I understand that many Australians are deeply concerned about protecting our country’s sovereignty, especially when it comes to public health decisions. One Nation firmly opposes surrendering Australia’s sovereignty to unelected global bodies like the United Nation and WHO. No international organisation should have the power to impose lockdowns or medical procedures on Australians. The WHO has proven it cannot be trusted with our national interests and Australia must exit and protect its sovereignty.
To clarify where things currently stand, the WHO Pandemic Agreement was adopted by the World Health Assembly in May 2025 and signed by Australia’s Health Minister Mark Butler. However, it’s important to note that this agreement hasn’t been ratified yet. For it to take effect, both houses of Parliament must assent to it.
Any international treaty, including this one, must go through Australia’s formal treaty-making process. That includes review by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. This committee will resume when Parliament returns later in July. Even once ratified, formal legislation must still be passed by Parliament to give effect to any elements of the agreement. I encourage you not to worry about any dates being circulated right now. No legislation has been passed, and we’re keeping a close eye on any developments. If anything changes, I’ll be sure to keep you updated.
One Nation supports full parliamentary debate and formal votes on any treaty, and will work to ensure this occurs in this case as well.
Watch my latest video on the WHO Treaty, which wasprepared for an international summit – Reject the WHO and the Globalist Coup!
Transcript
In May of 2021, the United Nations World Health Organisation released a report titled COVID-19 Make it the Last Pandemic. The report called for closer cooperation between nations and more power. More power for a World Health Organisation to coordinate and initiate that collaboration.
In December 2021, the UN World Health Organisation held a special assembly to consider a proposal for a pandemic treaty to give effect to their report. The proposal from the United Nations was a nefarious document. It proposed turning the World Health Organisation into the World Health Police, with powers to compel member nations to comply with any directive from the WHO. This could include forced vaccinations, forced medical procedures, lockdowns, border and national closures, business closures, school closures, and the spending of huge sums of money on medical countermeasures.
Those provisions were not a conspiracy theory. The proposal actually said in plain English, the WHO should have the power to force medical procedures on citizens in member nations. It allowed the Director General of WHO to declare a pandemic at any time for any reason, meaning the world would forever be under a pandemic order and the WHO would forever be able to order these horrible anti human measures.
Fortunately, the 2021 Special Assembly failed to reach an agreement when a block of 42 African nations opposed the proposal. Having been used for decades as a testing ground for disease and vaccine research coming at a huge cost in African lives, these nations were not signing up for more deaths.
The outcome of the World Health Assembly in 2021 was to set in place a three year time frame for a pandemic agreement to be developed. A committee of WHO luminaries was set up to review the proposal. These were many of the world’s leading health experts who had worked with The WHO for many years. Their wisdom shone through and they tore the proposed treaty to shreds, stating it would destroy support for the WHO. Their staff did not want to become the World Health Police, they just want to work on improving health in underdeveloped member to countries.
In the end, that’s what prevailed.
Multiple new drafts were produced across three years and given to a steering committee to test support and each time failing to get the numbers. A new version followed, which further watered down the compulsion and the destruction of national and personal sovereignty. A final version, a consensus document, was produced and passed at the World Health Assembly in May this year.
Gone were 50 pages of nefarious provisions. Nothing that gave the WHO powers of compulsion has survived from the original version. This agreement contains no compulsion on member states. Wherever the wording says a member state shall it’s always followed by a modifier, such as subject to national laws, having mined to national sovereignty, subject to financial resources and so on. There are no binding provisions in this agreement beyond the need to advise the Who when a disease outbreak occurs that may be of national or international significance. Which is a good idea! After all, China sat on COVID for months in 2019 to give the billionaires time to hold event 201 and to craft a response that maximise their financial benefit. A response which caused untold suffering and deaths around the world using fraudulent science, mass propaganda and military coercion.
A deadly response which was not designed to minimise suffering. Instead, the response was designed to maximise the transfer of wealth from everyday citizens to the world’s predatory billionaires.
For complete clarity, this document’s latest version is not what people are saying it is. There’s no loss of Australian sovereignty and no new powers for the World Health Organisation. No new powers that can be forced on a member state.
Our political party, One Nation, of course opposes the pandemic agreement and the changes to the International Health Regulations that implement the provisions of the agreement for the simple reason we do not accept there is a role in the world for these unelected, unaccountable anti human bureaucrats.
This has always been One Nation policy.
In my first Senate speech in 2016, I called for an AUS Exit Australia to exit the UN and in April 2022, thanks to my diligent and knowledgeable staff team, I was the first Australian politician to oppose the pandemic treaty.
AUS exit is necessary because the UN and their agencies, including The WHO, have been hopelessly compromised by the world’s parasitic, indeed predatory, billionaires.
The WHO now gets most of its funding from entities tied to pharmaceutical companies. In return, the WHO mandates those companies medical products. It’s classic crony capitalism. Naked wealth transfer from the people. It’s theft.
By centralising power in the hands of unelected foreign bureaucrats, we’ve made the buyout of the UN easier. All the people they need to compromise to become the de facto owners of the world are in the one spot pretending to act on our behalf while actually lining the pockets of their billionaire parasitic benefactors.
These people are not the good guys. These people are your prospective owners. Make no mistake, our health authorities and their politicians have signed up to this agenda.
In the next pandemic, they will do the same nefarious, destructive, murderous policies again, and this time they will say the WHO made us do it.
Well, the truth is that the WHO is not making anyone do anything. These people are choosing to behave like this because it’s good for their power, their egos and their careers. The UN and its agencies are in darkness and cannot be saved.
One Nation calls for a withdrawal from the World Health Organisation, from the United Nations, from the World Economic Forum and from the World Bank.
Will Albanese question Xi Jinping about the CCP’s alleged human organ trade?
There’s an Act recently passed by the US House of Reps and currently awaiting approval by the Senate called H.R. 1503 Stop Forced Organ Harvesting.
‘To combat forced organ harvesting and trafficking in persons for purposes of the removal of organs.’
It seems globalisation has opened Western democracies to more than ‘trade’.
The suspected existence of international organ harvesting is a grisly reminder of the moral variance across borders.
This Act specifically aims to ‘hold accountable persons implicated, including members of the Chinese Communist Party’.
Unlike Australia’s vague foreign interference laws, the US did not shy away from naming the culprit.
The Act was introduced by Representative Chris Smith, who said of the measure:
‘Mr Speaker, every year under General Secretary Xi Jinping and his Chinese Communist Party, tens of thousands of young women and men – average age 28 – are murdered in cold blood to steal their internal organs for profit or to be transplanted into communist party cadres – members and leaders.
‘These crimes against humanity are unimaginably cruel and painful.
‘Between two and six internal organs per victim are extracted. It is murder masquerading as medicine.
‘Ethnic groups targeted included Uyghurs, who suffer from Xi Jinping’s ongoing genocide, and the Falun Gong, whose peaceful meditation and exercise practices and exceptional good health makes their organs highly desirable.’
This is the narrative of a horror film, and yet it is a real-world scenario carried out by the communist regime our Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, has gushed over meeting. He behaves as though shaking the hand of the CCP and climbing deeper into their economic sphere is a ‘good thing’ for Australia.
It is not.
Especially not at the expense of our US relationship.
Australian Senators may bicker over the finer details of international human rights, however, selling human beings into an organ-harvesting trade is universally condemned as an abomination against all moral and ethical standards.
‘In June of 1998 – 27 years ago – I chaired my first hearing on forced organ harvesting in China. A Chinese security officer testified that he and other security agents were executing patients with the doctors right there with ambulances ready to harvest their organs after the bullets were fired … at another hearing in 2022, we learned that some of the organs are stolen from victims who are still alive. One doctor testified how he had performed one such surgery on a victim of a botched execution and discovered, as he began cutting, that the victim was in a state of shock – not dead yet – and a live vivisection on a living human was being performed.’
If, as is claimed by our well-informed American counterparts, ‘state-sponsored forced organ harvesting is big business for Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party which shows absolutely no signs of abating’ – what responsibility do Australian politicians have to ensure the 1.4 million people of Chinese ancestry within Australia are safe from this trade?
Politicians are aware that CCP influence reaches into Australia, with the communist regime spying on migrants via a network of Chinese chat apps and peers. They exert pressure on Australians of Chinese ancestry by threatening members of their family who remain in China. It’s a level of control that endangers both migrants and the wider Australian population.
On July 14, Sky News Australia published comments warning that Beijing might be weaponising expatriates to ‘interfere in domestic elections’.
‘Senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, Dr John Lee, said the People’s Republic of China had spent ‘enormous efforts’ influencing and interfering with Australian domestic politics to advance its interests.’
He added, ‘…it creates problematic structural problems for social cohesion in Australian society and politics.’
It was also recently published that Foreign Minister Penny Wong had been made aware of anonymous letters sent to Australians ‘offering a reward for information on the whereabouts of an Australian-based Hong Kong dissident’.
Ms Wong said, ‘The Australian government does not accept other governments interfering with our citizens, making anybody feel unsafe.’
Will Anthony Albanese bring this incident up with Xi Jinping on his trip?
Probably not.
Will he ask for the Port of Darwin to be peacefully returned to Australian hands?
He has already said that he will not.
Will he give Xi Jinping an earful over the live-fire exercises off our coast which disrupted commercial air traffic followed by a bit of casual circumnavigation of our borders?
Again, no, he will not.
Mr Albanese is a coward when it comes to diplomacy.
Socialist-leaning parties, such as Labor and the Greens, have a fascination with China’s dictatorial leadership. This leads them to turn a blind eye over repeated violations of international human rights laws and even the CCP’s utter disregard of environmental laws.
The CCP embodies everything these ‘humanitarian’ Australian political movements claim to be against. Their undying support and, in the case of the Prime Minister, diplomatic infatuation, remain a mystery to sensible people.
We cannot trust our international bureaucracies either. In 2021, the Office of the High Commissioner for the United Nations Human Rights said they were ‘alarmed’ by credible allegations of CCP organ harvesting.
Then, a few years later, the UN Human Rights Council elected China to serve its sixth term.
‘Diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ on an international level generally means ‘including’ ‘diverse’ approaches to morality, legality, and humanity.
This is far from the only dubious appointment by the UN. It’s time Australia asks whether we wish to have any part of this organisation as it collapses into a depraved quagmire of quasi-religious environmental propaganda, anti-capitalist dogma, and the empowerment of the world’s most ruthless and dangerous regimes while dragging nations such as Australia through the mud over trivial matters.
As an Australian Senator, I have many people come up to me at public events and ask for help.
Usually, they want me to combat the rise of brutal left-wing policy – a task that I’m dedicated to. They tell me heartbreaking stories about their lives that have been stolen by ill-conceived government directions and the general mismanagement of the Australian economy.
There are others, particularly migrants, who come to me wishing to raise awareness about the horrors of their homeland.
In particular, the hidden crimes of the Chinese Communist Party whose reach extends across our borders and into the Australian community.
For over 20 years, the world has been aware of the CCP’s disgusting underworld of human trafficking for black market organs.
However, because the CCP’s cheque book is vast, politicians have taken the money and sold the economic relationship back to the Australian people as a net benefit.
Since then, Australia has lost sovereignty over its manufacturing, energy, food, and communications network. Our natural beauty – beaches, oceans, forests, and farmland – are to be cut down and smothered with short-lived, CCP-built ‘renewable’ technology.
Cheap, substandard goods constructed with slave-like labour continues to out-compete our domestic retail landscape.
Is this the future we want for our children and their children?
Trade relationships have to be about more than just money.
They are about the future we create, the independence we hold, the stability of our civilisation, and the quality of our culture.
Pacific nations will no longer be able to come knocking at Australia’s door for assistance when a tariff from China can cripple our economy.
By sacrificing our economic independence to China, America will be the only entity policing freedom of navigation and trade routes in the Asia Pacific region.
And if Mr Albanese continues his antagonistic approach to America, we may no longer have that guarantee of safety either.
Murder masquerading as medicine by Senator Malcolm Roberts
Will Albanese question Xi Jinping about the CCP’s alleged human organ trade?
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Panda.jpg?fit=719%2C960&ssl=1960719Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-07-17 17:14:152025-07-17 17:14:22Murder Masquerading as Medicine
What we suspected all along about The Voice to Parliament …
When Australians rejected the Voice to Parliament, they were not saying ‘No’ to a single referendum question – it was ‘No’ to a broad activist ideology seeking to entrench racial privilege into democracy.
Australians were deeply offended by the push to create treaties between Australians.
They were horrified by the suggestion that taxation would become a matter of skin colour.
And they remain furious about efforts to erase Australian history and have ancestral stories brutalised by so-called ‘Truth-Telling’ commissions.
The experiences of our pioneers, convicts, and free settlers – the ancestors of so many Australians – have been deliberately and maliciously twisted with the full authority of state governments who see the past as a tool to implement vile racial movements which, ultimately, desire land and money that belong to all Australians.
Remember when ‘Yes’ proponents of the Voice promised their demands would be ‘mild’?
Racism is never mild. It is corrosive.
Western Australia has authorised an $85,000 per person ‘reconciliation payment’ for Aboriginal people. A payment that takes money off people who were never perpetrators and hands it to another group who were never victims.
This is not equality.
How many national parks, beaches, mountains, rivers, and forests have a racial lock on the gate?
We are seeing this in Victoria where the Jacinta Allan Labor government has ignored the voice of Victorians and pushed ahead with a Voice-like entity known as the First People’s Assembly – a body set up to negotiate a Treaty.
This month, the Yoorrook Justice Commission handed down 100 recommendations to the government, each more appalling than the last.
Many of these demand public money, resources, and power.
They ask that racial priority be given for housing, health, government contracts, and jobs. Widespread compensation, reparations, and tax relief is being sought for Aboriginals.
The recommendations are divisive and discriminatory suggesting that Aboriginal people should be treated differently from other Australians.
The Report says that the Victorian government must establish income streams based on land, water, and other natural resources to benefit self-determination and other First Peoples-led initiatives and to seek access to a portion of government revenues.
Victoria will soon have streets of families treated differently by the state government and local council based purely on how they look.
Living side-by-side, born under the same sun, and yet deemed unequal.
This is what people voted against.
One Nation does not support a bottomless money pit approach to perpetuate a victim mentality for Aboriginals and a permanent guilt trip to be imposed on the rest of Australia.
One Nation supports equitable access to all the benefits available to all Australians which should not discriminate based on a person’s race or faith.
We are all of One Nation.
Revealed! by Senator Malcolm Roberts
What we suspected all along about The Voice to Parliament
We need One Nation’s national-interest-first policies that will:
✔️ restore and protect Aussie industries
✔️ fix energy
✔️ cut immigration
✔️ restore sovereignty
Thanks for having me on your radio show Jason @2GB873
Transcript
Jason Morrison: There’s a lot of talk about Donald Trump, but there is actual stuff going on today with respect to tariffs. There’s a whole batch of countries that have had letters sent to them from the US government in the most bizarre manner on Truth Social, signed letters from President Trump saying, “Dear Japan, Dear South Korea, Dear Malaysia, Dear Kazakhstan, Dear South Africa, Dear Laos” – informing their leaders of the tariff situation and what will be imposed on them. Japan, Korea, 25% tariff to the US. The other nations – Malaysia, South Africa, Myanmar, Laos – they’re at 40%. You could go through the list. Now we haven’t got ours yet. And perhaps we could be given an extension because we still haven’t had a conversation with the guy. Right?
So maybe, just maybe, we might get it but there is a chance that we may get a letter too telling us what the outcome will be. So, when you think about it, this puts at risk our food industry exports, our mining industry exports, our gas and you think – put all those together, there’s really, I mean Queensland is the home of gas, of coal, of food. There’s a lot on the line for the state of Queensland, but a lot online for all of us here with this.
So, I thought I would just dip into Queensland for a second and talk about what the impact of this will be if this goes the way we fear it will go for Australia.
Malcolm Roberts is Senator for QLD – One Nation and One Nation has got, you know, they’re heading towards as many senators in the parliament as the National Party. So their view on this matters. I thought I’d talk to him. Malcolm Roberts, gidday.
Malcolm ROBERTS: Gidday. What do you mean dipping into Queensland? Is it just before the State of Origin, Jason?
Jason Morrison: Just before it, yeah. Just a little trip up north. I must say …
Malcolm ROBERTS: You’re not playing psychological games on us, are you?
Jason Morrison: I’ll tell you, we’ll try anything, anything at all. But you’ve got to think about it. Food exports, huge Queensland. Coal, huge Queensland. Gas, huge Queensland. It all happens in Queensland. And unfortunately NSW has made itself the recipient state, because if it wasn’t for you blokrd generating all the power, we wouldn’t have enough here too. Now that’s got nothing to do with tariffs, but it does show that these economies are fragile, and tariffs could do something.
Malcolm ROBERTS: I’m glad you mentioned energy actually. It’s not a distraction at all, Jason – it’s fundamental to a modern economy and modern civilization. And when we’re destroying our electricity grid, as we are across the whole of the East Coast of Australia, you know, SA, Victoria, NSW and Queensland, we are making ourselves into a very precarious position. But there is something else that needs to be added. Queensland has the potential for enormous exports of rare earths in minerals from northwestern QLD – there’s a whole area there still to be opened up and our state government for decades now have neglected the northwest. But we have got the potential for really putting Australia on the map when it comes to rare earth metals.
Jason Morrison: I should point out, Malcolm is (was) a mining engineer and I guess you never stop being a mining engineer and thank goodness he understands it because very few in parliament do, but what would be the impact of these US tariffs on the Australian mining industry, which powers this country?
Malcolm ROBERTS: I don’t know enough about the actual details of what they’re what tariffs are putting on, but I think Trump has shown throughout his life that he’s a negotiator. He throws the cards up in the air, catches everyone off guard and then jumps in when he’s picking up the cards. So I don’t know what he’s got in mind, but he has shown signals with other countries that he’s after rare earth metals for America to compete in the modern age. So there’s a huge opportunity for us there. But you know what’s really – what this is really is a wake up call. We haven’t been given a letter. We’ve just been assumed that we’re going to be treated like we’re still at 10%. But they are part of Trump’s agenda to put America first. And that’s something that our country needs to start doing. Under Liberal and Labor, for decades, we have not put Australia first. We’ve sold out on free trade agreements. We’ve sold out our manufacturing with the Lima Declaration in 1975, which the Labor Party signed and the Liberal Party ratified the following year in 76. So what we’ve got to do is take a lead from Donald Trump and start putting Australia first.
Jason Morrison: So let me turn that around. Would you support Australia having a tariff attitude?
Malcolm ROBERTS: I think we have – yes, I would.
Jason Morrison: So let’s put this practically speaking. So we could have maybe protected the Australian car industry from where it is now, which is almost non-existent. I mean we make buses and caravans here, we don’t make cars here, we could have actually kept one going?
Malcolm ROBERTS: Correct. We do need to consider – you know Whitlam signed the Lima Declaration which basically transferred our manufacturing to China and other Asian countries. That was done deliberately under the UN Lima Declaration in 1975. The Liberals have ratified that in 76 and have perpetuated it. Manufacturing has been shot. It’s not only tariffs that have caused the problem. The number one cost component in manufacturing, Jason, is not labour anymore, it’s not wages. It’s electricity by far and what we’ve done in this country with putting up UN policies, Net-Zero Paris Agreement etc, we are destroying our electricity sector. We’ve now got – we’ve gone from being the cheapest power in the world to amongst the most expensive. All due to the UN policies. And that is destroying our manufacturing. What we’re doing is we’re subsidising with our taxes and with electricity prices, the Chinese to build subsidised solar and wind complexes in this country. And we’re subsidising the Chinese to do it and to run it. And we’re then sending our manufacturing jobs to China.
Jason Morrison: It’s a really interesting point. I think people do forget that often. We think because this is an expensive country, our labour’s expensive versus the rest of the world, we pay big money per hour for people working manufacturing versus what other nations do, but they’re not dumb enough to put their power through the roof. Son we’ve done both.
Malcolm ROBERTS: Correct. And it’s not just power – power on manufacturers, on employers and businesses, it’s the higher cost of living due to failed energy policies. The rampant inhuman – I would call it inhuman – excessive immigration in this country, which is shooting house prices through the roof, making it unaffordable. People in – we’re really screwing the lives of people in their 20’s, the young adults, the future leaders of this country, future citizens of this country are being jacked off because they’re just facing HUGE cost increases. And electricity is a critical component in every part of our economy. And then we’ve got COVID fraud and mismanagement, which led to Pfizer and Moderna getting $18 billion in wealth transfers.
Jason Morrison: Oh, gosh, we don’t have enough time to do that. But yeah, you’re right.
Malcolm ROBERTS: But we have looked after foreign corporations, Jason.
Jason Morrison: Over the top.
Malcolm ROBERTS: That’s just one example.
Jason Morrison: Yeah, and you know, I always think about it because people always – people in their 20’s – I have kids that are in their – 13, 11 and 9, they don’t have a vote, they don’t have a say. And yet the decisions being made today are going to be decisions that they will pay for. And the kids of today are being punished by the stupidity and ignorance of so many people that are electing clowns to high office. And we’re getting basically – we’re not paying for it because they’ll be the ones that end up paying for it.
Malcolm ROBERTS: Correct. You hit the nail on the head and the reason is because, you know, our constitution is the only constitution in the world in which the people got a vote on the constitution before it was introduced. The only one! And that the constitution puts the people at the top of the sovereignty arrangements in this country. And yet what we’re doing – what we’re seeing in this country for decades under Labor and Liberal is people serving the government. It should be the government serving the people. Put Australia’s interests first. We need to be working to restore independence and that means freeing up electricity, stopping immigration at the moment and until we catch up with infrastructure and housing and until we can start to understand what’s really going on.
Jason Morrison: Yeah, hear, hear! I mean, you know there will be people listening – “listen to this radical stuff being spoken” – never a truer thing has been said. That is it! Good on you.
Malcolm ROBERTS: Our Prime Minister has met with XI Ji Jingping four times. Why so much effort into China? I know they’re a big trading partner, but why so much effort into China? What about the rest of the countries in the world, including America?
Jason Morrison: Yeah. That’s so true. Good on you. Nice talking to you, Malcolm. Thank you.
Malcolm ROBERTS: Thank you, Jason.
Jason Morrison: That’s Senator Malcolm Roberts from One Nation, who is a smart man and he’s one of these fellows when he speaks, it’s worth listening to what he’s got to say. Doesn’t just shoot from hip – you can tell he reads a lot and knows a lot. I think what we are seeing at the moment is just – it’s like they’ve pushed levers wrongly. They’re pushing up wages, pushing up power and they’re just making everything in Australia uncompetitive at the moment, including living here. It’s just you can’t help but think there must be somebody behind them pushing the levers for them because it’s just so dumb. And surely if you’re smart enough to get elected, you’re smart enough to know these are not smart.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Q9GUgh0qurY/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-07-10 11:52:012025-07-10 11:52:10US Tariffs Could Hit Queensland Hard
I recorded this video with former Qantas airline captain, Graham Hood. While many people have opinions on this topic, a small group is deeply engaged in it. Is the fear they spread justified in Australia?
Hoody and I have both independently investigated and researched the existence of chemtrails in Australia. With 53 years of flying experience—including 30 years as an airline captain—Hoody shares some amazing yet verified facts. The second half of our video discusses the fascinating aspects of our planet’s atmosphere.
Around the one-minute mark, Hoody briefly mentions his belief that weather geoengineering is already happening. I need evidence. That’s a conversation we plan to have in a future video—so stay tuned.
Just after the 51-minute mark, Hoody recommends a video from Del Bigtree’s YouTube channel – The Highwire. 👉Watch it below. This is a chat between two Americans, Del Bigtree and Jim Lee. Jim has spent years investigating chemtrails and based on his evidence, he explains that while there have been instances of the U.S. Air Force spraying chemtrails in the past, the issue today with commercial aircraft is not chemtrails, rather it’s real pollution.
Hoody reminds us of the Serenity Prayer, encouraging us to use our serenity, courage and wisdom to focus on the big issue. In Australia, are chemtrail claims a distraction from the bigger issue we all face: awakening and restoring our country – or are they a legitimate concern? You decide.
The Highwire: Del Bigtree Interviews Jim Lee
Transcript: Chemtrails or Contrails with Senator Malcolm Roberts and “Hoody” Graham Hood
Senator ROBERTS: Hi, this is Senator Malcolm Roberts at the House of Graham Hood, Captain Graham Hood.
Graham Hood: Former captain.
Senator ROBERTS: Former Captain Graham Hood, who’s a pilot for how many years, mate?
Graham Hood: 53 years a pilot, 32 years a captain of Qantas.
Senator ROBERTS: And an inquisitive mind. Both of us received many questions about what people call chemtrails, so we’ve had that in recent years. So I just want to ask Graham some questions and I also want to put some points to Graham and he can challenge me on them.
Graham Hood: Sure, sure. [inaudible 00:00:44]. Can I say something before we do?
Senator ROBERTS: You go, mate, it’s your [inaudible 00:00:47].
Graham Hood: I just want to say, look, the material that we’re going to present may upset some people, but whose whole life seems predicated on the existence of chemtrails. And I want to state right up front, as I’ve done a thousand times, that I totally believe that they are weather engineering. I totally believe that weather modification programs have been going on for a long time and they’re developing it in certain ways. But when I see people showing me a photograph of something that I see as normal in the sky, they don’t see it as normal, but I spent half a century up there. I think that there’s too much fear in the world that we live in now, and that it governs everything. It makes us all way too cynical, and I believe that people who are fighting for our freedoms are as guilty as perpetrating fear narratives on others to control them as on the other side. So I want to make it clear, I’m not here to convince you that what you are thinking is wrong.
Senator ROBERTS: Same here.
Graham Hood: All I want to do is give you an explanation to ease your burden a little bit because the real enemy is out there, the real enemy is… Let’s face it, we’re starting to see now a communist take over the world. That’s clear that that’s happening. And all these things are distractions, so we’ve got to make sure we keep our eye on the ball. So the reason I’m going through this again for the hundredth time is because it needs to be said because there’s too many people who are anxious to the point of distraction over what’s going on in the sky. And I just want to add mine to you bob’s worth. And I want anybody watching this to make up your own minds and play it how you see fit. That’s fine. I’m not here to control you, I’m not here to persuade you otherwise. I’m just here to tell you what I know.
Senator ROBERTS: All we want to do is stop people trying to control the population.
Graham Hood: That’s exactly right.
Senator ROBERTS: We’re not in favour of control and we don’t want to replace someone else’s attempt to control [inaudible 00:02:41] control. We just want to present some concepts and for people to think about.
Graham Hood: Absolutely.
Senator ROBERTS: And you took the words right out of my mouth. I’m going to use notes because we’ve got a lot of material. It’s pretty comprehensive. And Hoodie doesn’t know what I’ve got, he hasn’t read them, so I’m going to pop them on him. And I’m going to not read them, but I’m going to go through the points one by one on my list because that would be the best way of making it comprehensive. Now, a few constituents, as I said, have been concerned about these and have contacted us. When you see what governments have done with tens of thousands of homicides in this country alone with toxic injections forcibly injected into people, no real choice, and they’re trying to kill people, it’s willful ignorance or it’s deliberate, but they’re homicides regardless. Tens of thousands. Who wouldn’t be scared that when you see something in the sky, it’s not the government trying to pollute your lives. Who wouldn’t be?
Graham Hood: I’m 100 times more sceptical than I was five years ago about things, and that’s natural. Healthy scepticism is good, but we’ve got to make sure we manage that because otherwise they get control over us in much easier ways than we would let them normally.
Senator ROBERTS: And that fear, as Hoodie said, and I agree, is understandable. Let me also point out the Baeder-Meinhof effect. The Baeder-Meinhof phenomenon. This is a definition a reader… Known as the frequency illusion is a cognitive bias where something recently learned or suddenly noticed seems to appear everywhere even though its actual frequency hasn’t changed. So this perception is due to your brain’s increased attention and awareness towards that specific element. It’s like getting another car, whether second-hand or you get a different model car, all of a sudden you start seeing that car everywhere before you didn’t see it.
Graham Hood: Exactly. Michelle’s got plantar fasciitis at the moment, which is a tearing of muscle structure under the foot. I’ve never heard of that until now. And now everyone I meet’s got plantar fasciitis. And I’m noticing it because… They always had it, but I’m now noticing it because people are talking about it.
Senator ROBERTS: Before it just didn’t register.
Graham Hood: Didn’t register, yeah.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m also concerned on the other hand, Hoodie, that many people in our communities cannot see the things that I’ve seen for many, many years. The UN Lima Declaration, which gutted our manufacturing. Even Kyoto Protocol, which gutted our energy sector. Paris Agreement, Net Zero. These are things that are real and we have difficulty-
Graham Hood: We talked today about the Howard government and how they got control of farmer’s land-
Senator ROBERTS: Stole it.
Graham Hood: Stole it. And how they did it in a way that was… That’s a story, that’s a whole other show in and of itself. Yeah.
Senator ROBERTS: Agenda 21’s sustainable development goals.
Graham Hood: Yeah.
Senator ROBERTS: So many people ridicule the notion of chemtrails in Australia. I don’t ridicule the idea. I’m open to there being chemtrails in Australia. I have never denied it. I won’t say there are chemtrails in Australia because I haven’t seen evidence for it. So I won’t say there aren’t any, I won’t say there are some. I just don’t know. And I think it’s likely, highly likely that the USA military are doing trials on these things. USA military, the American military have done inhuman experiments with drugs and chemicals that have killed army people and army soldiers in America, and they’re probably doing the same with the Air Force. And a high proportion of what people claim is evidence that comes to us is from the Americans.
Now, people may not know this, but I publicly invited anybody in Australia or anywhere in the world to send me evidence of these events in Australia. And I did that on the 13th of September 2022, open invitation on my website and on social media. Repeatedly, I issued that invitation. And we have researched Civil Aviation Safety Authority, the ACT and Snowy Authority, the ACT territory government. We’ve researched the Snowy Hydro Tassie about cloud seeding. Freedom of Information, Parliamentary Library. We know that there’s been cloud seeding in Tassie.
Graham Hood: I nearly got a job doing cloud seeding when I was a young pilot in Tassie.
Senator ROBERTS: We know that they’ve cloud seated in the Snowy. We know that they’ve cloud seated in the ACT or at least talked about it. We also know that that cloud seeding, sometimes it’s from aircraft, sometimes it’s from ground-based cannons shooting into the atmosphere. We’ve asked the Parliamentary Library to research the use of potential chemtrails, they have failed to find evidence. And if the Parliamentary Library can’t find it, it’s not there. That’d be fantastic. They’re neutral from Parliament, so they’re not playing games. We confirmed cloud seeding, as I said, ground-based and aerial, and most of the time it failed. Cloud seeding is expensive and it’s not very effective. Snowy Hydro is currently exploring the use of it again.
Graham Hood: But once again, cloud seeding requires cloud to be present, to be seated. It is not to create cloud, it’s to get the cloud to dump the moisture. And it does that by introducing microscopic nuclei into the cloud for the microscopic nuclei that’s in there to fasten itself to. So you might get a particle of silver iodide in the cloud, which attracts maybe 4,000 little minute microscopic molecules of water, [inaudible 00:08:15] into one droplet heavy enough to fall out of the cloud. So that’s been going on since the 1950s. CSIRO were doing all that sort of stuff.
Now, whether that’s right or wrong or whether it’s good or not, that’s debatable. But as I said, when I was a young sprog pilot back in the late 70s, I was offered a job flying a light aircraft around at low level, dropping silver iodide into cumulus clouds to get them to rain on drought affected areas. I didn’t get the job, somebody else got it. But yeah, I’m aware that that’s been going on. But I reiterate, you have to have cloud to seed. Cloud seeding is not making cloud, it’s getting existing cloud to drop the water.
Senator ROBERTS: And while I don’t respect CASA, Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
Graham Hood: Me neither.
Senator ROBERTS: They’re the ones who have to issue permits. So if they’re lying to me in Senate estimates, then I need proof that they’re lying to me. I can’t just accuse them of lying and I won’t do that, not even understand privilege. I won’t do that unless I believe they’re lying and I have not seen evidence to that effect. We’ve also known that the British air force, the American air force during the Second World War used to drop pieces of aluminium. They call it aluminium chaff, long thin strips of aluminium deliberately to confuse the enemy radar. So that’s known. But that’s not a chemical to drop out of the sky, that’s a metal that they’re dropping out of the sky.
Graham Hood: Would pitfall.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s right. Out of aluminium.
Graham Hood: Yeah.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s not geoengineering. We also know that crop dusting pushes out insecticides and fertilisers. That’s not geoengineering. It’s not a chemtrails. We know that that’s happening.
Graham Hood: That’s been going on for your aeons as well.
Senator ROBERTS: And we know that helicopters, pilots in Queensland, South East Queensland are baiting fire ants. That’s a ridiculous notion, but they’re not baiting fire ants, they’re spreading toxic pesticides, insecticides around. That’s not geoengineering. We know that they’re happening. We don’t like it and we’re doing what we can to stop it.
Graham Hood: It’s still corrupted. And once again, government demonstrating it can’t be trusted.
Senator ROBERTS: Correct. So there’s no evidence to support chemtrails in Australia. I’m a senator for Queensland and Australia. I’m interested in what’s happening in America and other places, but I’m vitally concerned with what’s happening in Australia and after extensive research, my office and I cannot find any evidence of chemtrails or geoengineering in our country.
You know this from being a pilot, I know it from being an engineer and a mine manager, if I lied and did not do my numbers properly, people died. Same with you. So if we pursue unsubstantiated claims, it destroys my credibility for other issues. It wastes my staff time and my time. It wastes our energy. It stops us chasing real issues for constituents.
Graham Hood: It’s a distraction.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s a distraction. If there’s evidence though, I will chase the hell out of it. I’ve done that with climate fraud and I keep doing it with climate fraud. I’ve done it now in my own time and in Senate time for close on 17 years. So climate fraud. COVID, I’ve chased that like a demon and I’ll still keep chasing. Infant injections, environmental aspects [inaudible 00:11:29], water. So let me now go through, Hoodie, and contradict me if you think I’m wrong. This is what people send us. “What about all the patents, Malcolm? What about all the patents?” You can get a patent granted to you for an idea, a concept, it doesn’t mean it’s actually happening. So that’s not evidence of chemtrails.
Graham Hood: The patent offices around the world are filled with millions, hundreds of millions of designs that have never been implemented. So a patent doesn’t mean anything.
Senator ROBERTS: No.
Graham Hood: Nothing.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s not evidence.
Graham Hood: No.
Senator ROBERTS: What about grant submissions and proposals for geoengineering to dim the sun because of climate fraud? That doesn’t mean anything either. It’s just a grant submission, a grant application. Why? Because they’re in on the climate fraud and they want to get the moolah. They want to get the cash out of the climate scam. Then I think this is a common one that people have sent to you, pictures of clouds. Pictures of clouds or of a flight path on its own. That’s it. That’s not evidence of chemtrails, it’s not evidence of geoengineering.
Graham Hood: No. And hopefully later on I can explain how those things exist and why and why they last longer than they used to.
Senator ROBERTS: A storm is not proof of anything. A picture of a storm or a record rainfall or sub-record rainfall, that’s not evidence of anything, that’s just evidence of a storm. And Hoodie, this is something that I think is very, very important. Nature absolutely dwarfs humanity. The amount of energy captured in the sky is phenomenal. The amount of energy required to lift a glider, a soarer, a pilot, a kilometre into the air, it is just phenomenal.
Graham Hood: Absolutely.
Senator ROBERTS: They can have 10, 15 glider pilots on one thermal and they’re all going up in one thermal. That amount of energy is incomprehensible to humans. But that’s there in just a small part of the atmosphere [inaudible 00:13:21] the whole atmosphere. We lived in Emerald, a wonderful town in central Queensland, my wife and I, and there was a… Lake Maraboon, Fairbairn Dam, it was getting close to being empty. It’s a massive dam and it’s got only a small catchment area. They were putting in place water restrictions and all of a sudden we got a storm. Seven days that dam was not only full, it was overflowing. Half of central Queensland was under water.
There is no way anyone can comprehend the power required to take that much water from the Pacific Ocean, 150 kilometres inland, dump it in a small catchment area and flood our dam and flood central Queensland.
Graham Hood: It’s phenomenal.
Senator ROBERTS: Nature is just so impressive. So we will have little chance of controlling the weather, but I’ll raise that again. Hoodie, what about this one? “Malcolm, there are United States in America where they are legislating against chemtrails.”
Graham Hood: Wonderful.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s good. That’s good.
Graham Hood: Wonderful.
Senator ROBERTS: But we’ve got legislation here and in the United States against burning hydrocarbon fuels to reduce carbon dioxide. That’s all bullshit. Just because someone passes legislation doesn’t mean anything. It’s the evidence that the actual event is happening.
Graham Hood: But if I could say there when I said wonderful, I mean that’s great because in order to do that, they have to investigate it because how do they determine who’s doing it and why and where it’s coming from. I think RFK said in the States the other day, they’re going to look into the chemtrail phenomenon, I think that’s brilliant because at last we’ll get some real evidence.
Senator ROBERTS: Whether it occurs.
Graham Hood: Whether it occurs or not. So that [inaudible 00:15:06] I think that’s fantastic. So I’m all for that.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. And what I raised that for was to say that we’ve got derpy bastards in Congress in America, derpy bastards in Parliament and Australia and the UK and many other countries around the world that are passing legislation that’s based on rubbish. So just because they passed legislation does not mean anything, but the fact that they will have to enforce it or try to enforce it, that does mean something. So I agree with you.
Graham Hood: Yep.
Senator ROBERTS: Then I watched The Dimming. People said, “Watch The Dimming, Hoodie. Come on, watch The Dimming, Malcolm.” The Dimming is a movie by Dane Wigington?
Graham Hood: Yeah.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s American. It’s a 40-minute video. I lasted 20 minutes. It is just crap. There is no scientific understanding behind the production of that video. That’s my view.
Graham Hood: Yeah, look, I’ve watched it several times because I interviewed Dane Wigington and I find him a very charismatic… He’s a charming guy, he’s a really nice guy, but he’s very passionate about this. But a lot of the evidence that he presents is so easy for anyone with any knowledge of this to shoot holes in. And when you start to doubt some of the information that people have presented, you are automatically led to doubt all of it. If he’s wrong about World War II bombers over Germany making chemtrails-
Senator ROBERTS: And you’re going to show that picture later.
Graham Hood: I’ll show you a picture that proves that he’s wrong and the logic just defies belief that they would even be doing that. The average lifespan of the American bomber crew over Europe in daylight bombing raids was four missions. Nearly all of them died. They just really copped it. I’ve been inside one of those B-17 bombers. There’s no room. You can’t swing a cat in there. They’re not huge, they’re only little.
They were scrounging for every ounce they could get to carry fuel to get them home and ammunition to keep the fighters at bay. The notion that they were up there experimenting, doing beta testing is laughable. I presented a photograph taken from the front of the bomber squadron, which upset Dane Wiginton when I interviewed him. It upset him because-
Senator ROBERTS: It destroyed his argument.
Graham Hood: It destroyed his argument. And that photo will be included. That’ll be included in this video for you to see for yourself.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s move on. There’s a video that I’ve been sent as claiming to be proof President Lyndon Johnson saying, “We are working on getting control of the weather.” What he’s doing there, he is doing what some politicians do, he’s telling lies. They might be working on it, but he implied in a dishonest way that they’re getting controlled further. Why? Because tornadoes kill people. Hurricanes and cyclones kill people.
Graham Hood: Flags kill people.
Senator ROBERTS: We’ll look after you mate, Mr. Taxpayer. We’ll look after you. We’ll spend your money on research, which will get us to control the weather. And then you’ll only have beautiful days and rain when the farmers want it.
Graham Hood: Yeah. And you can bet your bottom dollar they were working on it then as they’re working on it now.
Senator ROBERTS: Yep. Weather events, I’ve been told storms, Lismore’s rainfall in the 2022 flood. Jennifer Marohasy, who’s a known climate scientist and very highly regarded, she also is a marine biologist, she’s very, very objective. She said that the rainfall in 2022 around Lismore was less than in 1955. And in Brisbane we’ve had floods in 2022, 2020 rather, 2011… Sorry, 2022, 2011. And then they were small compared to 1974. 1974 was tiny compared to 1893 when we had three floods in one summer in Brisbane, and they were tiny compared to the 1841 floods, which were tiny compared to some of the earlier records in nature.
Graham Hood: Yeah, [inaudible 00:18:57] 1974 flood on the Gold Coast. We saw canal front homes just disappearing under the water. That was incredible back there.
Senator ROBERTS: So floods are nothing unusual. Everyone should have heard of Dorothy Mackellar’s poem, I Love a Sunburnt Country. You get droughts, floods, and when we get a drought or a flood or a bushfire, people say, “It’s global warming.” It’s not, it’s just life in Australia.
Graham Hood: Then you’ve got other people saying it’s weather modification. So is it global warming or weather modification? So you’ve got two [inaudible 00:19:26] fighting one another.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s just nature.
Graham Hood: It’s just nature.
Senator ROBERTS: So we have not seen any evidence of weather modification or chemtrails coming out of that. And then some people say Hoodie, “The water is contaminated. These chemicals are falling out of the sky and contaminated the water.” Yet the national water quality testing shows no chemicals other than the normal background trace chemicals that aren’t at normal levels, nothing unusual, there’s been no spike. State governments and federal governments monitor these. There’s nothing special, not nationally, not in any state, not in any region. So they’re [inaudible 00:20:02] tailoring anything. And then, mate, when I say to people, “That’s not evidence, we need this kind of evidence, which I’ll go into in a little while,” I get told, “You’re a Turkey,” or, “You’re a F-wit,” or, “You’re a whatever.” Name-calling and labelling is not evidence. So I just say evidence please when they come back with me at that.
Graham Hood: Yeah, I’ve been called a baby killer by heaps of people. This is the thing that people have got to recognise too. If they, who are doing this, are doing this, then where do they live? What atmosphere do they live under? Do they walk around in PBE? You know what I’m saying?
Senator ROBERTS: Yeah.
Graham Hood: Why would you willingly go up and poison the atmosphere you yourself are living in. The atmosphere is being poisoned just by nature of us doing the things we do, but the climate has a way of dealing with all of that. It always has. It always has.
Senator ROBERTS: So there’s nothing [inaudible 00:21:00] going on. And in fact, when people send me what they see as evidence and I debunk it or say, “That’s not evidence, and I need something” along the lines I’ve talked about in a minute, and they resort to name-calling or giving me a label. That tells me they haven’t got evidence because if they had evidence, they would’ve given it to me. So when you slander me, slur me or defile me, that’s not evidence.
Then somebody’s mentioned Atmospherica are in Toowoomba. It’s a company that’s in Toowoomba. I’ve gone to their website. They claim to be able to modify droughts to get rain. They claim to be able to one day or potentially if you hire them, decrease the impacts of tornadoes in America. Now, I saw no evidence on their website. I’m open to a conversation with them. So if anyone knows anyone in Atmospherica, give me a call. I might even give them a call. But I saw no evidence, only claims of results and claims of potential results.
So the only results that I could see on their website were of rain that they claim was due to them putting in drought busting cloud seeding.
Graham Hood: Cloud seeding again?
Senator ROBERTS: I think so, yeah.
Graham Hood: Okay.
Senator ROBERTS: But it was very, very vague, nothing specific. So I’d welcome a chat and a briefing. The other thing, Hoodie, that’s disturbing, and basically if you come back to the understanding of climate science, an understanding of science, people don’t understand what science is. They don’t understand what court evidence is. To get a guilty verdict in a court case, if you took them to court and accused them of putting dangerous chemicals into the air, what would a judge or a jury need to be able to convict them? That’s what’s got to happen. So I’ll get onto that in a minute. Let’s talk about it now.
What you need is empirical scientific data. You need observations with the eyes, ears. You need measured results. What was put into the plane? What came out of the plane? Did you see it coming out of the plane? Did you measure it coming out of the plane? Did you measure the impact on the ground, measure it in the atmosphere? You have another plane coming along. That’s what’s needed, empirical scientific data, empirical, actual observed, and recorded. That’s what we need. But that’s not all you need. What you need is logical scientific points. You need the data within a logical scientific point, which is a framework that says, “This happened, it caused this. This was the input.” Who put this into the plane? What did they put into the plane? Why did they put into the plane?
Graham Hood: Who made what they put into the plane?
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. When did they put it into plane? Where did they fly? What were the measurements coming out of it? These are all needed for us to make a strong case. Just imagine a judge or a jury wanting to find someone guilty of putting toxic chemicals into the air. So what’s happened is that science has been doctored for climate, there’s no empirical scientific data within logical scientific points. It’s all experts being quoted, it’s all models being used, which are unvalidated and erroneous. So they’ve already been disproved themselves, but still we’ve got lots of the Western world being crippled by energy shortages now based upon bullshit.
But the other thing is you’ve got to prove cause and effect. This was done, this was the effect. That’s part of it. So you need three things, empirical scientific data. Observations, within logical scientific points that prove cause and effect, this happened and this was the result. So then we’ve got the confusion with reality. That’s the next topic and I’d like you to jump in here, Hoodie. Contrails, mate. What about contrails?
Graham Hood: Contrails is short for condensation trails.
Senator ROBERTS: Condensation trails.
Graham Hood: Condensation trails. Look, a lot of people have said, and we even talked with Christine, your wife here today over lunch, and she said, “When I was a kid in the 60s and 70s, condensation trails over the USA didn’t last very long. They petered out, but now they’re big, they last forever and they spread out and they form cloud.” She’s right and the reasons why she’s right I’d like to explain.
Senator ROBERTS: You gave us a great explanation before. [inaudible 00:25:22].
Graham Hood: And I’ll be putting photographs up for people to have a look at. I’ve done this before, bet some people may have seen this stuff. Back in the early stages of the jet age when the Boeing 707 and the Whispering T-Jet, the 727.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s that? 60s, 70s, 90s.
Graham Hood: 60s, 70s, yeah. When they brought jet air travel into the world, the engine size of those aircraft was small by comparison to today. They were also what was called a turbojet engine or a low bypass jet engine. In other words, all the fuel was burn to create the thrust through the core of the jet engine itself. So the more fuel you burn, the more thrust you created and the further you could go and the faster you could go.
Senator ROBERTS: So the fuel came in, ignited, went at the back creating thrust, which moved the plane forward?
Graham Hood: That’s right. So the turbine engine worked like that basically. That was very inefficient. You’ll see a lot of footage of 707s and DC-8s taking off from Mascot or wherever in the old days, and you see them on takeoff. You see these black clouds of soot coming out of the back of the engine.
Senator ROBERTS: Products of combustion.
Graham Hood: Products of combustion. Very, very inefficient. Then along come the high bypass engines of today, and this is a Boeing 737. This is the aeroplane I used to fly in Qantas. The engines of today are that much bigger. Now, the Boeing 707, the first jet airliner, apart from the Comet, the Havilland Comet, which had small engines as well.
Senator ROBERTS: It was a British Constellation that came on after them.
Graham Hood: No, the Super Constellation was a propeller-driven aeroplane.
Senator ROBERTS: Oh, that’s right. Okay.
Graham Hood: The Comet was the jet engine of the British and the 707 was the equivalent from Boeing.
The engines on the 707 were that small by comparison. And here’s a photo that I’m going to insert. This is John Travolta standing alongside a Qantas 707 jet engine. He’s leaning on the top of it. I would be flat out fitting down the middle of that engine. If they took the core of it out and the engine to settle the cowling, I would be flat out fitting down there myself.
Senator ROBERTS: I get down in there?
Graham Hood: You might just get [inaudible 00:27:39]. But then you have this aeroplane, the Boeing 737. You can fit four of those 707 engines inside that engine.
Senator ROBERTS: The same amount of thrust?
Graham Hood: Probably, yeah. Now, if we’re talking semantics about the numbers, I haven’t got those numbers.
Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean you would [inaudible 00:27:59]?
Graham Hood: The size of the jet engine itself that sits off wing, you could pack four of those into this engine [inaudible 00:28:08] here.
Senator ROBERTS: So engines have grown much, much bigger?
Graham Hood: Much bigger, bigger.
Senator ROBERTS: Bigger size.
Graham Hood: Now, the jet core in the engine itself, which is geared now to a gearbox, which drives a big fan, turbofan in the front of the cowling. The turbofan produces about 85% of the thrust. And the jet core itself, which used to produce 100% of the thrust in the early engines, is now producing some thrust to drive the aircraft forward, but most of the energy is used to drive that big fan.
Senator ROBERTS: So the fan creates most of the thrust.
Graham Hood: The fan creates most of the thrust.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’ve got fuel being ignited in the jet core, which then turns the turbine, which delivers the thrust?
Graham Hood: Right. That intake is sucking in vast volumes more of atmosphere than the Boeing 707 engine used to. If that atmosphere is carrying a lot of water vapour-
Senator ROBERTS: Which is normal.
Graham Hood: Which is normal, but that varies. When we have droughts, there’s not a lot of water vapour in the sky. That’s why we have droughts. But in conditions where there’s a lot of water vapour in the sky, we get a lot of rain and that water vapour condenses. So this huge engine here, which is big by comparison to the 707 sucks in vast amounts, more atmosphere, squeezes it like a sponge, condenses it, passes that condensation over a hot jet core in the middle of the engine, which is 1,700 degrees.
Senator ROBERTS: 1,700 degrees centigrade.
Graham Hood: Centigrade. As it comes out the back, it’s starting to turn into steam. Now, the temperature out here at cruising altitude before the air goes through the engine is about minus 55 degrees centigrade.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s way less than freezing temperature.
Graham Hood: Way less than freezing temperature. But those that water vapour, which is a gas, has to turn into a water droplet before it can freeze. So when the engine sucks in all that atmosphere squeezes, it, compresses all that water vapour, then super heats it through past the core, then it comes out the back, it goes from minus 55 here, passes through the core here over 1700 degrees Celsius, and comes out the back through that exhaust pipe at the back, around that exhaust pipe at the back. And the temperature of that exhaust pipe is around 780 to 800 degrees.
Senator ROBERTS: So coming out of the exhaust?
Graham Hood: Out of the exhaust.
Senator ROBERTS: [inaudible 00:30:35].
Graham Hood: So all that moisture just-
Senator ROBERTS: Which is way, way, way, way above boiling point.
Graham Hood: Way above boiling point.
Senator ROBERTS: So any moisture coming out of the back comes out of steam?
Graham Hood: That’s right. And then what happens is that that’s superheated-
Senator ROBERTS: [inaudible 00:30:51] visible?
Graham Hood: Yeah.
Senator ROBERTS: Usually?
Graham Hood: Yeah. So when that superheated water droplets come out the back, they come out the back in minus 55 degrees again and they freeze into microscopic ice particles, crystals, and they form Cirrus clouds.
Senator ROBERTS: So Cirrus cloud is composed of ice crystals?
Graham Hood: Ice crystals.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay.
Graham Hood: And they’re minute and they’re not dense enough to be able to fall out of the sky. They remain suspended in the upper atmosphere. And if they did, they would start to thaw and they would evaporate before they got anywhere near the ground anyway. So these engines, as a byproduct of thrust, are producing Cirrus Cloud. Now, that then lingers because there’s much more volume than there used to be in the old days. Now, you look at that-
Senator ROBERTS: Can we also just point out something else? With a con trail, quite often, depends on the atmosphere that quite often the actual trail will be seen some distance behind the wing.
Graham Hood: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Because it takes… The plane is moving forward. So when the ice comes out of the jet engine-
Graham Hood: When the steam comes out, yeah.
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, when the steam comes out at the jet engine, by the time the planes move forward in another second, you’ve got a huge gap before it actually freezes. And so you’ve got a gap between the plain wing, the plain engine, and the actual start of the white condensation trail [inaudible 00:32:22].
Graham Hood: That’s right. That’s right. Now, if you were spraying out of a nozzle along in a tank, you’d see it connected to the nozzle, you’d see the spray connected to the nozzle.
Senator ROBERTS: You’d see the trail coming out-
Graham Hood: The trail coming out of the nozzle
Senator ROBERTS: Or out of the wing.
Graham Hood: Now, I’m talking, but this is a short haul aeroplane. This is a small aeroplane, a Boeing 777, which is one of the largest twin-engine aeroplanes around, and you’ve got the Airbus A330, A350, and other variants they’re bringing out, the engines that drive those bigger aircraft is as big as the fuselage, this cabin area in diameter.
Senator ROBERTS: So the whole cabin can almost fit inside the core of the-
Graham Hood: [inaudible 00:33:06] engine of a 777 or one of the larger Airbuses.
Senator ROBERTS: And you’re going to show a picture.
Graham Hood: I’ll show a diagram of that. So basically I could fly that fuselage, that entire cabin down the throat of a 777 engine. Imagine the difference in production of turning water vapour into condensation through an engine that’s that big. And then you get the A380, the super jumbo whose engines are even bigger than that again. And here’s a photo of a man standing underneath an A380 engine. And you can see for yourself. These new high bypass turbofan engines produce Cirrus Cloud as a byproduct of thrust.
Senator ROBERTS: And the amount of thrust coming out of a modern large jet engine is many, many, many times greater than that or greater than the early jet engines.
Graham Hood: Greater than the early jet engines.
Senator ROBERTS: In the space of just 70 years, which is the lifespan of a man or a woman, we have come that far. So what’s the consequence of that in what we see in the sky?
Graham Hood: The consequence is that if you get the volume of air traffic that we have every day around the world, what was it, 38 million flights?
Senator ROBERTS: In a year.
Graham Hood: In a year. 38 million commercial airline flights a year and they’re pumping out all that kerosene, burning all that kerosene in the upper atmosphere, and they’re turning moist air masses into cloud, that stuff lingers in the upper atmosphere, and yes, aircraft like these are producing cloud, but not in the fairest ways that people think.
Senator ROBERTS: And another point you mentioned to Christine, and she raised this where she said, “Off will go a Virgin flight, two minutes behind, we’ll go Jetstar flight.”
Graham Hood: Now you’re talking about the patterns in the sky. Everyone says, “What are these grid patterns?” All right, so early morning, an early day staff for me in Sydney, for example-
Senator ROBERTS: Cold air.
Graham Hood: Cold air. If I was the first flight of the day out of Sydney, the curfew comes off at 6:00 AM. And let’s say here I am in my Boeing 737 taxiing out to Runway 16 in Sydney to depart to Melbourne. And stacked up behind me in the queue is another probably one of these, which is going down over Canberra towards Adelaide, and then there’ll be a Jetstar one going down over Canberra towards Adelaide, there’ll be a Virgin one going down over Canberra towards Adelaide, and then there’ll be another Virgin, Jetstar, whatever, going to over Canberra to Melbourne. So in the space of an hour, you’ve probably got a couple of dozen flights heading down over Canberra, for example. I’m using Canberra as an example.
Now, the upper atmosphere that we fly in when we go north-south is generally moving across the sky from west to east-
Senator ROBERTS: Heading for New Zealand.
Graham Hood: Heading for New Zealand. The velocity of the air mass moving through can be anything from 30 or 40 knots or say 100 Kilometres an hour upwards to 300 Kilometres an hour depending on the-
Senator ROBERTS: 300 kilometres an hour?
Graham Hood: The wind speed up can be over 150, 180 knots.
Senator ROBERTS: So the plane’s going basically south, but the air above it or below-
Graham Hood: The air it’s flying in.
Senator ROBERTS: And the air is flying is going sideways at 300 Kilometres an hour?
Graham Hood: Right. So if there was no air and I was flying this aeroplane on this heading, track to Melbourne, if there was no wind, then my track and my heading would be the same because there’s no wind that I’ve got [inaudible 00:36:45], but in winds that are strong like that I’d be flying to Melbourne at an angle like that.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re going sideways.
Graham Hood: I’m laying off into the wind, right? So you can get to the same destination. So I’ve taken off at 6:00, Virgin’s taken off behind me at two minutes past 6:00, the MS that I flew through two minutes ahead of Virgin has been blown, let’s say, a kilometres or two kilometres to the left, I’m heading south. Then Virgin flies through that same air mass and he makes a trail and it’s been blown across. So we’re setting up railway tracks.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’ve got many, many lines?
Graham Hood: Many, many lines. And they’re all look like they’re being flown deliberately. They are being flown deliberately, but the air has moved on carrying the Cirrus cloud that was created as a condensation trail with it.
Senator ROBERTS: So the air over your flight, by the time the Virgin flight comes over, that same air with your trail is over here somewhere?
Graham Hood: That’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: Actually a kilometre or so away, so it’s way [inaudible 00:37:49].
Graham Hood: Yeah. So you see these railway T track lines, but then they say, “What about the checkerboard pattern?” All right, that’s-
Senator ROBERTS: Crisscrosses.
Graham Hood: Crisscrosses. This is going from Sydney to Melbourne in my example. At the same time you’ve got flights coming from New Zealand, from Christchurch, Wellington, Auckland that are flying across to Perth, maybe across to Melbourne or across to Adelaide or to Asia, Africa. They’re all flying across the east coast. They’re over-
Senator ROBERTS: [inaudible 00:38:20].
Graham Hood: They’re leaving a trail as well. And then before you know it, you get these patterns forming in the sky. These patterns from these kinds of aeroplanes , civil airline, Cirrus clouds being produced as a by-product of the thrust of the engine. I have never flown one of these with a chemtrail switch in it. I’ve never seen a tank where chemicals would be put in it. The one thing I will say is that in my 36,000-hour flying career, I burned over 100,00 tonnes of kerosene in the upper atmosphere.
Senator ROBERTS: 100,000 tonnes.
Graham Hood: 100,000 tonnes.
Senator ROBERTS: One pilot.
Graham Hood: Yeah, one pilot. Now, when we are putting that kind of pressure on the upper atmosphere, things are going to change. But is it deliberately being done? How can it be deliberately being done? If you think that chemtrails are killing people and you think it’s being sprayed from aeroplanes like this, then don’t buy an airline ticket to Melbourne. Don’t fly to London.
Senator ROBERTS: Don’t go to Bali.
Graham Hood: Don’t go to Bali because the aeroplane, I will guarantee you that at some part of the flight from Brisbane to Bali, your aircraft that you are on at some stage will pass through a moist air mass and it will leave a condensation trail, which if you were on the ground would call a chem trail.
Senator ROBERTS: So I’ll give people another example. You can stand next to a modern coal-fired power station, which uses scrubbers to take the real pollutants, the sulphur dioxide, the nitrous oxide, the particulates out of the blue gases coming out of the boiler. So you’re left with two gases, carbon dioxide, which is invisible, odourless, colourless, tasteless, you can’t even see it, you can’t even feel it. And the other gas coming out is steam, water vapour. Now, on a normal day you’ll see nothing visible coming out of there, but there’s water vapour and carbon dioxide coming out. On a hot day you won’t see anything because there’s no condensation. But on a cold day you’ll see white stuff coming out of the smokestack because that’s steam. It condenses in the chimney and it’s a little bit above the chimney where that condensation starts. And that then billows.
And then if you want to go further and you want to get that on a cold sunset and you put the sun behind the chimney, all of that steam suddenly turns into dark shadow.
Graham Hood: Shadow.
Senator ROBERTS: And it looks like a highly polluting coal-fired power station. It’s producing virtually no pollution, just carbon dioxide and water vapour, both invisible. But because of the tricks they play, it’s made out to be a pollutant. So what I’m saying is, same with the coal-fired power station, on a cold day you’ll see steam coming out or water vapour coming out. The same power station, just an hour later you’ll see nothing coming out, but there’s plenty coming out. But it’s invisible because of the condensation.
Graham Hood: Exactly right. And let’s look at early in the morning, you’re going to work at six o’clock in the morning in winter, you start your car, you back it out of the garage, you go and close your garage door, you walk around the back of your car and you can see all the steam coming out of the exhaust. What do you see touching the driveway? Water droplets falling out of your exhaust pipe? Condensation.
Senator ROBERTS: And also people somehow think that the atmosphere is smooth. It’s far from smooth, it’s hardly dynamic. I know my son when he was a 15-year-old, I took him up to do a John Derian to the soaring school of gliders. Soarers, they called them. And they had excellent weather forecast there. And they would tell us, I’m going to not exaggerate, but I’m just going to pull these figures out of my head, not from my memory, just out of my imagination. The ground we might be feeling the wind coming from the west, just a few thousand metres up, the air would be coming from the east. Completely opposite, a few thousand metres above that, the air might be coming from the north. A few thousand kilometres above that might be coming from the south.
So you’ve got air going every which way. And all we can see from down here, and so we can just feel the air is coming from the west. That’s it. But it’s coming from every direction. And then in each of those areas, each of those levels, you’ll have a certain pressure, you’ll have a certain temperature, you’ll have a certain moisture content. And so you can see the complexity of the natural air environment. That’s why some planes will be flying in one level and they will produce contrails. Another one on another level won’t produce contrails. Is that plausible?
Graham Hood: That’s exactly right.
Senator ROBERTS: So people say, “The one without the contrails is, see-“
Graham Hood: He is not spraying.
Senator ROBERTS: He’s not spraying. The one with the contrasts, he must be spraying because it’s all one atmosphere, but it’s not.
Graham Hood: You’ve got to imagine too that if those aircraft are at the same altitude, there’s a risk of collision. They’re deliberately kept a couple of thousand feet apart. So the aeroplane higher might be making a contrail and the one lower isn’t in an atmospheric situation to produce a contrail.
Senator ROBERTS: And you mentioned contrails are the jet engine and also the airfoil over the wing increases pressure, pressure, temperature and moisture content determine whether or not a contrail is formed.
Graham Hood: That’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: And I know that having been in Riverfire, seen the jets in Riverfire, what do they call them, Super Hornets?
Graham Hood: Super Hornets, yeah.
Senator ROBERTS: They come tearing up the river and we’re looking down on these planes, these little Hornets from a skyscraper, and they’re suddenly bank to go up over the story bridge. A beautiful site, it’s absolutely stunning. And these pilots just shooting straight upwards. And the moment they start turning, you start seeing contrails, moisture coming off the shoulders of the engines and bits of the wing. And that’s because of the pressure.
Graham Hood: Pressure differential, which is causing compression and therefore squeezing the moisture out of the atmosphere. The vapour turns into water droplets. That’s where you get those clouds forming on top of the wings.
Senator ROBERTS: And then something else you told me, which is common sense, if you’ve got a wind coming this way and you’ve got a mountain range here, the wind has got to go over it and down the other side.
Graham Hood: Yeah. And that pushes up through upper levels. The whole system is constantly moving.
Senator ROBERTS: So that will distort the atmosphere. Pressure, temperature, moisture content. Suddenly contrails will be there, absent, and there again.
Graham Hood: So you’ve got these waves of varying temperature, moisture, content-
Senator ROBERTS: Pressure.
Graham Hood: Pressure. And if an aeroplane is flying through the valleys, it’ll create a condensation trail and then it looks like it’s been turned off. It’s gone through a trough into the rising air mass, there’s not enough moisture or the temperature moisture content isn’t balanced enough to [inaudible 00:45:28] condensation and it looks like it’s being turned on and off, on and off. It’s like about going over rapids. It’s the same that the atmosphere is fluid, Malcolm, it’s constantly rolling. For example-
Senator ROBERTS: Gas is known as a fluid.
Graham Hood: It is a fluid.
Senator ROBERTS: Water is not the only fluid.
Graham Hood: So there’s a weather phenomenon. It’s not really a phenomenon, it’s called an occluded front. An occluded front is when a cold front and a warm front collide, okay? Cold air is more dense or less dense than hotter air.
Senator ROBERTS: Cold air is more dense.
Graham Hood: More dense. It’s heavier.
Senator ROBERTS: Yeah, it’s colder. So you’ve got more air in it.
Graham Hood: It’s more compacted, right?
Senator ROBERTS: That’s right.
Graham Hood: So if you get a cold air mass that’s moving through and it brushes up against the hot air mass, the cold air mass is going to force the hot air mass up like a bulldozer blade. As the hot air mass rises carrying moisture with it, it condenses and you get these long lines of cloud front. You’ve seen photos of it. You can have two air masses side by side, different temperatures and densities and different pressures.
Senator ROBERTS: Same elevation.
Graham Hood: Same altitude, but collide. And the warmer air, which is lighter and less dense, rises, it becomes more dense as it cools. And you get this upper level turbulence and you get these upper level troughs and things like that that they talk about. All these things are different atmospheric conditions. Have you ever laid on your front lawn at home and looked up and watched different layers of cloud? You’ll see one layer of cloud going one way and another layer of cloud going the other way? That’s what it’s like in the upper atmosphere. That’s why when we are moving around from one place to another, we’re looking for areas with the least amount of headwind to give us more fuel efficiency and get us to the destination on time.
And we’re going to vary all over the place depending on where the weather conditions are, it’s also variable. There’s no rhyme or reason to it because it varies. Now, here’s the thing I often hear, and I bet you do, you’ll see chemtrails and three days later you get rain.
Senator ROBERTS: [inaudible 00:47:47].
Graham Hood: Right. So people are assuming that what they call the spraying as brought on the rain, it’s the other way around. What’s happening is that the engines that are passing through the sky creating the condensation are letting you know that there’s a moist air mass coming.
Senator ROBERTS: So they’re going through… So one day there’s no condensation trails, next day there are condensation trails because-
Graham Hood: [inaudible 00:48:15].
Senator ROBERTS: And the moisture doesn’t come in one hit, it builds up gradually.
Graham Hood: All right. So yeah, it’s like a pressure wave. It’s like a bulldozer pushing soil along. If you push the bulldozer through a sand dune, you’d start to see ripples in the sand way, way in front of it that were small. And then that would get bigger and bigger and bigger. So these air masses move through, they’re dense, and they push the air along and they condense it. So the dry air is being forced up against the moisture colder air and the moisture level builds up gradually. So when there’s a level of moisture in the atmosphere that’s going to support rain in the future, you can always tell. Whenever I was going camping or anything, if I was flying the day before and I was seeing a lot of contrails, I could virtually guarantee that I was going to have a wet camping trip.
Senator ROBERTS: There you are. You heard it from the expert weather forecasting.
Graham Hood: Yeah, that’s-
Senator ROBERTS: Hoodie’s weather forecasting.
Graham Hood: So that’s an indicator that moist air is coming.
Senator ROBERTS: So rather than it being contrails that cause rain, it’s moisture causing the contrails?
Graham Hood: Which is warning you that there’s more moist air coming.
Senator ROBERTS: And it will rain. Yeah, okay, so they’ve got cause and effect reversed here?
Graham Hood: Yeah, yeah. And see, I can understand why people get really confused about this and anxious about it. We didn’t get anxious about this sort of stuff decades ago because we trusted government, we trusted everything. Now we’re cynical about everything, nothing makes sense anymore, but we’ve got to make sure that we’re not being distracted and we’ve got to make sure that we can fix the things we can and not get hung up on the things we can’t.
Senator ROBERTS: And the point that you told Christina and myself about the amount of aircraft flight, travel increasing so dramatically and the jet engines becoming so much more efficient, but at the same time much more powerful means there’s a huge increase in the amount of kerosene being burned. And the kerosene contains being a natural compound and varied from oil well to oil well from the raw product just like coal. If you mine coal in one area or you get gas out of one area or you get oil out of one area, the composition of natural elements in that is different because of the way it was formed. And so you’ve got trace elements in kerosene, jet fuel that vary from time to time, but you’d always have not just hydrogen and carbon atoms and the hydrocarbon fuel, which is kerosene, but you’ll also have various other elements in there, including metals.
Graham Hood: Exactly right. Now, one expert in America has given evidence to the congress, he is very much a weather engineering guy. He and Dane Wigington were sharing the same platform, they were the same belief, but he started to smell around in the cheese factory and he wondered why some of the stuff didn’t add up. Jim Lee is his name, and we interviewed him. We’ve interviewed Dane Wigington on [inaudible 00:51:15], we interviewed Jim Lee separately just as well because I don’t think they get on. Jim had an analysis done of kerosene soot.
Senator ROBERTS: So he was doing the scientific approach, getting the data?
Graham Hood: He was getting the data. He had found, and there’s a video link I’ll put in this for you with the interview where he shows graphs and scientific data. He found that there were trace elements of aluminium, barium, and strontium in the soot from burnt kerosene.
Senator ROBERTS: Natural, untouched jet kerosene?
Graham Hood: Yeah. So you can make up your own minds about that. All I’m saying is we’ve got to look at what data we’ve got. And Jim Lee actually presents data that’s scientifically proven and he’s taken it to congress and he’s leading the charge. He wants weather modification ended, he wants it all stopped. But he’s taking a different approach. He’s basing his approach on scientific research, proper scientific research backed up by data.
Senator ROBERTS: Empirical scientific data.
Graham Hood: Empirical scientific data. So it’s well worth comparing Jim Lee to Dane Wigington in their approaches. Both of them are lovely men, they’re both good men. I didn’t agree with Dane Wigington, but I liked the guy. I liked the cut of his jib. But once again, in everything, if somebody’s presenting you with what they say is a fact and you know it’s not a fact, then how can you rely on all the other information they’re presenting to you to be fact? You have to question all of it. And isn’t that what science is, isn’t it? Science is about questioning.
Senator ROBERTS: And debating.
Graham Hood: And debating.
Senator ROBERTS: And looking at many different alternatives. So a true scientist will put forward a hypothesis to explain nature, then he’ll put forward or she will put forward the data to justify their explanation. And a true scientist will then say to another scientist, “Hey, mate, will you tear into this and try to prove me wrong?” A true scientist will celebrate being proven wrong because it means the knowledge mass of humanity has increased and he can then start… Instead of following down that trail, he’ll go into a better trail and maybe actually come up with something that’s accurate. So a true scientist begs people to prove him wrong. And then if it’s not wrong, his point’s made.
Graham Hood: So let me summarise where I think we’re up to now. Let’s do a midway summary in this. Condensation trails are real, they’re more prevalent today than they were when you were kids probably when you saw them. And most of the time you wouldn’t have paid much attention to them. They are changing the weather in the upper atmosphere, but by the sheer nature of the fact that they’re producing bulk amounts of Cirrus cloud, which is a by-product of that’s jet thrust. That’s it purely and simply. I’ve tried to explain that from an atmospheric meteorological point of view. There are elements within burnt kerosene that are concerning and we need that needs to be properly and thoroughly researched. What else? The air is fluid. The temperatures and the variations all over the planet and at all levels of the atmosphere are constantly changing.
Senator ROBERTS: Pressure, temperature-
Graham Hood: Moisture content. Constantly changing. The lines in the sky being parallel like railway tracks is because the air mass that the first contrail was produced in has moved on, the new contrail is laid down, it moves on. The next one is laid down, it moves on. And by the time any of that moisture over Canberra, for example, at 38,000 feet in a condensation trail, by the time it might evaporate and touch the surface, because most of the time by the time that moisture descends to the surface, it would’ve evaporated anyway because it’s so minute. By the time that got anywhere near ground level, it would be well on the other side of New Zealand, Malcolm. So people are saying, “They’re spraying my house.” If you see a trail in the sky 38,000 feet, that sucker’s not going to go anywhere near your house. That’s going to be hundreds of kilometres off the coast, even if it does get to the ground and it’s evaporated and taken back up to become moisture water vapour again to be reused because everything’s cyclical.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s a good summary. This ignorance of science is pervasive. It’s right through the media. Emma Alberici, when I first got into Parliament in 2016, she was their attack dog in the ABC. I think she’s a pretty good bulldog. I don’t always agree with her, I think she’s hardly logically driven, but she’s pretty savvy. She said to me, “You’ve made a point that you want empirical evidence. I’ll give you empirical evidence, mate. We humans produce so many gigatons of carbon dioxide every year.” Hoodie, that is empirical evidence.
Graham Hood: Is it?
Senator ROBERTS: It’s actually not. It’s not because they don’t measure it, they estimate it, they guess it. But let’s just say that she measured it. She didn’t, but let’s just say she measured it. That’s data, but it’s not proof of anything because it’s not within the logical scientific point. It’s not a logical framework that proves cause and effect. So saying there’s X amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, that means nothing. You’ve got to understand what’s causing it. So you’ve got to have the data within a logical framework that proves cause and effect, and you’ve got to have no evidence disproving it. The moment you have evidence disproving it, it’s gone, it’s finished, it’s over. And you’ve just done that.
The other point for people to remember at home is that I take my job very, very seriously, as you did yours, as do now as a public speaker, you’ve got to be honest. There are millions of people who review what I say in Parliament-
Graham Hood: I’m one of them.
Senator ROBERTS: Yeah, and then it should be. And the fact-checkers who try to discredit us and other parties that they don’t agree with are ruthless and dishonest at times. So we’ve got to be scrupulous. My staff sometimes produce speeches that have links in them just so that I can check. I trust them. But we make sure that the fact-checkers have got nothing on us. So I rarely get fact-checked. So these issues need hard data, hard measured data. They need solid proof of someone doing a specific action or causing a specific event and needs to be measured, observed, recorded, and documented. We need to know what, when, where, who, how, and preferably why so we can understand why they did it. You can’t always get the why.
So examples of evidence that meets this standard include flight paths, this is off my website, flight paths, flight registrations or tail numbers, government approvals, other permits or evidence of material being loaded into a plane. This evidence must be temporarily, that means close in time to a claimed weather event that’s supposedly caused a result of it. Yep. Validity, accuracy association are essential. Truth is essential, absolutely essential. Otherwise, we’re no better than the lying governments and politics that spread those toxins into our homes.
So every moment I spend chasing an unfounded issue is a moment not chasing a real issue for a constituent. Ask my wife about my family time as it is. So we love, just as you do, we love our constituents doing their duty and asking us, holding us accountable. But we need people to provide empirical scientific data, logical scientific points, cause and effect data and facts. Now, sometimes they haven’t got the data and we will get it. We’ve tried getting it. We’ve investigated these claims. There’s nothing there in our country. I’m not saying there isn’t in America, but there’s no evidence supporting it in our country at the moment.
So when I have data, I will tackle any issue as people know, I will tackle any issue. So we need constituents doing their duty. The other point I would make is that my office is not government. I’m not government, I’m in Parliament and Parliament holds the government accountable. We’re the watchdogs over the government. Any comments you want to make on that?
Graham Hood: No. Look, once again, I go back to the cynicism we all feel and the recent-
Senator ROBERTS: And that includes me.
Graham Hood: That includes you too because you’re a citizen as well as a senator. We’ve been through an election that’s really rocked our socks and we are starting to feel the pressure of having… I’ll edit that. We’re starting to feel the pressure of having a lot of ignorant politicians doing the job that some of you guys have been doing pretty well prior to the last election. We had a whole bunch of senators in there that were doing a great job flying the flag for us all. And you look at the current batch of politicians and those that were in the majority while in the last term, and you have to doubt their credibility, their capacity to understand or do research,
Senator ROBERTS: Mate, it’s pathetic.
Graham Hood: It’s shocking. And they’re just going along, they’re toeing a party line, aren’t they?
Senator ROBERTS: That’s correct. And pushing an ideology and quite often they don’t know what they’re doing, but the party’s following an agenda from outside the country that’s hurting our national interest. So what they’re doing is that… A lot of things in Parliament can be explained not by malice, but by stupidity, deceit, ignorance, laziness, and gutlessness. There’s a saying why attribute malice when stupidity suffices. I extend that. Why attribute malice or deceit or corruption when stupidity, gutlessness, and laziness suffice.
Graham Hood: Yeah, exactly. Exactly right. Yeah. There’s some other points about the whole chemtrail thing I want to bring up.
Senator ROBERTS: The way you go.
Graham Hood: There are millions of people in the worldwide aviation industry. Now, it’s not just pilots, engineers, and flight attendants, there are ground engineers, refuelers, the people who manufacture the fuel, the people who distribute the fuel. There’s air traffic controllers, there’s airport security, air side security people wandering around all over the place. There’s-
Senator ROBERTS: There wouldn’t be more secure civilian environment.
Graham Hood: That’s right. And you multiply that by every airport around the world. If this is credible and it is going on at the scale at which some people assume it is, we would have whistleblowers lining up all over the place. Why aren’t they? Now, out of all the so-called whistleblowers I’ve seen, there’s only one that has credibility-
Senator ROBERTS: Is that that woman from America?
Graham Hood: A woman from America, we interviewed her on [inaudible 01:02:32], I think we interviewed her twice, she’s amazing. She was working in procurement for the US Air Force and she was procuring these chemicals for distribution at an air base that she was working at in the northern part of North America I believe.
Senator ROBERTS: Defence facility.
Graham Hood: Defence facility. Now, she presented credible evidence that the US Air Force is involved in something like that.
Senator ROBERTS: And I’m not surprised.
Graham Hood: And I’m not surprised either. But she did say that she doubted the commercial airline aircraft are doing it. So the point is this, I would have to say that more than 95% of all high-flying jet aircraft flights in Australia are these fellas, civilian aircraft. 95%.
Senator ROBERTS: Even higher than that, wouldn’t it?
Graham Hood: It would be even higher than that. Now, the Australian military possess very few aircraft, very few. When you go flying in Australian airspace on specific air routes, you know who the guys are in front of you, you know who’s following you because you’re in this aerial ballet, you know, you took off with them from the same airport, you landed, you saw them taxi in behind you or in front of you. If you knocked off all of the aircraft, the commercial airline aircraft out of the equation and you are saying that all those trails up in the sky are being sprayed by nefarious aircraft, either military or contractors employed to do that job, then that is a huge number of aeroplanes . Where are they being refuelled? Where are they landing? Where are they getting their maintenance? And why aren’t we seeing them?
Because every day I went to work, I passed dozens and dozens of aircraft coming towards me at different altitudes and flying across my path. I knew who they were. I spoke to their pilots. Often we’d share information about turbulence and weather. I have never seen anything nefarious at all in my entire aviation career that has me thinking, “Oh, that’s a bit odd.”
Senator ROBERTS: Apart from the COVID injection mandates.
Graham Hood: Apart from the mandates, exactly right, but I’m talking about… I’ve seen A330 KC-30 tankers, Royal Australian Air Force [inaudible 01:05:00] refuelers refuelling Super Hornets. That’s a sight to see. That was over Western Queensland. They were doing manoeuvres. I saw them doing that. But I’ve not seen anything else, Malcolm. You’ll see the-
Senator ROBERTS: How many years and how many hours?
Graham Hood: 36,000 flying hours. 53 years. 32 years a captain flying at high altitude. 6 million passengers over 12 million miles. Hand on heart, and believe me, people should know by now that I’m out there trying to do everything I can to bring common sense to this country and get rid of overarching government. If there’s any corruption, I want it done with, I want us to live in an honest, scientifically-based and proven society where we can trust the information we’re getting and the guidance we’re getting and none of us trust government anymore. I’m looking for information, but I’m sorry, a photo of a chemtrail that somebody says is a chemtrail is not it. And I have to say this with all deference to my so-called colleagues who are podcasters, some of them are making a welter out of this. I don’t mean financially. They’re click baiting, they’re using it for nefarious purposes I believe. I don’t know that they know that they’re doing it for those reasons, whether they’re aware of it, but they’re so fixated on it that it’s become quite nonsensical.
It’s distracting people not only from everyday life, but from the real issues that we need to be on top of to confront. There’s a train coming, Malcolm. We know what’s coming. We know what the globalists are trying to do. We know that we’ve just elected a communist government for probably another three terms because the liberal opposition was so feeble that it will take decades for it to recover probably. We are condemned now to a Marxist socialist government which is spreading around the world. That’s the big issue we’re fighting .the things that we’re arguing over, even COVID, even the COVID mandates and the COVID so-called vaccines. They’re beautiful distraction for what the globalists are trying to do. While we’re all fixated on the background noise, they’re carrying out their agenda like there’s no tomorrow. We’ve got to focus on what we can fix. The serenity prayer says, God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference. We’ve got to cultivate all those three things.
The amount of time I spend defending my position on condensation trails, having admitted I believe that they’re weather modifying. I believe they are, but just saying, hang on, that’s not what you think it is because I know what you worried about that because I used to make those trails in the sky, which were condensation. My whole thing is about getting people to chill and let’s stay sensible and rational. John [inaudible 01:07:59] with me on that.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m with you on that.
Graham Hood: That’s right. This is what we want to do. So let’s not get carried away. Look, the amount of argument over what the shape of the Earth is, this flat Earth argument. Did Neil Armstrong walk on the moon? Even 9/11. All those things are incredible distractions that take us off the game. To me, I don’t even think that Neil Armstrong didn’t walk on the moon because he was my hero.
Senator ROBERTS: Didn’t an Indian-
Graham Hood: Spacecraft. An Indian spacecraft has photographed the surface of the moon and they found three Apollo landing sites.
Senator ROBERTS: Three Apollo landing sites.
Graham Hood: Yeah, Apollo landing sites. You can see whether the base of the lunar module was left behind when the lunar module left to go back up to the command line.
Senator ROBERTS: [inaudible 01:08:45] reassuring.
Graham Hood: Yeah, but there are people out there that are going to say that was fake. I’m not here to tell you that it was or it wasn’t, all I’m saying is I don’t want to be distracted. I don’t want to be distracted with the mouse in the corner of the room while there’s a gang of thugs breaking into my house in the bedroom.
Senator ROBERTS: And correct me if I’m wrong, but what you’re also saying is that people who are going off on some things without evidence are guilty of distracting us from the real thing.
Graham Hood: Exactly.
Senator ROBERTS: They’re almost, what’s that false opposition, what’s it called?
Graham Hood: The [inaudible 01:09:18] dialectic?
Senator ROBERTS: No.
Graham Hood: Stockholm Syndrome?
Senator ROBERTS: No, no, no, no. They’re saying, “This is the real thing over here” when the real thing is over there, they’re distracting us. They’re sucking away our resources, even if it’s through ignorance, sometimes it’s deliberate, to keep us away from the real agenda, which is global control.
Graham Hood: Global control. That’s the real agenda. And some people will say, “Chemtrails is one of the ways they’re doing it.” Look-
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got to get the evidence.
Graham Hood: You’ve got to get the evidence and if you car’s blowing smoke all the time and you keep putting additive in the oil, you’re in denial. What you know in your heart that you’re going to have to get a new car or put a new engine in or get the rings and bearings done and the thing. All you’re doing is by living in denial, you don’t even know that you’re lying. Don’t even know I am lying, that’s the terminology for living in denial. We’re all caught up in it. It’s so easy to be distracted, but some podcasters, who have no experience in upper atmosphere work, they don’t understand meteorology or anything, are saying things like, “Oh, look at that [inaudible 01:10:23] up there spraying me. He’s at super high altitude.” And I look at the video and I say, “No, he’s not. He’s at 20,000 feet. He’s not at super high altitude.”
What qualifies that person to say that that airplane’s at super high altitude? Where’s the qualification? How can you tell by looking at a plane?
Senator ROBERTS: You don’t.
Graham Hood: You can’t. And then you’ve got all these things that are not only distracting, what they’re doing is making us all look like a gaggle of fools to people who we need to wake up. We need our country to wake up, but these arguments that we’re having about things nefarious, things like this only detract and make us look stupid in front of the people who are just coming to life now. We’ve got to bring everybody on a journey with us.
Senator ROBERTS: Can I summarise what you just said?
Graham Hood: Yeah.
Senator ROBERTS: What I interpret? What you’re saying is that if we all just chase, follow people who don’t provide the empirical scientific data within logical scientific points, then we’re getting distracted potentially.
Graham Hood: Yeah, we are.
Senator ROBERTS: And then we’re missing the real issue. The other thing I would say is that the number one entity that is guilty of avoiding the use of accurate data is the government. The government, believe me, in Canberra, when people run a small business or a large corporation, they run it based on the data. This may not surprise you, it may surprise you, it certainly horrifies me that the major decisions, major legislation, the major policies that are made in Parliament House in Canberra and particularly by the governments of labour and liberal are not based on data and quite often they contradict the data that’s actually real. They don’t give a damn about it. They do it based upon ideology, based upon emotions, headlines, getting votes, conning people, looking after their vested interests, looking after their mates, their donors. That’s what’s driving this country. So don’t follow them, instead get the data and think about what you’re doing before you send it to us, think about what you’re accusing because you could be distracting and helping these bastards destroy our country. That’s what the responsibility is. Would that be a fair summary?
Graham Hood: That’s exactly right, the way I see it. We’ve all got a responsibility to make sure that we do that.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll do my bit in Parliament.
Graham Hood: And we’ll do the best we can to get the information out as we see it, but we’re going to make sure it’s credible and logical. And I’ll go back to a Club Grubbery’s mantra is we’ve got to stay on target, we’ve got to stay disciplined, we’ve got to stay rational, and we’ve got to win people across gradually. You don’t go into somebody’s bedroom and throw a bucket of ice water over them and expect them to wake up and join you in conversation, they’re going to be angry. We’ve got to do this carefully, logically, systematically, and in a disciplined way so that people can see that they’re not… The first thing they’re going to think of is that we’re all nut jobs.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. The people who are watching this who are in the freedom movement, if you want to call it that, who are awake to what’s going on in government, you are small in number. You are very small in total totality of numbers. What we have to do is exactly what Hoodie just said, we have to wake up more people. You’re not going to wake them up by hurting them, by insulting them, you’re going to wake them up by slowly revealing the facts based upon hard data. Got another question for you, you know sometimes… Then we’ll wrap up if you want to wrap up?
Graham Hood: Mm-hmm.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Some people send us evidence of flight paths with very short radius curves down the bottom and up the top. You mentioned something to me about that impossible to do for a large craft.
Graham Hood: Yeah, I was a crop dusting pilot when I was a young fella and… Yeah, I know.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re insane.
Graham Hood: I know.
Senator ROBERTS: But you survived, so you can’t be.
Graham Hood: That’s right. An aeroplane, a big aeroplane that moves at speed requires a fairly large area to turn around in, a turning radius. Because if you tried to turn this thing on a dime, I can tell you, if you tried to turn it on a dime, you’d have to almost roll it over on its back and it would go in like that. So the only-
Senator ROBERTS: It’s impossible.
Graham Hood: It’s impossible. The only kind of aircraft that could do a really tight turn like that is something that’s almost aerobatic. And you’re talking about a light aircraft, a light aircraft that doesn’t have a great deal of momentum, but can do, excuse the language, a split-arse turn and come back down and fly along its trail. That’s what we used to do in crop dusting, used to have to pull up like that, do your turn up high, come back around and fly back along the trail that you left to put an even spray of chemical over the crop, which is another disastrous thing to do. Any aeroplane that is that small to be able to turn in a radius like that is not going to have the carrying capacity to be spraying anything. It does not have the capacity to spray anything that’s going to be measurable.
Senator ROBERTS: It sprays crops, but it’s not going to have the capacity to spray the volume material that would cover a large area.
Graham Hood: No,
Senator ROBERTS: It’s impossible?
Graham Hood: That’s right. And some of those diagrams that I’ve been sent have been doctored. There are mischievous people out there who are playing games like there are photos… This is what I want to talk about, some of the photos. There are photos of pilots sitting in the cockpit of a jet, like a 737. In fact, it was a 737 because I recognised it, and they had patches on their shoulder that said Chemtrail Squadron. They have-
Senator ROBERTS: They were playing games, were they?
Graham Hood: Yes. They had switches on their overhead panel, which were hydraulic switches, but they put little stickers on them and it said chemtrails.
Senator ROBERTS: And they look so doctored. I think I’ve seen photos of them.
Graham Hood: And then they’re wearing a mask. Now, the mask is the oxygen mask that’s alongside the pilot in case there’s a decompression. And they were putting that on, they were fooling. Ask yourself this question, if you were nefariously involved in spreading chem trails, would you have a switch that was marked chemtrail in your cockpit? That’d be like, “Oh look, there’s a switch.” People are having fun with you. People are joking with you about this. And I’ve come back to, I’ve only seen one credible whistleblower that has me concerned about some activities-
Senator ROBERTS: And that’s in America.
Graham Hood: Yeah. Now, some of the photos that have been presented by one very popular broadcaster on geoscience, and there’s two prominent ones. There’s Jim Lee and Dane Wiginton. Dane Wiginton, I’ll use his name, he presents a lot of photos, as I said, of Boeing B-17s over Germany during World War II doing daylight bombing raids. Those aircraft are tiny by comparison. As I said, you couldn’t fit anything in there. When they lost an engine, they were jettisoned guns and ammunition and material overboard to lighten the load together.
He had a group of photographs showing all these trails coming off these bombers. The crews on those bombers hated the trails, the condensation trails because it led the fighters and the flak gunners right to where they were. And if you look at some World War II footage, you’ll also see oncoming German fighters coming at these bombers in hundreds, and you’ll see them all leaving little condensation trails behind them. Wiggington said the B-17s were doing the testing of the spraying back then, and he showed pictures of these B-17s from behind. I found a library photo taken from a tail gunner on a B-17 looking back at the fleet that was leaving the condensation trails and Malcolm, I’ll include that photo here now. It clearly shows that the condensation was coming off the tips of the propellers.
Senator ROBERTS: Oh, that photo you showed us? Yeah.
Graham Hood: And it’s spiralling around the engine as it’s going backwards like a corkscrew. And as it gets off the back of the wing, it’s all mixed together and it comes out looking like one solid trail.
Senator ROBERTS: It looks like solid wide trail.
Graham Hood: Wide trail, but they are minute narrow trails coming off the compression, off the tips of the propellers.
Senator ROBERTS: And one very thin trail coming off the wingtip.
Graham Hood: Off the wingtip.
Senator ROBERTS: Because that’s just where the pressure is.
Graham Hood: That’s right. Now, when I showed that photo to Dane Wiginton, he was clearly agitated. He didn’t like it.
Senator ROBERTS: Disproved him.
Graham Hood: But disproved his theory about the B-17s, clearly it did because there’s no way they’d have a spray nozzle coming out of the tip of a propeller.
Senator ROBERTS: And a wingtip.
Graham Hood: And a wingtip. So those photographs disprove. Other photographs on some of these sites, Angela Merkel and I think Macron or one of the French presidents standing inside an aircraft with all these tanks in it. People are saying there they are, they’re really proud of themselves. They’re getting ready for chemtrails. Let me tell you, I want to explain what that aeroplane is. I have been inside that aeroplane. I did part of my training for new aircraft type in Toulouse in France where they made Airbuses. And we were touring the airport, I sat in a Concorde that they developed over there.
Senator ROBERTS: [inaudible 01:19:47].
Graham Hood: It was great. We walked on board this aircraft because we were being shown the engineering standards used by Airbus to produce a top quality product.
Senator ROBERTS: Because Boeing dominated.
Graham Hood: Boeing dominated.
Senator ROBERTS: And the Airbus from Europe had to take over some of that market if it was going to-
Graham Hood: That’s right. No, and that’s why Boeing is in the midst of this today, Malcolm, because they tried to catch with Airbus and they took too many shortcuts to try and get market share back from Airbus. They took way too many shortcuts. That’s why Boeing is in a real mess. Now, every new model of an aeroplane that comes out, and that one was an A330, a wide-bodied passenger jet with two big engines, every new model that comes out, they produce about six prototype models which they use for testing. They never ever see airline service. They virtually test them to destruction to prove what their capabilities are, to understand their performance characteristics under different circumstances. The photo of Angela Merkel in an aeroplane fuselage with all the rows of tanks where the seats used to be, that’s a test aircraft that was used to go up to test the handling characteristics of that aircraft at high altitude and its performance characteristics with differential weight forward and aft. In the old days-
Senator ROBERTS: So they’d shift the water around to mimic different payload distributions?
Graham Hood: That’s it. In the old days, engineers used to go up on these testbed aircraft and they move sandbags that weighed 77 kilos because that’s the average weight of a human being back then. And when they do testing with certain seats occupied and some empty to test how much fuel the aeroplane burned with that configuration and balance and trim, how it performed at high altitude, whether it could do a 15 degree bank angle turn and not fall out of the sky, whether it met all its performance criteria that it could actually operate on a long-haul flight and get to the other end with the range capability. All this stuff has to be determined by testing up our atmosphere testing-
Senator ROBERTS: To get the data.
Graham Hood: To get the data. Here we get back to the data again. So it was dangerous for engineers to be in the sky 30,000 feet moving sandbags from one place to another because there were a couple of instances where they got it wrong and the aeroplane crashed and everyone was killed. So they developed a way of putting stainless steel tanks, no, aluminium tanks because they were lighter weight in each row where the seats were. And they had a volume of water that mimicked the weight of a person in each tank. And when the engineers had done testing with, say, two thirds of the aeroplane fill a certain way, then they would say, “Right, now let’s trim the aeroplane. So we’ve got most of the passengers sitting towards the back and a few at the front.”
And they transfer the water accordingly.
Senator ROBERTS: Just by pumps on board that the pilot would control?
Graham Hood: Not the pilot, the aeronautical engineers, the test engineers would do that. And then the pilot would fly a certain parameters given to him by the test engineers so they could record the data to give the performance criteria. No chemicals in those tanks, folks, it’s just water.
Senator ROBERTS: And Angela Merkel and Macron and the other Presidents from the European Union would’ve been on there as a publicity shot to say, “See what we’re doing to take the market back from Boeing to put the European planes on the map.”
Graham Hood: Exactly.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s exactly what they’re doing.
Graham Hood: I’ve seen photos of a jumbo jet at about 30,000 feet dropping this massive amount of water out from underneath it. People say, “What’s that?” The jet that was there was a 747, and it was in the old livery that it used to have before when it had its previous life Evergreen. Evergreen was freight operation out of Asia. Those aircraft when they were sold were mothballed, were taken to companies that converted them to firefighting bomber aircraft. When they passed the certification, they were then painted red and white in the colours of the company that operated them. Before they could do that, they had to do certification trials to make sure that the new water dumping data for the firefighting worked correctly and that the aeroplane flew correctly and wasn’t thrown out of trim when it dumped water.
So they’d send this aeroplane up after all the modifications had been done before the paint job, send it up. They’d have a chase plane flying along filming it, and if anything happened, they could review the footage and see what happened if the plane didn’t perform properly and it would do this massive water dump to see how it performed when it had all this weight and then none. That’s what that was about. But no, no, no, some commentators paint a very different picture of that.
Senator ROBERTS: A sinister a picture.
Graham Hood: A sinister picture. So innocent pictures are being misconstrued deliberately to cause fear to get people to panic about stuff that they need not be panicking about. I come back to what I said at the beginning, I believe that weather modification is a thing, but I believe we’re terrified about things that are not what they seem to be to us.
Senator ROBERTS: Yep. Anything more you want to say?
Graham Hood: No.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll just finish off. I have seven wonderful staff. They’re very dedicated. We cover Parliament, research, government legislation and other legislation. We do Senate estimates research. I’m the best prepared senator there because I’ve got such wonderful staff. We prepare speeches which require a lot of research sometimes. We have to handle a media prepare for that. We handle constituent issues for 5 million constituents across our state of Queensland and sometimes more people outside Queensland. We remain open sincerely on receiving empirical scientific data and logical scientific points on chemtrails and weather modification. We have already researched it in Australia, we’ve investigated the issue and the claims that people send in photos, patents, and legislation.
To maintain my integrity and my effectiveness serving the people of Queensland, Australia, I ask people to please respect my need for solid evidence as proof of cause and effect. And Hoodie and I would both ask people to be careful about what you send because you don’t want to distract you, distract me and my staff, distract the constituents of Queensland and Australia on issues while the real bastards are tearing this country apart. That’s a very serious issue. Integrity is very, very important to me. I know it’s important to Hoodie. You don’t fly planes for 52 years without integrity, especially crop dusters. It’s absolutely vital. And integrity in my business means having accurate facts and data, accurate facts and data. We welcome inquiries, we welcome claims put to us in good faith. Thank you very much for watching and thank you so much for participating, Hoodie.
Graham Hood: It’s been great having you here, Malcolm. Thanks for being here and we’ve had a great weekend. And don’t forget Australia, what you did yesterday got you to today. Believe me, you can call me a Freemason, you can call me a baby killer, whatever you like, it’s not me, it’s not who I am. I care about this country and that means I care about you and believe me, I’m not lying to you about what I know and I can’t pretend. Look, Malcolm, I know I’m extending this a little bit, but I’ve had a lot of people say to me, “If you just admit that that was going on, you’d double your following.” I don’t want a following if I can’t have that following based on truth as I see it. It’s all about integrity and I would quite happily never have a following.
Senator ROBERTS: Same here. People say to me, “If you stop doing this, I’ll vote for you.” That’s not me. If you don’t vote for me and I don’t get back into the Senate because I don’t comply with you, that’s your business. My business is living with me. And I’ll happily live with people like Hoodie who also has his… The main person you have to satisfy I know is you. The main person I have to satisfy is me. I’ve got to look myself in the mirror every day, I’ve got to treat myself with integrity and behave with integrity, everything I do. That’s what I always do. I promised it to the people of Queensland. I’ve been elected three times now and I’ll continue to serve the people of Queensland, Australia, truthfully. And when I don’t know something, I’ll admit it.
Graham Hood: Exactly. And the various podcasters that have asked me for proof of what I’ve been saying and I’ve sent it and they haven’t looked at it. If you do as much research on the counter side of the argument as you do trying to prove a point that’s unprovable, then maybe the world would be a better place. So don’t argue with me unless you’re prepared to look at what I send you. And if you’re not prepared to do that, then you don’t have any credibility in my books because it’s all about integrity.
Senator ROBERTS: So what do you always finish with?
Graham Hood: Stay out of the trees and it’s a great country. If you love it, stand up for it.
Senator ROBERTS: Can I add something to that? Stay out of the weeds.
Graham Hood: Stay out of the weeds. God bless you, guys. It’s been great having Malcolm here for the weekend with Christine. Let’s try and get our country back as best we can with compassion and love. See you?
https://img.youtube.com/vi/hm2s0VHxngc/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-07-10 09:25:102025-07-10 13:42:22Chemtrails or Contrails? A Look at the Facts!
Electric dreams left to rot on the ocean floor as Albanese heads to China …
Three thousand cars are rotting at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean – 800 of them electric – after the Morning Midas cargo ship burst into flames sank on its trip between China and Mexico.
The cause of the fire remains unknown, but many suspect lithium-ion batteries may be to blame.
Morning Midas burned for a week, pouring toxic fumes into the air, before aimlessly tipping over and taking her cargo of heavy metals to the ocean floor where they will leak into the surrounding water for the next century.
All the crew are safe, thank goodness.
What about the environment?
You and I could not dump these materials into the water without severe repercussions.
Meanwhile, our Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, and his Coalition-deputy (?) Larissa Waters, have said very little about the issue to his counterparts in China.
Albanese is off on a six-day $325 billion trade trip where he has confirmed he will meet with Xi Jinping, head of the Chinese Communist Party.
The Prime Minister has not met with US President Donald Trump – leader of the nation whose defence structure protects Australia from China’s ambitions in the Pacific.
We should not forget (and neither should the Greens, who remain silent) that China’s environmental credentials include pouring concrete over coral atolls to build military bases inside disputed waters while deliberately transgressing against its Asian neighbours.
China’s neighbours are our Pacific partners, and together we rely on America to police the Hague’s freedom of navigation rules. Without an American presence in Pacific waters, China would control our critical trade routes and no doubt treat them with the same care as their history of ransoming river water in Asia as an ‘incentive’ to sign agreements.
The Prime Minister seems very keen to empower China inside the Australian economy, encouraging foreign business prosperity at the expense of our children’s careers.
While Treasurer Jim Chalmers mulls over tax reform to punish successful Australians, Anthony Albanese is all-but gushing over the prospect of Chinese cash.
‘Trade is now flowing freely, to the benefit of both countries and to people and businesses on both sides. We will continue to patiently and deliberately work towards a stable relationship with China, with dialogue at its core. I will raise issues that are important to Australians and the region including my government’s enduring commitment to pursuing Australia’s national interest.’
He is taking 14 people with him to sit on an Australian-China business roundtable to talk about food, resources, banking, and tertiary education.
Strangely, pollution is one of the many things left off this ‘green’ economic agenda…
How odd.
There is no chance Albanese and his delegation will question China about recycling guarantees for the millions of tonnes of solar panels and wind turbines headed for Australian landfills every single year as industrial projects are decommissioned.
Whose responsibility is it to clean up after the Chinese Net Zero boom?
Australian taxpayers.
Who could have guessed?
Pollution is a sore spot with China. The communist empire courting our Prime Minister has made a mess of its own landscape.
67.7% of China’s water is unsafe for human contact, let alone consumption. Its air pollution crisis, much of which is from the factories that churn out ‘clean’ technology, is so severe it’s thought to kill two million people every year. China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand are responsible for 60% of plastic in the ocean – and yet the Prime Minister is handing hundreds of millions of dollars to these countries as an apology for Australia’s (factually dubious) contribution to ‘rising sea levels’.
China is not, as the UN claims, a beacon of ‘Net Zero’ environmentalism.
If anything, China’s environmental catastrophe reveals the dirty side of the so-called renewable empire. It has led to polluted rivers, destroyed sacred mountains, slave-run factories, and an export chain that includes debt-trapping vulnerable nations with loans repaid with land acquisition, the empowerment of brutal dictatorships, and even child labour in the rare-earth mines.
In China, environmental and cultural protesters who stand against the renewable energy industry are harassed, arrested, or simply vanish.
Activists in Wuhan, famous for its dodgy gain-of-function labs, demanded the Chinese government ‘give back the green mountains and clear waters’.
Their social media posts were scrubbed and the story suppressed by digital censors.
It’s a process familiar to Australians who lived through the Great Digital Dark Age of Covid where the government saw fit to issue take-down notices to Twitter and Facebook to keep vaccine-injured victims quiet. Many of these social media sites still have legacy community guidelines that warn about the ‘misinformation’ of posts sceptical about Climate Change while Australian policy is littered with clauses determined to protect the narrative of the political movement even if it means listing environmental concern as ‘dangerous’ or ‘misleading’.
Chinese activists were not exaggerating their pollution problem, and neither are Australian farmers or beachside residents furious about the solar and wind industrial projects tearing apart the serenity of Australia’s landscape.
Soon, the curse of Net Zero will touch every corner of our continent.
The Morning Midas and Net Zero monstrosities share a fate decomposing into the landscape, poisoning everything around them – abandoned by the companies and governments responsible for their creation.
A toxic legacy left for nature to remediate.
It’s unlikely the Morning Midas will be remembered as anything other than a sidenote on the next article about a sinking EV cargo ship, but the EV problem is not going away.
Cheap Chinese vehicles are being welcomed into Australia as a market disruption by a Labor government desperate to prove that EVs can be ‘cheap’.
This is despite their questionable green credentials, service standards, and quality control.
How long will EVs stay cheap as the resources used in their manufacturing double and triple in price?
Market forces are sinking EVs, while Labor, and particularly Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, remain oblivious.
They would prefer to allow TEMU-style EVs to destabilise the auto industry, causing permanent damage, for the sake of a product that may not survive given its concerning track record in other countries. This is not good for the Australian consumer, the global environment, or the industries that support the car industry which employ many of our skilled young people.
Are we going to outsource auto-workers and mechanics to a Chinese helpline that goes unanswered?
Do we really want to keep pushing jobs and skills away in exchange for a collapsing ‘green’ dream with all the appeal of algae?
What about when these cheap cars break – which they undoubtedly will – where do they end up? In landfill, sheltering under a busted solar panel? Parked beneath a derelict wind turbine? In an abandoned shed with all the plastic we are meant to be recycling?
This is not a good look for an industry that exists purely to capitalise on environmental credentials.
It is hideous.
Electric vehicles are not better products. They are a technical solution to an ideological problem propped up by government subsidies and corporate Environment and Social Governance programs.
In this respect, EVs occupy the same ideological market space as lab-grown meat.
The third sinking of a cargo ship laden with electric cars is not a one-off event.
With Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen pushing Australia toward EVs – specifically China-made EVs – we can only wonder if the next cargo ship will sink onto the Great Barrier Reef.
EVs are a sinking ship by Senator Malcolm Roberts
Electric dreams left to rot on the ocean floor as Albanese heads to China
Has the price of a steak taken your breath away recently? That’s because the government wants you eating bugs or lab grown cells, not organic red meat.
In 2022, I confronted Meat and Livestock Australia directly. They were signed up to the crazy plan of ‘net zero’ by 2030.
The only way they ever could have achieved this is by killing off cows, reducing the total number across the country. That means good farm-grown meat would be too expensive for the peasants, but the elites jetting off to Davos every year would be able to afford it.
Three years later, Meat and Livestock have just admitted they are ditching their net-zero 2030 goals, exactly like I told them to do three years ago. Yet, they’re still committed to doing it by 2050.
End the nonsense. Ditch net-zero and make meat affordable for every Aussie house!
Senator ROBERTS: In the last Senate estimates we had a difference of opinion on the direction of herd numbers, and we’ve still got that.
Mr Strong : Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: I maintained that the only way to meet net zero carbon dioxide targets—and why you’d want to meet that is beyond me, because no-one has given me any proof—under Meat & Livestock Australia’s CN30 program, the Carbon Neutral by 2030 program, is to hold herd numbers at the historically low numbers experienced during the recent drought. In reply you said:
We are very aware that there have been discussions that things like the carbon neutral goal are reliant on limiting livestock numbers or reducing production or profitability, and we completely reject those.
I thank you for your answer on notice regarding herd numbers and I now reference a document you sent me—a Meat & Livestock Australia publication titled ‘Industry projections 2021: Australian cattle—July update’. On page 4 there are herd numbers. Herd size, slaughter and production are all flat—and, arguably, slightly decreasing in the last few years—across the period indicated, from 2000 to 2023, and down from their peak in this period. Am I reading that right?
Mr Strong : You may be, Senator, but I don’t have that one in front of me. What I can do is provide you with the updated projections from earlier this year, which show the projected increase in production and outputs, so increases in herd size and increases in productivity. We can provide that to you.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, if you could, please.
Mr Strong : We can certainly do that.
Senator ROBERTS: Coming back to what you raised earlier on, in the bottom graph carcase weights are showing an increase of 13 per cent. This does in part reflect the work done by Meat & Livestock Australia on genetics, feedbase and transport. Is that correct?
Mr Strong : In part, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Only in part? There are other factors involved?
Mr Strong : Yes—like producers’ willingness to adopt new technologies. But I think part of the increase in carcass weight comes from the increase in turn-off through the feedlot sector. An increased number of animals have come through the feedlot sector as a finishing mechanism in the last year or two. That also contributes to an increase in carcass weight.
Senator ROBERTS: Either way, it’s a good job because 13 per cent is a significant increase in productivity and profitability.
Mr Strong : Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Page 2 of this report says the average herd number for cattle from 2016 to 2021, which included a substantial drought influence, was 26,619. The best year was 2018, at 28,052. Meat & Livestock Australia’s projections are 27,223 for 2022 and 28,039 for 2023. This is down from the CSIRO’s figure of 30 million to 40 million before the drought, which was the point I was making in the last Senate estimates.
Even if the CSIRO figure is higher than you would accept, I fail to see an increase here in these figures. And I’m still trying to see where the increase in the herd numbers component of the 100 per cent increase in red meat production is coming from. Is it true that, unless the herd numbers recover to around 30 million, Meat & Livestock Australia are projecting a permanent reduction in the Australian herd?
Mr Strong : No, it’s not. The paper you’re referencing is not a CSIRO paper. Dr Fordyce is the lead author and he’s previously worked with CSIRO. It was present on their publication site but it’s not a formal CSIRO paper. But that’s an aside.
Senator ROBERTS: But he did work for you?
Mr St rong : Absolutely. And he still does work in a range of different areas. He’s been a very prominent researcher with the Queensland Department of Primary Industries in northern Australia and has done quite a bit of work with MLA and our predecessors over the years.
Senator ROBERTS: So he’s pretty competent?
Mr Strong : That doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything, though, does it? We could also quote other papers—
Senator ROBERTS: No. But, if he’s competent, there’s got to be a reason for not agreeing.
Mr Strong : Certainly. But other papers that have been produced by independent analysts say the herd’s even smaller than what we project.
Senator ROBERTS: Even smaller?
Mr Strong : Yes. Those papers are by private commercial analysts. They are widely read and get quoted to us as much or more than this paper does. But the herd size isn’t the only driver of productivity. As you said, it’s about being able to increase carcass weights, increase value and increase productivity. One of the things that Dr Fordyce has been involved with is the NB2 program that you mentioned. The ability to increase cows in calf, decrease cow mortality, increase calves that survive and increase weaning weight in reasonably modest levels—a decrease in cow mortality by a couple of per cent, an increase in fertility by a couple of per cent and a 10-kilo increase in weaning weight—has a material impact on northern productivity not just in numbers but also in value. The herd size is an important number to help us with our planning and projections when we look at a range of things; but it’s only one of the contributors to productivity, profitability and how we get to a doubling of value for the red meat sector.
Senator ROBERTS: Looking at agricultural producers, whether it be livestock or crops, there’s certainly a huge increase and improvement in the use of science to guide it. That’s become a wonderful productivity improvement tool. But it still comes back to basic arithmetic. If herd numbers are not growing, after allowing for improved carcass weights, the only way to increase the value of red meat production by 100 per cent, after allowing for the 13 per cent carcass weight increase, is for price increases of 87 per cent.
Mr Strong : No, it’s not. Chairman Beckett mentioned our trip to Darwin two weeks ago. One of the great things we heard about there was the use of knowledge that’s been gained over the last 10 or 20 years by the industry. There were a couple of fantastic examples of the use of phosphorus as a supplement in phosphorus-deficient country. For the same cow herd size, there was a halving in cow mortality and a 30 per cent increase in weaning rates. Herd size is not the only way to increase productivity. When you think about ways to make significant improvements in productivity, it actually becomes a minor factor. Being able to produce more from what we have, regardless of what we have, and creating and capturing more value from that is much more important than the herd size.
Senator ROBERTS: I accept that it’s a laudable goal to increase the productivity, capturing more from what you have.
Mr Strong : Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: So, if herd sizes stay flat, are you able to provide me with the breakdown of where the 100 per cent increase in red meat value will come from?
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Gcu-Lo9whE8/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-07-03 17:05:092025-07-03 17:05:21Bugs for Dinner? Not on My Watch!
Is the true cost of Net Zero our national security? “We’re becoming a third-world country in the blink of an eye – and no one seems to care! It’s very simple, if we want Australia to win – we ditch Net Zero.
Because if a country can’t defend itself, it doesn’t matter what its policies are. It doesn’t matter at all. You know, our coal, our oil, natural gas and our uranium reserve are probably the largest in the world – certainly per capita. We are the richest nation in the world – the UN has said so itself.
Excluding tourists, there are two and a half million migrants in the country on temporary visas. That’s around about one and a half million houses that we need just for them. And that’s far too many people for our roads, our hospitals and the number of houses we have – far too many. And what’s happening is that good people, working families, because working families – I’ve visited them in every major city in this state – working families, mothers and fathers, are going home to their children, seeing if they’re still in the car where they’ll sleep tonight.
Alexandra Marshall (Host): Hello and welcome to SPECTATOR TV Australia. I’m your host, online editor Alexandra Marshall. And today we are joined by Queensland Senator Malcolm Roberts. Senator, welcome to the show.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much, and congratulations on being back on air with SPECTATOR TV.
Alexandra Marshall: Thank you so much, Senator. And also a big congratulations to you, because you have just been re-elected to the Senate. Are you excited about being the de facto opposition this time around?
Senator ROBERTS: Well, first of all, thank you to the many people who supported me and thanks for the vote of confidence, because it’s actually the third time I’ve been elected to the Senate and the second time I’ve been re-elected. So I’m very, very pleased with that. We are the de facto opposition because Liberal and Labor have basically introduced the same policies over the last – since 1975, particularly since John Howard, who started the Liberal-Labor Uni party. What’s happening Alexandra is that the Liberal Party introduces every major climate energy policy, for example, and the most destructive housing and immigration policies – they’re the ones who put in big Australia and the Labor Party has just come in and ramped it up. So One Nation is the only elected party that’s capable of dealing with reality. You know, we focus on the data, the hard facts and the cruel facts. We don’t run away from them and and we keep reminding them. We’re the only party that will stick up and stay say the truth. And in that sense, we’ve always been the true opposition.
Alexandra Marshall: Well, I’ve been hearing a lot of chatter about the endless silence from the Coalition. The election was a while ago and yet we hear nothing from them when major world events happen. So I’m guessing One Nation is looking forward to having policies as well as opinions.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, we’ve had the best policies. I can honestly say most of them came out of my office thanks to the staff in our office. But we’ve had the best policies I have ever seen of any political party at any time in Australian history.
Alexandra Marshall: Well Senator, the world did change over the weekend with President Donald Trump taking a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Now regardless of what anybody thinks about this or what will happen next, has home defence of Australia become a critical policy for when you return to Canberra?
Senator ROBERTS: It has been since we’ve been in Canberra, Alexandra. And yes, it will be when we return to Canberra, because if a country can’t defend itself, it doesn’t matter what its policies are, it doesn’t matter at all – the Chinese Communist Party just sent warships down here. They circled our country. We didn’t have one of our own warships tailing them when they were starting to to do firing, firing practise. You know, we are exporting our coal to China to build steel for, for arming itself and making weapons. We can’t use the coal here as steel industry is shutting down because of the high energy costs. We are crippling ourselves and people are just laughing at us.
Alexandra Marshall: Well, Senator, there’s been a lot of criticism of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and indeed our Foreign Minister Penny Wong regarding what’s going on in the global stage now, particularly Anthony Anthony Albanese’s performance at the G7. But when we talk about what’s going on there, has Australia’s position on the world stage been damaged by the way Labour has approached our situation in the world and let’s face it, one of our strongest allies, which is the United States?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, unquestionably every country, including Australia, benefits when we have a good reputation. Everyone, after all, is usually happy to meet an Aussie overseas travelling. And you know, I know that when I was working and studying and travelling across the United States for a total of about five years and two visits, people love to hear Australians. Oh, I love your accent. But then they love the way we are so similar to Americans in our lifestyle and their values. They love to meet Australians. They’re laughing at us. When they look closely, when people overseas look closely, what we’re doing, they just laugh and ask if we’re serious about what what’s going on in this country. We’re crippling our manufacturing, crippling our energy sector and countries are saying, haven’t you learned anything from Spain? Haven’t you learned anything from from Germany? Haven’t you learned anything from the Europeans destroying? Haven’t you learned anything about Britain destroying itself? Haven’t you learned anything from Donald Trump saying no more solar and wind? I mean, these, you know, our coal, our oil, natural gas and our uranium reserves are probably the largest in the world. Certainly per capita we are the richest nation in the world. The UN has said so itself. And you know, I accuse them of lying, but that’s they’ve still got that fact right. Yet our power costs are sky high because we only export it. We can’t use it here.
Alexandra Marshall: Well, why the while there is a silence from most of our elected officials, which is kind of concerning given the state of the world. One Nation leader Pauline Hanson did release a statement. Now in that statement, she says, and I’m going to quote and read from this. This is directed toward our Anthony Albanese. Your government’s position continues to be inadequate against the danger of radical Islam in Australia, which puts the lives of citizens at risk. Now that is what Pauline Hanson has said and she is saying this in relation to Australia’s immigration policy and calling for there to be no more visas issued to Iranians at this point in time when there is a risk of a regime change and more extreme ideological views coming into the country. As Senator, there’s also a mass migration disaster taking place in the cities around Australia right now. Would you like to see migration and immigration, the Prime Minister put a tighter hold and control on that, particularly given the geopolitical climate we are in right now?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, that’s a very simple answer to give. Yes. What’s more, Alexandra, we have asked him for that and he’s given us given us that, that response, but he broke it and he lied about it straight afterwards. We asked him after his first year in office, he imported 518,000 new immigrants, net migration 518,000 over half a million. And then when we exposed that and told him how much damage he was doing. We’ve got people homeless from every, every provincial city in this, this state of ours. We should be the richest in the world. We’ve got 10s of thousands of people homeless. You don’t have to go far to see it. And when we raised that, he said, OK, well, we’ll make sure immigration is lower the following year – it was bloody higher. Now we’ve always discussed issues, Alexandra, with the quality and quantity of immigration, the number of people and the type and quality of people in terms of their ability to contribute. Straight away he’s, he’s bringing in people that. What are the figures now – 0.6% have construction experience and will go into housing. They’re supposed to build houses for the other 99.4%, you know, excluding tourists, there are two and a half million migrants in the country on temporary visas. That’s around about one and a half million houses that we need just for them. And that’s far too many people for our roads, our hospitals and the number of houses we have far too many. And what’s happening is that good people, working families, I should calm down because working families, I’ve visited them in every major provincial city in this this state, working families, mothers and fathers are going home to their children, seeing if they’re still in the car, where they’ll sleep tonight. Where do they go to the toilet? Where do they shower? This is this is a barn. Good working families.
Alexandra Marshall: And even in city suburbs, we would not expect to see it. Senator, I myself have personally stood in line at house inspections with over 60 people. And you know, there’s there’s so little hope for people trying to find somewhere to live. And everywhere you do find is ridiculously expensive for what is essentially a shoebox. But Senator, I want to talk.
Senator ROBERTS: Alexandra. It’s also another fact that that the reason immigration is so high is to hide the fact that we are in a per capita recession, which is the real measure of a recession. So we are in a per capita recession, which is a recession. But the definition of a recession, as you know just as well as I do, is two terms, two quarters of negative growth overall in the economy. And they’ve stayed out of that by inflating the economy with people, inflating demand, raising our gross domestic product. So it’s barely over 0. And that way they stay out of officially being called a recession. That’s what they’re doing. They don’t care how many people are homeless, how many people are living in misery, how many people are living with with threats of violence over their heads in our country because they just want to make sure that they’re not officially classified as the treasurer and Prime Minister who brought upon us the recession. And Scott Morrison needs to be held partly accountable for that, too.
Alexandra Marshall: So strange that socialists are lacking empathy, Senator, but that does appear to be the case. Now, look, domestic security and national security are intrinsically linked with energy security and mineral security. That is how we protect a grid, how we create energy and how we manage our natural resources, which are of course finite. Now, under the previous governments of both Coalition and Labour, Australia has been outsourcing not only all of our coal and oil and gas, which we sell off into other countries, particularly China, but our energy grid which is becoming increasingly reliant on foreign powers to function. And not only that, it’s becoming more and more fragile. If you were given the absolute power, senator in Canberra and you can make a change to Australia’s energy condition, what would you like to see happen as soon as possible?
Senator ROBERTS: First of all, the message that you just said needs to be articulated across the country. We need to have energy. Energy has been on a relentless downward trend. Energy price has been on the relentless downward trend in real terms from about 1850 to now and sorry until about 1996 and the start of the Howard government when that was artificially increased. The important point is that decreasing costs of energy in real terms are the the powerhouse that drives human progress. So what happened with John Howard coming in with his renewable energy targets, stealing farmers property rights, National Electricity Market putting in in place first policy for carbon dioxide tax. Yes, Liberal were the first to have that policy. What he did was he reversed human progress and made it more expensive to for for energy. Now the important thing in that is that manufacturing over the last few decades, the number one cost factor in manufacturing is energy prices. The lower your energy price, the lower your manufacturing costs. What we have done is artificially inflated, raised the cost of energy. We’ve destroyed our manufacturing and guess where it’s going? It’s going to China. First of all, we’re we’re subsidising the Chinese to make solar and wind solar panels and wind turbines. We’re subsidising them to import them, we’re subsidising to transport them. We’re subsidising them to erect them. We’re subsidising to run them. We’re subsidising after 15 years for them to replace the damn things when a coal fired power station lasts 60 years at least. And So what we’re doing, taking that subsidy under our electricity costs, is driving the cost of electricity to make it unaffordable for manufacturing. So our manufacturers go to China and manufacturing jobs go to China. Our electricity becomes much more expensive. We’re becoming a third world country in the blink of an eye and nobody seems to be caring about it. So it’s very simple if we want Australia to win – we ditch net zero. We use the coal, the oil, the gas and the uranium reserves in Australia for Australians. China is using our coal to cheaply power its manufacturing industry. It’ll cripple our manufacturing. It’s crippling our farmers. During a drought, The last drought we had farmers in North Queensland, they personally told me farmers in central QLD and farmers in southern Queensland did not plant hot fodder crops because the cost of pumping water was too high. In a drought, no fodder crops. This is insane.
Alexandra Marshall: It’s often difficult to explain to the younger generation exactly what the rising price of energy is impacting in their lives. One great way that I’ve found is to turn the lights off or turn the power off and see how many things would no longer work. In a society a lmost nothing work with our energy and that’s everything which this green tax is being added to. But you know, the Nationals are being sent down a little rabbit hole about trying to workout how much net zero will cost. Personally, I think they’ve been sent on a bit of busy work by the Liberals who don’t really want to talk about net zero. But as you indicated, I think AI has done a few calculations and it thinks that net 0 cost Australia 9 trillion or something in that order to fully maintain and change our grid. But that does not include losses to businesses. It does not include replacing the grid every 15 years when everything breaks. That’s a a conservative estimate, but my question is could the real cost of net 0 senator be our national security.
Senator ROBERTS: Definitely is. Undoubtedly it is. And by the way, on the cost estimates for for net zero, Peter Dutton, Dutton said the Coalition has estimated the cost of $1.3 trillion. An independent study from three universities in this country estimated 1.5 trillion, Bloomberg 1.9 trillion. And as as you said, when you include the cost of jobs, businesses, replacing the grid every 15 years, it’s 9 trillion. That was developed by AI, which is just taking some of the facts that are freely available. The cost to Australia though, is national security, $9 trillion is how much capital will be needed in the next 35 years. According to Net 0, the most comprehensive start. Sorry, according to Net 0 Australia, the most comprehensive study to date by the University of Melbourne, the University of Queensland and Princeton IN America, that’s $260 billion a year, Alexandra, that gets tacked onto our electricity costs and our taxation. Australia’s entire military budget is 56 billion. That’s 0.6% of the of the costs of, of Net 0. And part of net 0 is that we can’t use coal and make steel in Australia. You can’t make, you can’t make steel using the coal that we have. The best cooking coal, the best steel grade coal, coal in the world. And Australia is shipping that to China where they’re building warships with it and munitions with it. We can’t use it here. I mean, people know that. That’s an absolute insanity. The true cost to our country and our way of life, Australia’s way of life, standard of living, cost of living, affordability, lifestyle, safety, security, our children’s future. Everything is being decimated, jobs, lifestyle out the door because Liberal in which Liberal Nationals which introduced this and Labor Party which ramped it up in each occasion are crippling this country and the Nationals. I believe that some of the Nationals are genuinely afraid of net 0. Some of them who are afraid of net zero and wanted to stop actually advocated for us to cut carbon dioxide. So they’re culpable in in in some instances, but they’ve woken up because because One Nation has put the pressure to them. We’re the only party that’s calling out net zero as insanity, the only party that’s saying it’s it’s detrimental to our to our health of our country, but we’re the only ones actually opposed to it and what they’re trying to do is deceptive, but we’ll call them out on it.
Alexandra Marshall: It’s quite extraordinary that Jim Chalmers and Chris Bowen and Anthony Albanese and the whole Labour Kit and Gaboodle are going to war against carbon, which is the fundamental building block of life and they have a defence budget to match which is of course the spending on renewable energy. It is an extraordinary amount of money being wasted on a wall that does not exist anywhere except in their own UN driven fantasy world. But you did touch on a topic there before, Senator, which was about the resources that Australia has, these precious resources. Now, we often hear that Australia’s economy runs on the back of the mining industry. Now that is true, But when the world enters a dangerous geopolitical footing, the basic resources that a country possesses are worth more than what they can be exported as. Now, given this, should Australia be more careful about how much of our limited resources we are shipping to places like China on the cheap instead of getting the maximum value out of this of this resources? Do we need to be more careful about how we manage lithium, iron, silicon, coal, oil, gas, gold, everything.
Senator ROBERTS: Copper, silver, zinc, lead? Yes, we should be more careful. Number one, we should get more money for it that we, we are the world’s third largest exporter of natural gas. Qatar is the second largest I believe and the United States is the largest. We get ****** all for it. Our coal, we get ****** all for that, except in Queensland now we get, we get massive royalties, but we’re still not not using them properly. We’re still allowing the export of valuable cooking coal and and that’s fine, but we need to make sure we have access to it here and have a steel industry that can be supported. That’s why we pushed Capricorn Steel building a transcontinental railway line in the north north of Australia just above the Cap Tropic of Capricorn to have steel mills in the iron ore and have steel mills in the West and have steel mills in the cooking coal mines in in the east and ship the the coal West and the iron ore East, we need to build an iron ore. We need to think strategically and rebuild our on our industry. We can be and they’re hard, the customers for this and hard investors looking at this, including Australian investors. We need to be the world’s largest producers of steel and iron and the best quality and that is easily and easily achieved with the proposals we are saying. We have got so much coal, so much iron ore, so much gas, so much uranium and we look like we could be the one of the world’s largest producers of rare earth metals. But these and other metals we need to be considering strategically and to think long term for our country. You know, we have enough resources to last our country for thousands of years, but not if we let other countries plunder it while getting none of the benefit. We need to export. We need to identify the best resources for ourselves and we need to get a fair price for our export exports. You know, why would Australia want to invade? Why would China want to invade Australia when they already own airports, mines, houses and water and some of our electricity networks? What’s left for them to take? They’ve been buying it. We should use our resources for ourselves first and export what’s what’s what remains.
Alexandra Marshall: And finally, Senator, the One Nation has been making recommendations about defence honours and the Awards Appeals Tribunal. And it says he would like to review all nominations for Distinguished Service Crosses and medals to senior officers between 1991 and 2012, among a whole other raft of recommendations. This is a very interesting series of ideas that One Nation has. What is the purpose and significance behind One Nation’s recommendations in this field?
Senator ROBERTS: Well, it’s really simple when it comes to defence the critical foundation of our defence strategy is the quality of our people and that has been driven by mateship – that is being eroded Alexandra. We have a we had a proud Defence Force who no longer have the high morale they had and that has been crippled by the lack of accountability in the top brass. They have been flagrantly abusing their privileges, their titles, the honours and award system and their positions. We have the the the head of the Australian Defence Force, the Chief of the Defence forces. He is now paid 3 times what the American equivalent is paid. The American equivalent has 10s of thousands of many times more servicemen and women, has nuclear capable ships, planes. He has so many weapons and he can do so much damage and yet he’s paid 1/3 what our chief of defence forces is. This is ridiculous. We are overpaying our senior officers. We’re giving them far too much leniency. They’re not being held accountable. They are destroying the morale. And you know, we plan the well, the government plans to pay hundreds of billions of dollars for equipment like orcas submarines, the Hunter class frigates, combat reconnaissance vehicles, F35 jets. What the hell can they do without good morale in amongst the people who fly them and ship them and pilot them and, and arm them? The retention crisis now is from low morale. So we don’t have people to drive that fancy equipment. We’ve got a contractor on over a billion dollars income payment that we are outsourcing to recruit. Why the hell should we do that? Under them the recruit retention has gone down. Under them the recruit intake has gone down. We won’t have anyone to drive that fancy equipment. And when we do put people in that equipment, how the hell can we have ensure they have high morale when they’re being gutted by the inconsistencies, the hypocrisy and the deceit of of of the top brass. The ADF people are leaving because they don’t feel valued and that’s what my medals inquiry looked at. There’s a two tier system in the Defence Force at this moment and that needs to be addressed if we want people to win. The overarching thing about Australian leadership is that people in Australia will follow good leaders. If they’re not good leaders they will crucify them. And what we’re heading for here is, is real embarrassment for Australia’s Defence Force because we are not keeping up with the standards in the Australian military. And that is due solely and entirely to two groups of people, the top brass in our country and the and the Liberal and Labour Uni Party, defence ministers and bureaucrats that are just ******** on basically the soldiers. And we need to stop that. The soldiers, the airmen and the and the Navy sailors, we need to stop that. Need to call it call, call a spade a spade and get on with fixing the Defence Force morale and the Defence Force strategy.
Alexandra Marshall: Well, Senator, there has never been a more important time in our modern history for Australia’s defence forces to feel as if they are being looked after, particularly the young men and women who are on the ground defending Australia’s interests here at home and abroad. So I’d like to thank you very much, Senator Malcolm Roberts for joining us here today on Spectator TV.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re welcome. Keep up the good work, Alexandra.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/0ZjDDvv3LF8/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-07-02 09:50:122025-07-02 09:50:22Australia’s Wake-Up Call: No Defence, No Homes, No Future?
EXPOSED: Our Senate inquiry revealed widespread abuse of military medals by top brass.
Generals received medals for being ‘in action’ despite no records of being under enemy fire.
Our troops deserve better than this corrupt two-tier system.
Transcript
It’s alleged former Chief of the Defence Force, Angus Campbell, received a medal for being ‘in action’ when he was never on the ground with the enemy firing on him.
One Nation initiated a Senate inquiry into the military medals system which just finished.
Here’s what I found:
Government plans to pay hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars for equipment like AUKUS Submarines, the Hunter Class Frigates, Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles and F-35 fighter jets.
Yet, Defence is in a recruiting and retention crisis due to low morale.
So we won’t have people to drive that fancy equipment
ADF Personnel are leaving because they don’t feel valued and that’s what my medals inquiry investigated.
A functioning, fair and transparent Honours and Awards system that recognises the sacrifices and achievements of ADF personnel regardless of their rank has never been more important – if we want people to join and stay in our Defence force.
We found widespread abuse of the honours and awards system.
With the upper brass abusing the system.
Top brass is plagued with hypocrisy, a sense of entitlement and low accountability. The head generals give themselves medals illegally for sitting in air-conditioning while soldiers on the ground, in action, under fire don’t get recognised.
Right now, there’s a two-tier system in the Defence force and that needs to be addressed if we want people to join.
Here’s what I recommended from the inquiry:
Firstly, we want those medals to the top brass reviewed properly. It’s not been possible to find when many senior officers who received a Distinguished Service Cross were ever recorded as being ‘in action’ as the award criteria required. The Defence Minister must direct the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal to review all nominations for Distinguished Service Crosses and Medals to Senior Officers from 1991 to 2012 for integrity assurance, with specific assurance the ‘in action’ criteria was satisfied for each.
Secondly, return the criteria for the Distinguished Service Cross and Distinguished Service Medal to require the recipient’s conduct to be ‘in action’. The original change was done without support and against recommendations from important groups. The distinction for acts committed ‘in action’ under enemy fire is not trivial. It’s a distinction that should never have been erased from Australia’s highest honours and awards.
Thirdly, establish separate medals as recommended in previous reviews for leaders who distinguish themselves in war-like operations although not in action.
Fourthly, the Defence Minister and Chief of Defence should not have the power to cancel other people’s medals without any right of appeal. The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal must have the power to review decisions to cancel medals.
Fifthly, government must make clear announcements and implement policy to establish command responsibility as a binding doctrine in the Australian Defence Force. At relevant times in relation to the Brereton Report allegations, General Campbell held significant, senior command roles over those forces. If the allegations rise to the point that soldiers under his command must lose their medals, many rightly question how General Campbell can be entitled to keep his medal awarded for “distinguished command and leadership” of those same forces.
It’s ridiculous to claim that as Commander one can have both enough command and control over forces to entitle him to an award, yet not enough to make him responsible for allegations on his watch.
We need to clean out the abuse and corruption of the honours and awards system.
One Nation will always back our troops getting a fair go, especially the people who put their lives on the line.
