roberts] It’s a budget for the continuation, and falling off a cliff I think, because workers have already gone backwards 10%. Anybody who earns a wage or salary is going back 10%, and will continue to go back because we’ve got rapid inflation. Wages won’t move anywhere nearly as quickly. We’ve got high cost of living pressures. We’ve got high energy prices. Prices are forecast to go up 50% next year Kieran, and 50% the year after. People can’t handle that. That’s a doubling of prices. 100% increase over two years, that’s a doubling. We’ve got a climate change, there’s very few specifics. The housing, we talk about a million houses.

[Jacqui] Yeah.

Yeah, yeah, I can see you nodding your head Jacqui, a million houses, how? Where’s the provision?

Yeah.

[Malcolm Roberts] We can see 20, $25 billion on climate. Well, 20 of it is on poles and wires. It’s just gonna increase the cost of electricity from far-flung areas. We’ve already got the poles and wires we need from coal-fired power stations. This is absurd.

With that rewiring the nation, that project that Malcolm Roberts is alluding to there, it’s $20 billion. A lot of challenges in terms of workforce and supplies in getting that done. Does that mean that power prices rise at least in the short term until that’s all established?

Well, this budget makes it very clear that, retail electricity prices will go up 56% in the next two years. So there is no doubt that we are facing massive pressures on household bills. I wanna talk a little bit about the housing announcement.

[Kieran] There were those numbers there. So you have 20% this year, 30% next year-

[Nick] That’s right, they have compounded.

[Kieran] -for electricity and gas. Yeah, that’s 56. And then the gas 20 and 20.

[Nick] That’s right.

[Kieran] As Jacqui suggested.

[Nick] That’s right.

[Kieran] So, we’re talking a massive hit to-

We are talking massive hits on household budgets, and what the government could have done is walk away from the tax cuts for the top end, and put in place genuine cost of living measures. They could have put dental into Medicare, mental health support into Medicare, done more on childcare, built more affordable homes, wipe student debt. Like there’s plenty the government could do. And the money was there. A quarter of a trillion dollars, $250 billion over 10 years overwhelmingly favouring the top. We’re all gonna get a 9,000; Jacqui, Malcolm, and I will all get a $9,000 a year tax break, and there is nothing in that package for minimum income.

Do you think there should have been direct support on power prices? Because obviously there’s this challenge with the inflationary environment right now, that if they write checks,

Yeah, the challenges.

they could have a counterproductive effect.

The challenges with this country over the years of both major parties have sold us out. We no longer own things. This is the problem. So, we’re relying on other people to generate our power for us, and that cost us a lot more money instead of leaving it in the hands of what we should have been as private investors. That’s where we were at in 2021. And that’s been really unfortunate. I don’t know what you do about those power prices, ’cause quite frankly, we have no control over the companies that run them. They can pretty much run amok all they like, and that’s where we’re at.

Should there be price caps or something of that sort?

Something needs to be done, whether it’s price caps or, I think Daniel Andrews is buying his lot back. Isn’t he in Victoria? He’s worked out, it’s costing them a fortune. He’s got no control over it. He’s buying it off. We have control over ours in Tasmania. We’re very lucky the state government owns ours, and they could give us, they could relieve that pressure as well by giving us cuts. They don’t do that, that is their choice. We pay a little bit less than the rest of you, but I can tell you now, this is where the state government of Tasmania is really gonna feel it, because there’s no way Tasmanians can afford for our power prices to go up 5%, let alone 20.

We’re talking of massive impact. What do you think? Should there be price signal or price cuts?

[Malcolm Roberts] No, definitely not. If you look at childcare, it’s increasingly getting more and more subsidies. The prices go up, whenever you subsidise something, people charge more for it. I mean it’s that simple, this is basic economics. Manufacturing will get really decimated by this. First of all, the cost of electricity is now the number one cost category in any manufacturing, any manufacturing. It used to be labour, labor’s not anymore. It’s electricity. What we’re doing is, we’re subsidising the Chinese to instal these parasitic mal investments. They’re kamikaze investments, solar and wind, to raise the price of electricity, everywhere in the world, where they’ve increased solar and wind, they’ve increased the price of electricity, startlingly. Manufacturing will be driven out of the country yet more.

What’s your read on that? Because obviously in the short term, there are challenges with transmission. The poles and wires that we spoke about, they need to be done to accommodate.

Absolutely.

But Malcolm Robert’s argument there, that it’ll just simply continue to drive prices up, renewables.

Oh no, I mean you could legislate to put in place price caps. I mean there’s a very common thing to do around the world, and I don’t accept Malcolm’s argument there. I mean ultimately…

[Malcolm Roberts] It’s in the figures, empirical figures all around the world. Every country, Spain, Germany, any country that goes heavily into solar and wind, it increases their prices of electricity.

I know Malcolm doesn’t believe in climate change, but the sciences-

[Malcolm Roberts] I believe in climate variability Nick.

absolutely have to to rapidly reduce our emissions in this country. And the best way to provide the cheapest power is more investment in renewables, and less into propping up the dirty, old coal-fired clunkers because they are unreliable. They’re old infrastructure, building new fossil fuel plants, including gas, is more expensive than putting in place distributed generation of renewable energy close to the centres of demand, supported by battery store.

The challenge in the the short term obviously, workforce shortages, supply shortages, these are all bottlenecks,

[Nick] They are.

in terms of that process, aren’t they?

Yeah, absolutely they are. And, now there was some welcome investment in the budget into TAFE and vocational education. I think that’s a good thing, but that does take obviously time to flow through.

Do you see Jacqui Lambie, I think you alluded to it earlier, but with this spending approach, Jim Chalmers says it’s 99% of the additional commodities, and tax revenue has been banked. Is this an attempt to say, “Okay, we’re not doing a Liz Truss budget, we’re gonna be responsible, and this is almost like a stepping stone to the May budget, where those broader changes might eventuate.”

Well, I think if you follow Liz’s Truss’s track, you’re not gonna last very long. That would be my my first point. But look, we’ve been really, really lucky with our commodities in this country. We’ve made a lot of money outta them. We don’t know if we’re gonna do that next year, the year after. We don’t know whether there’s gonna be a call for as much of those resources as around the rest of the world. I wouldn’t think there will be. We’ve had a really great year on that. That’s great. And we’ve all got a little bit GST extra outta that for our states, that’s a fabulous thing. We’ve seen that, I’m sure $360 million extra in Tasmania is gonna help us a lot. We’re only a small state, and that that will go to fixing things. But we cannot rely on this. We really need to look at those stage-three tax cuts. I believe that, those people in those lower incomes, certainly give them a tax cut, give them a bit of a break. It’s gonna be tough for them over the next few years. There’s no doubt about that. But people on the 120, a 100 or 1,000, where’s the cutoff to say, “You know what? We can’t afford to give you a tax cut at this point in time. Something needs to be done.” We can save billions of dollars there. There’s no doubt about that. I have to laugh about their TAFE, when they, they’re gonna chuck a billion dollars back into TAFE, Kieran, which is lovely. I’d remind the Labour Party, they cut $4 billion outta that education fund about three years ago alongside the Labour Party. So good on you for putting it back. Better late than ever. And I’ll be very grateful for that. But right now, we have a deficit and we cannot ignore that. And we have to start paying that back. We also have to pay up there for that NDIS, and something has to give here.

Malcolm Roberts, the Treasurer says that we need to have a conversation, a national conversation, and the tax needs to be part of that conversation. Where should we head in terms of the debate about the structural deficit? Because quite clearly, he’s identified the illness, not necessarily the entire cure this evening.

[Malcolm Roberts] Good question. First of all, we need the end, I’ll get into tax in a minute, but we need to end the black armband view of mining. Mining has pulled this country out of a mess for the last two years. And the coal prices were forecast in last budget are around about $60 a tonne. They’re $400 in actual fact, iron ore similarly, very much higher than they were forecast be. If it wasn’t for mining, we’d be well and truly deeper in the brown stuff. Now, tax, we need to make it simple. We need to make it, so that the multinationals automatically pay their tax. They’re not doing it at the moment. The Liberal Party in 1953 put in the Double Taxation Recognition Act, which basically made large foreign multinationals, not pay company tax, that’s absurd. The petroleum resources tax, that Bob Hawke’s Labour Party brought in the ’80s, made sure that the largest tax evader in the world, Chevron, pays not a cent, while they export billions of dollars worth of our natural gas. And we’re the largest gas, we’re the largest exporters of energy in the world. And we get bugger all for it here. We have the highest gas prices, we have the highest-

So do you think a profits tax, a super profits tax or something like that?

[Malcolm Roberts] I think you get back to basics, and you actually tax multinationals on the widgets they make. That’s an interim one. But we’ve gotta have a simpler tax system, bring it back to basics. We’ve got way outta kilter. It’s far too complex. The GST was supposed to-

New mines, new gas projects and so on. But this remains a lucrative transition fuel, does it not?

We have argued consistently for a corporate super profits tax. We have argued consistently for super profits taxes particularly targeted at fossil fuel companies. And I wanna make this point about taxation. In this budget, it was revealed tonight, that the petroleum resource rent tax is gonna bring in $450 million over the forward estimates, less than what we were told it would last year. We are in the middle of a so-called gas boom, and the big gas companies are gonna be paying $450 million bucks less tax along with the other companies. The petroleum resource rent tax targets less tax than what they were forecast to last year. It’s an absolute roar.

So obviously that’s your,

And it needs to be fixed.

that’s your thinking, in terms of where the Treasurer should start this conversation.

He could do that. He could walk away from the quarter of a trillion dollars, the $250 billion in stage-three tax cuts. That’s what they will cost over the next 10 years. Negative gearing, reform capital gains tax reform, which would stop these spiking house prices, which are pricing too many people out of a home. And meaning that at the moment, homes are like an investment class, rather than a human right. There’s so much we could do, and so many levers at Jim Chalmers’ disposal, and he’s basically pulled none of them.

[Malcolm Roberts] I think we might have found something that Nick, and I agree on, because the government is talking about, housing price is a simple matter of supply and demand, right Kieran?

Is is that a first by the way? I think it might be.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah, no, no. Nick and I have helped each other-

I’m worried, I’m worried.

[Malcolm Roberts] on quite a few things. Housing prices are a matter of supply and demand. The supply is up to the local governments, and some extent the state governments. Federal government’s got nothing to do with that. The demand, the federal government’s gonna shoot up by increasing immigration, 180,000 net, permanent.

No, now, just to be clear, we don’t agree on that. And I just wanna say about housing, the headline from the government is a million new homes. When you look at the fine print in the budget, it’s 10,000.

We’ve got two and a half minutes left, before we cross over to Paul Murray and his special tonight. Let’s get some final thoughts, overarching thoughts if we can, Jacqui Lambie to you as we wrap up this evening. What would you like to leave our viewers in terms of your assessment? Obviously, you believe that this is really a stepping-stone budget in many respects, and a lot of work to come over six months.

Yeah, I think it is a stepping-stone budget. They’re just dipping their toe in the water at the moment. They’ve got some big decisions to make over the next six months. And-

And is it largely around the NDIS? Is it your view that that’s the role?

I think it’s around everyone, everything. I am just gonna step forward here, and say that they’re giving the GST to the states, because they’re gonna expect those states to start giving some heavy lifting and they’re gonna say, “Hey, we gave you extra GST. You go fix that.” I reckon that’s exactly what they’re doing. It is not going to be enough. Our people are really hurting out there. It’s gonna get worse before it gets better, especially if we do go, we’re already heading into recession. If we hit a recession, we’ve got interest rates going up out there. Houses are losing their value. We’ve got many young kids that invested in them. We’re in dire straits going in, into the next 12 months, and they’re gonna have to make some really tough decisions for that May budget. And you know what, this is what we’re gonna say, “Is Labour made of the steel that it thinks it is?”

Malcolm Roberts, your final assessment as we wrap up?

[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah, they’ve completely missed the major points, A paper presented, I’ll read these figures. A paper presented to Cabinet, calculated the value difference in exporting bauxite, the ore, versus processed aluminium in ’19, $70. Just imagine what these figures would be today, exporting 1 million tonnes of bauxite, the raw material earned $5 million. Processed one step into alumina, earned $27 million, more than five times as much, processed again into aluminium, earned a $125 million, and processed finally into aluminium products, earned $600 million. If they’re fair thinking about manufacturing, they need to fix electricity prices and get on with the tax reform.

Malcolm thank you, and Nick McKim finally to you as we wrap up.

Yeah, sure. Look, I’ll be brief ’cause I know we’re nearly outta time, but in one word, disappointing. People voted for change at the Federal Election this year. They didn’t get much change in the budget tonight. It was pretty bland, pretty disappointing. It’s left an awful lot of people behind, but the top end of town are pretty happy with it.

Greens Treasury spokesman Nick McKim, Malcolm Roberts of One Nation and Jacqui Lambie, great to see you all. Thanks for joining.

Thank you.

Thank you Kieran.

Thank you for your company at home, here on our Sky News.

/2 Comments/by

Join me at Post Office Square this Saturday

I’ll be at Post Office Square, Brisbane from 12 noon Saturday 29th October to participate against the protest against ongoing vaccine mandates. See you there!

/5 Comments/by

Media Release: Hells Gates Dam Business Case To Be Revealed After One Nation Motion

,

The Senate has voted in favour of a Malcolm Roberts motion this afternoon calling on the government to release a business case prepared for the Government by Townsville Enterprise Development Centre. Senator Roberts said:

“One Nation has scored a win for North Queensland with the Senate ordering the government to publish its confidential business case behind Hells Gate Dam.”

“The business case was given to the State Government in July and passed on to the Federal Government in September. The Albanese Government wants to keep the Hells Gate Dam business case a secret because they don’t want to build any dams in this country.”

“This business case will be especially embarrassing because the Labor Budget delivered last night removed $5.4 billion dollars previously allocated for the dam.”

“We need water for Queensland to thrive. This dam and many others should have been started decades ago so we can capture the La Nina rains which are currently swelling rivers before flowing straight out to sea.”

Only Labor voted against the motion in an attempt to keep the Hells Gate Dam business case secret however One Nation was successful by 40 votes to 19. The government must table the business case in the Senate no later than 9:30am tomorrow, 27 October 2022.

/4 Comments/by

Israel Capital – Just a political decision?

The Albanese Government’s decision to overturn recognition of Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel doesn’t make sense. It appears to be a political decision to appease the radical Labor left.

Transcript

One Nation considers it the responsibility of the Israeli government to decide the location of Israel’s capital city, not the Australian government. Israel selected Jerusalem. One Nation approved the former government’s recognition of this fact and the decision to relocate Australia’s embassy there. The Albanese government’s decision is like Germany declaring Brisbane or Perth the capital of Australia instead of Canberra. It’s confusing and clumsy. We’re critical of the government’s decision to switch Australia’s embassy in Israel back to Tel Aviv. Is this an entirely political decision to pacify Labor’s radical left and gain Muslim votes in the coming Victorian election? Proscribed terrorist organisations like Hamas have already praised the government for this decision to change recognition of the Israeli capital. That the Israeli government was not even informed ahead of time is further indictment of the Albanese government’s decision. One Nation considers the decision to be the Prime Minister’s clumsy mistake and calls on him to reverse it and again recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

/9 Comments/by

Uranium – Better for Nuclear power than Nuclear weapons

Getting rid of Nuclear Weapons is a laudable goal, but I don’t expect the United Nations to have any success given they’ve failed at just about everything else worth doing.

Transcript

Ridding the world of nuclear weapons is a laudable goal, and for this reason One Nation will be supporting this matter of urgency. To be consistent, though, I point out that the United Nations has failed at every peace initiative it has attempted in the last 77 years. I doubt this initiative will be any different. How will the United Nations achieve compliance from rogue states like North Korea and Iran? Will China be given a free pass on their nuclear weapons, in the same manner that the UN gives China a free pass on complying with 2050 carbon dioxide targets? I would love Australia to be treated the same as China on net zero. Imagine the lights that would be kept on in Australia, and the jobs and prosperity that could be saved. The UN has given China a free pass on labour camps yet had the hide to turn up in Queanbeyan, just down the road, last week to inspect our prisons for human rights abuses.

Humanity has not seen a world war since 1945. The United Nations did not do that; nuclear weapons as a deterrent to war did that. Yet nuclear weapons have served their purpose. Future wars will be served with robots and drones, not nuclear weapons. Uranium is better used as a wonderful source of electrical power, not military power. While passing this treaty is one thing, implementing it is quite another. If this treaty passes, the United Nations must implement the treaty fairly and have in mind the need to not change the balance of power amongst nuclear nations. Removing nuclear weapons unevenly from some nations and not others would increase the potential for plunging the world into a nuclear war—the opposite of this treaty’s intention.

I wish the UN the wisdom and courage necessary to achieve this objective. Having demonstrated over the last 77 years the complete absence of these qualities, I’m not hopeful. Yet we must try, because it’s the right thing to do. The world will be better completely without nuclear weapons. We are one flag, we are one community, we are one nation, and the time for nuclear weapons is over.

/1 Comment/by

Left turns on Lidia Thorpe for opposing the voice

Lidia Thorpe has a pattern of disrespect for the Senate, the Australian people and Australia itself. She must be accountable for those decisions. Yet, the only choice that bothered the left was her opposition to the indigenous voice to Parliament. It is only when she opposed the voice that the left and media pile on started.

Transcript

Conservative values, including freedom, mean we embrace diverse opinions within our wider embrace of the rich tapestry of God’s creation. From free debate of different opinions comes strong policy, fair policy. Yet our opponents on the control side of politics play the person, not the argument. This is second nature to the Left, the control side of politics, with hubris and intolerance covering for ignorance and driving their personal attacks.

In discussing Senator Thorpe’s behaviour, we see that, unlike the control side of politics, conservatives embrace differences of opinion. Could it be that the Left’s own attack on Senator Thorpe is political payback for her opposition to the voice? Remember how an old social media message from Lidia Thorpe, asking for Senator Hanson’s support in fighting the voice, was dredged up?

That dredging up was the warning shot Senator Thorpe did not heed. Now we have the bikie boss scandal. Adam Bandt reacted quickly, with an immediate sacking—as if it was orchestrated. One Nation asked what Adam Bandt knew and when he knew it. A head may roll, yet not the one intended. Listening to confidential briefings on bikie gang criminality while in a secret relationship with a recent boss of a bikie gang deserves strong censure. Cheating on one’s significant other deserves censure in another place, not here. One Nation hopes, in future, to see less petulance and better judgement from Senator Thorpe.

Australia needs the control side of politics, the Left, to demonstrate decency and tolerance towards competing viewpoints. We must work hard with everyday Australians across our nation to stop the Left’s lynch mob mentality—made worse in this case because the lynch mob is Senator Thorpe’s own party.

The Left do not debate. The control side fears debate. Instead they abuse and ridicule, silence and divide, and then seek to destroy. We have one flag, we are one community, we are one nation and conservatives celebrate difference of opinion.

/4 Comments/by

Letter to Anthony Albanese – Not “Safe and Effective”

,

Dear Prime Minister

One of my constituents, Dr Phillip Altman, has approached me with concerning information about the gene-based COVID vaccination rollout.

On 10 September 2022 he delivered a presentation in Melbourne to the Australian Medical Professionals Society, a nationwide body of doctors and allied health professionals.

Fully supported with strong and compelling data, he highlighted the shortcomings of the Australian and State governments’ approaches to COVID-19 management.

Dr Altman has a background of 40 years’ experience working with the pharmaceutical industry and the Therapeutic Goods Administration.

His evidence makes it clear that the previous federal government and agencies, including AHPRA and the TGA and State Governments, made decisions that were detrimental to Australians and the Australian economy.

Many of those decisions led to avoidable deaths and injuries to Australians who had been assured that these new generation gene-based injections, labelled as “vaccines”, were safe and effective.

This was a lie.

The COVID “vaccines” have never been fully approved and, by definition, have not been shown to be safe or effective, as Dr Altman has clearly stated.

The drug companies were aware of the dangers of the injections yet marketed them aggressively in the knowledge that the injections presented serious health risks, including death.

The TGA relied on limited quality, safety and efficacy data to provisionally approve these gene-based “vaccines”, which have never before been used on such a massive scale and in healthy people, including children and adolescents, without due consideration of risk and benefit.

The TGA approvals still remain provisional or conditional and do not have full approval status in Australia, or anywhere else, due to the lack of data, especially the total lack of long-term safety data for these serious gene-based injections that have never before been deployed.

The TGA effectively placed a prohibition on doctors prescribing Ivermectin off-label, citing concerns of toxicity, supply issues and possible interference with “vaccine” uptake. The claims of Ivermectin toxicity were reckless and unsupportable, the supply issues did not eventuate, and the Australian population is largely fully “vaccinated”.

A recently announced TGA review of the poison scheduling of Ivermectin represents the first sign of a long-awaited possible reappraisal of the disastrous COVID health policies that have severely damaged the nation.

Of particular concern to me has been AHPRA’s attitude when dealing with doctors or allied health professionals who have challenged some of the publicly made policy statements that the “vaccines” are safe and effective, or that oppressive mandates are necessary to protect the Australian population.

AHPRA has threatened to revoke, or has actually revoked the registration of some of those challengers, on the alleged grounds that even asking questions represents an imminent risk to public health or safety and should be considered serious misconduct.

I note with deep concern the proposed amendment to the new National Law, that if passed by the Queensland Parliament, would empower AHPRA to deregister or suspend health professionals with a new paramount principal inserted into the scheme.

It would replace the current guiding paramount principle, which is that “health and safety of the public are paramount” with “public confidence in the safety and services provided”.  Public confidence will now replace care and safety.  This is a disgraceful scam.

This conflicts with the doctors’ Code of Conduct in which the “care of your patient is your primary concern”.

This proposed change will reduce the quality of medical care because it now places a wedge into the doctor/patient relationship, preventing a doctor from expressing honest and informed professional advice based on a patient’s individual circumstances when this advice is at any variance to population-wide, one-size-fits-all, general health policy.

It will prevent provision of a complete view about benefits and material risks of a proposed treatment to the patient, thereby failing to gain fully informed consent from the patient, a fundamental principle embodied in the well-established health practitioner Code of Conduct.

A doctor will run the risk of deregistration if they comply with the code of conduct and common law obligations to disclose all material risks prior to seeking the patient’s consent.

They will run the risk of deregistration if the medical view is in contrast with government policy that non-medical bureaucrats or politicians made, even if the doctor’s view is logical and scientifically sound.

This proposed legislation must not proceed and must not become part of the National Law.

I attach a transcript of Dr Altman’s presentation and briefing paper on the proposed changes to the National Law and look forward to your considered response at your earliest convenience.

Yours sincerely

Malcolm Roberts

Senator for Queensland

/41 Comments/by

Sign up to the Newsletter

Want to receive the Senator Roberts Newsletter or get a text if I’m coming to your town? Update your details below.

/3 Comments/by

Malcolm Roberts speaks at Nigel Farage Brisbane

,

Government wants to tell you what to do, what to think and what to feel. We must oppose this new dystopia at every turn.

Transcript (click to expand)

Joel Jammal:

One of the biggest people exposing what Klaus Schwab has been doing is a man sitting in this room, Malcolm Roberts. Malcolm, could you please come to the stage? Now, Malcolm is a Senator for One Nation, A Senator for Queensland. Queensland is first.

Malcom Roberts:

Very important. I’m the senator for the people who are elected, sorry constituents. I’m not a senator for One Nation. I’m a senator for the people of Queensland in Australia with One Nation.

Joel Jammal:

Absolutely, absolutely. Australia First, Queenslanders first. You’ve been taking the fight in the Senate, no matter if you have the numbers for a bill or not. You’ve been raising awareness on issues. How do you deal with Canberra? We were there and we were at a press conference yesterday with Nigel. The place feels dead. How do you get things on? How do you raise awareness on these issues?

Malcom Roberts:

Well, number one, I’ve got a remarkable leader in Pauline Hanson, and I mean that sincerely because Pauline has been in there fighting for a long, long time, and nothing deters her. If she says something, she means it. So I can trust her. If I disagree with her and I talk to her about it, she’ll either say, give me your facts. In which case, I’ll give them to her and she’ll say, “Fine, we’ll change your mind.” Or she’ll say, “No, I don’t agree with you,” so that’s wonderful. You know exactly where you stand, and she likes it when I tell her exactly where I stand, so that’s the first thing.

But the second thing is that we do what we think is right. That’s fundamental because then it doesn’t matter what I do, I’m comfortable with it. I don’t care who criticise me, how much they criticise me. If I’m doing the right thing, then I’m very, very comfortable. So I don’t care what people think.

Joel Jammal:

God bless you. I think the other parties need that as well. Is anyone in this room getting a little bit twitchy about digital currencies and digital passports? And I’m seeing a lot of nodding heads. Any business owners here? Put your hand up. I think the states have a lot of plans for businesses. Malcolm, what’s going on, on this front and how can people protect themselves? What’s coming down the line?

Malcom Roberts:

Well, to understand what’s coming down the line, we have to look at what has been coming along the line behind us. What did we see in COVID? We saw so many things for the first time. Any one of them we would’ve rejected, but instead they came steamrollered, one after the other and that just bamboozled people. Digital passes where you could and couldn’t go. Restrictions as to what you could do, what doctors can say.

I mean, a doctor, when you go to a doctor, you get his or her opinion about your health. You couldn’t get that now because the doctors are told what to say, so that’s the kind of thing we’re seeing coming. So a lot of the things that were done here, New Zealand, Canada, France, United States, we’re testing the way for digital identity.

You saw the Optus leak. Who’s have been involved in that? Anyone? 10 million people. Member of my staff left Optus in 2008, 14 years ago. He’s part of that leak. His information was leaked. So the big leaks come mainly from mistakes in big tech and in government, and they want us to trust them with our data, like hell. So what they’re trying to do is to get the Digital Identity Bill was introduced, not into Parliament, but it was circulated in the Parliament for discussion. Labour Party said they would support it.

Digital Identity Bill is about taking your data, health data, travel data, social media data, purchases, finances, everything about you and centralising it and then selling it. And if it goes to a foreign multinational, they look after it under their laws, not our laws, so it’s not secure. And then if you want to know your health data, you pay to get it. And then what they do is they bring in a digital currency to wipe out cash. And when you’ve got no cash, you’ve got no alternative and no choice. You understand that, and then they’ve got you. They’ve well and truly controlled.

And then they get onto a social credit system and they’re already doing it to us because they’re saying, if you produce more carbon dioxide, we’ll have to limit what you’re doing and carbon dioxide’s plant food. It’s a fertiliser. It’s wonderful. Without it, it’s a trace gas that’s essential for all life on this planet. It’s odourless, colourless, tasteless. It’s not a pollutant, but they fabricated this. So what you’re going to get more of, what we are going to get more of is lies to justify what they’re doing.

If you go to the World Economic Forum, they’re talking about my carbon. My carbon, your individual carbon, your individual carbon, your individual carbon dioxide. What they’re trying to say is they will put monitors on you and actually not a monitor. It’s going to be an app on this, which will estimate your carbon dioxide. It’s just a control mechanism, so that’s what they will do. They will justify everything that they want to cut in our lives through an app.

They will have passes what you can and can’t do, digital currency. The Reserve Bank in this country has been working on digital currency until we expose that for quite some years. They’re also working with other central banks around the world on their digital currency because they’re coming up with a global digital currency. So people talked about Pauline Hanson talking about the unelected global governance from the UN that was first murdered around 1996. She built a cat. She was ridiculed for it, but she’s telling the truth, so that’s what they’ve got coming down the line.

Job controls imposed, but the biggest thing of all, the scariest thing of all is that in the past, dictators use guns. Get down on your knees, buddy. Now they don’t. They use invisible systems, they use name calling, they use labels, they use indoctrination in schools. We’ve got kids thinking that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. It’s complete crap. This has not been going on for a few years, just like the COVID debacle, which was completely mismanaged because the health was never their concern. Their aim in COVID was to control us. That’s why they made such a stuff up of it, but they got what they wanted.

So this has been underway since 1944 with the formation of the UN for that very purpose. Now, 10 years ago, I would’ve laughed at anyone saying that. I know that for a fact. The UN senior people have been telling us that for a number of years. Ottmar Edenhofer, Murray Strong. Murray Strong concocted global warming, changed that into climate change. He did it, and then guess who formed the Chicago Climate Exchange for carbon dioxide credit trading? Yes. And who was doing the the directorships? Murray Strong. Murray Strong was a crook, a crook, and he had two aims in life. He stated them, unelected socialist global governance and deindustrialization of Western civilization.

What’s happening in Britain? Deindustrialization. What’s happening in America? Deindustrialization. What’s happening in Europe? Deindustrialization. What’s happening in Australia? Deindustrialization. We’re back heading back to the caves, but there’s one thing that’s really important and that is the people. If we wake up, that’s how we can stop them.

Pauline Hanson wanted a royal commission into financial services in this country. Turnbull was the Prime Minister. Morrison was the Treasurer. Morrison said 26 times, you’re not getting one. Turnbull said 16 times, you’re not getting one. So Pauline did a deal and got an inquiry that was called a Senate select inquiry into lending to primary production customers. She got that out of Turnbull. She made me the chair of that.

We went out into the bush, Pauline’s team and my team, and we helped the farmers put together submissions. We then held inquiries in the bush and we loaded up all the information and then we held the banks accountable in Sydney and in Canberra. We embarrassed them so much. Here she is. So we embarrassed them so much by getting the facts and the data out, that some of the nationals went to Turnbull and said, “You better have a royal commission because otherwise that’s going to be very embarrassing for you when our report comes out.” And there was a royal commission just before Pauline released the report.

Another thing, the Cash Ban Bill. James Ashby told me about the Cash Ban Bill. He’s on top of the things very, very well. Our staff got hold of it, we looked at it and sure enough it was a ban of cash for any purchase over $2,000, and you can see where that’s going. It would’ve been $200 and then complete ban. So what we did was we got hold of the cross bench, just my team plus Pauline’s staff. We got hold of the cross bench and showed them what was going on. They were horrified.

Then we got hold of some liberal branch members and they were horrified. The Labour Party and The Liberal Party and The National Party passed that through the lower House, came to the Senate, was sent to a committee, and because of the shit that we kicked up, it stayed in committee. And then I moved a motion to get rid of it off the Senate books and it got rid off Senate books, but they’re trying repeatedly in many other ways to ban cash because they want to control. Their main objective is control.

Joel Jammal:

You got to hand it to them. They’re diligent, aren’t they, Malcolm? They just won’t die. We are, absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. Pauline’s been to jail, and in second I will invite you to. Yes, she’s still here. Who says you can’t have a comeback, Pauline?

Now Malcolm, in a second I’m going to invite Pauline up, Senator Hanson rather. I’m very informal. I’m so comfortable with these senators. Tell me another senator in the major parties you can just approach like this. I mean, Malcolm has been fighting the fight. Pauline, Senator Hansen has been fighting the fight. Senator, what’s that? Oh, you love Pauline. Oh, cool. She invited me too. It’s polite too now. Okay. All right.

One Nation has been an absolute bull work against the major parties in the last few years. I particularly liked that time you held up the entire government agenda this year when you and Senator Rennick and Senator Antic held up the entire government agenda so they couldn’t get a single thing passed in the last five or six months because they would not move on the job.

Senator Rennick and Senator Antic said, “Scott Morrison, I know we’re in the Liberal Party, but we will not move on this.” We have to deal with stories like Sienna Knolls, 19 year old equestrian girl, healthy. You got to be quite healthy to be an equestrian. Jab injured, two jabs, jab injured. He said, “If you don’t move on this, if you don’t offer some protections, we’re not passing any bills. So between One Nation and these two liberal senators, they absolutely held up the entire government agenda for five months. It was a lame duck session. And so thank you guys for that and thank you for being a light on all of these issues. Thank you.

Malcom Roberts:

Thank you for doing what you’re doing.

Joel Jammal:

No, it’s my pleasure.

/3 Comments/by