Podcasts from Senator Malcolm Roberts

The Malcolm Roberts Show – Banking Activist Ellen Brown

,

I talk to author and activist Ellen Brown on banking, debt and the need for a people’s bank.

Ellen Brown is an American author, attorney, public speaker, and advocate for financial reform, in particular public banking.

She is the founder and chairman of the Public Banking Institute, a nonpartisan think tank devoted to the creation of publicly-owned banks. She is the author of thirteen books and over 350 articles published globally.

Ellen began her career as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. Her interest in financial reform was sparked during 11 years spent in Africa and South America, where she began to explore solutions to the challenges of the developing world. She researched the private banking cartels, their hegemony over Wall Street and control of the Federal Reserve.   She also looked at public banking, which she discovered is a very successful model. The only operating state-owned public bank in the United States today is the Bank of North Dakota and has been touted as outperforming the big Wall Street banks.

In 2007 Ellen published the first edition of her best-selling book Web of Debt (now in its 5th edition). The book details how the private banking cartels have usurped the power to create money from the people themselves and how the people can get it back. Her writings proved prescient, as the financial collapse of 2008 laid bare the systemic problems she had identified.

In her 2013 book The Public Bank Solution, she traces the evolution of two banking models that have historically competed—public and private—and explores contemporary public banking systems around the world. Her latest book is Banking on the People: Democratizing Finance in the Digital Age (2019).

The Web of Debt is one of the best books I’ve read. Ellen is a dynamic woman with considerable energy and extraordinary research skills. Amazingly, much of her research was done painstakingly before use of the internet became widespread.

Transcript

Speaker 1:

This is the Malcolm Roberts Show on Today’s News Talk radio, TNT.

Malcolm Roberts:

This is Senator Malcolm Roberts. This is Today’s News Talk radio tntradio.live. I want to thank you for having me as your guest, whether it’s in your car, your kitchen, your lounge, your shed, or wherever you are right now. As regular listeners understand there are two most important themes for my programme. Firstly, freedom and specifically the age old freedom versus control challenge. Secondly, personal responsibility and integrity. Both are fundamental for human progress and for people’s livelihoods.

Malcolm Roberts:

On this show, we’re going to talk about money, money, money. We’re going to cover the eighth and final key to human progress. So I’ll list those eight keys to human progress. The first is freedom, the second is rule of law, the third is stable constitutional succession. The fourth is secure private property rights. The fifth, sorry, I’m losing track of counting. The fifth is strong families, sixth affordable, efficient, reliable energy.

Malcolm Roberts:

Then we did the next one last time, which is taxation. And this one, the eighth key is honest money. Now I’ve just introduced the word there honest money. We’re going to learn today from international and Australian experts about something we all take for granted. That’s right money. Think about it. It’s intimately involved in almost every aspect of our lives yet we take it so much for granted that we don’t see where it is, where it comes from. And we are living in misery at times. So many people living in misery.

Malcolm Roberts:

I’m going to refer to a quote from my website on the CSIRO looking at what’s pushing the global climate scam, but I’m going to quote from Ellen Brown’s book, where she’s referring to Louis McFadden, who is a senior member of the American House of Representatives, quote, “In 1934, he filed a petition for articles of impeachment against the Federal Reserve Board charging the Federal Reserve Bank with fraud, conspiracy, unlawful conversion, and treason.

Malcolm Roberts:

Then I’m going to quote from his speech where he spoke of one instance of 60,000 home and farm owners losing their property to bankers at one stage of the great depression. Here’s what he said. Their children are the new slaves of the auction blocks in the revival of the institution of human slavery. A document that I referred to called the Bankers Manifesto of 1934 added weight to these claims from these charges from McFadden, an update of the banker’s manifestation of 1892. It was reportedly published in the civil servant’s yearbook in January 1934 and in the New American in February, 1934 and was circulated privately among leading bankers.

Malcolm Roberts:

It said in part, ‘Capital must protect itself in every way through combination monopoly and through legislation,” that’s controlling governments. “Debts must be collected and loans and mortgages foreclosed as soon as possible.” Now listen to this bit. When through a process of law, the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and more easily governed by the strong arm of the law applied by the central power of wealth under control of leading financiers.

Malcolm Roberts:

People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. This is well known among principle men now engaged in forming an imperialism of capital to govern the world. Now, Australian speaker and researcher, John MacRae cites the same quote independently via another credible publication. Note that the bankers rely on what they falsely refer to as the law yet they are in their dominant and powerful position due to supposedly legalised legislation past deceitfully and in breach of the American constitution in breach of the American constitution.

Malcolm Roberts:

Their position is legal in that it’s legislated yet it’s fraudulent and thus unlawful that enables the people to remove it using the law. So what I wanted to discuss today with two very credentialed people is covering the basics of what is money? What do banks provide? Why are they so powerful? Who pays for the transfer of wealth from people and businesses to banks? So we will learn today how money is not honest. And we will learn today what is honest money?

Malcolm Roberts:

My first guest for this hour is Ellen Hodgson Brown. She’s an American author, attorney, public speaker and advocate for financial reform in particular in public banking. She’s the founder and chairman of the Public Banking Institute, a nonpartisan think tank devoted to the creation of publicly owned banks. She’s the author of 13 books and over 350 articles published globally. Much of a research was done before the access to the web, the worldwide web. An amazing woman.

Malcolm Roberts:

Ellen began her career as an attorney, practising civil litigation in Los Angeles. Her interest in financial reform was sparked during 11 years spent in Africa and South America, where she began to explore solutions to the challenges of the developing world.

Malcolm Roberts:

That’s why I love people who look around and see what’s going on. She researched the private banking cartels, the hegemony money over wall street and control of the federal reserve bank. She looked at public banking which she discovered as a very successful model, a very successful model, it’s successful in Australia in last century as well. The only operating state-owned public bank in the United States today is the Bank of North Dakota and has been touted as outperforming the big Wall Street banks. Every year it’s made a profit since it started.

Malcolm Roberts:

In 2007, Ellen published the first edition of her best selling book, The Web of Debt and it’s now in its fifth edition. And I can thoroughly recommend that. I’ve read it. The book details, how the private banking cartels have usurped the power to create money from the people themselves and how the people can get it back.

Malcolm Roberts:

Her writings prove prescient as the financial collapse of 2008, laid bare the systemic problems that she had identified. In her 2013 book, The Public Bank Solution, she traces the evolution of two banking models that have historically competed, public and private, and explores contemporary public banking systems around the world. The latest book is Banking On the People Democratising Finance in the Digital age and it was published in 2019. The Web of Debt is one of the best books I’ve ever read. Ellen is a dynamic intelligent woman with considerable energy and extraordinary research skills. Welcome Ellen.

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

Well, thanks Malcolm. It’s great to be talking to you. I’ve seen you on some little video clips lately, and you’re doing great work there.

Malcolm Roberts:

Thank you very much. And I’d like to talk about your work today. We always start Ellen with something you appreciate. What’s something you appreciate anything at all?

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

Well, I appreciate all the ordinary things that everybody appreciates, family and friends and health, and I used to appreciate travel, but I haven’t travelled since COVID. I think one advantage or one good thing about these lockdowns and about crises in general is that makes you appreciate things that you used to take for granted, like being out in public and able to breathe without having a mask on your face, simple things, or being able to travel without jumping through a lot of hoops that I’m not willing to jump through.

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

But one thing I really appreciate is the computer. Because when I first started writing books, we didn’t have access like we have now. And I had two small children and I dragged these two kids up and down the elevators in the UCLA library with these great heavy books, xeroxing studies and you’d get them home and they wouldn’t be what you really needed or it would refer to something else that you didn’t have access to. And now everything’s just at your fingertips, which is quite amazing, a whole world of knowledge, plus the ability to see into other countries and what people are doing around the world and get a sense of you can travel without actually travelling.

Malcolm Roberts:

So I was filled with admiration for you. We’ve talked before you took part in the Senate hearings rather on lending to rural and primary production customers. And you did a marvellous job there. We’ve talked before on the phone, I’ve read your books. I was stunned that you’d done most of your research before the internet and now I’m even more stunned because you were carting two girls around with you wherever you went. How did you do that?

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

One girl one boy.

Malcolm Roberts:

One girl one boy. Okay, well I’ve got to be fair 50:50. How did you do that?

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

That’s the thing. It took a lot of legwork. So I never go into libraries anymore. It’s all just right there. I did see that there was somebody at the World Economic Forum said that the Metaverse is going to be more real to us than our real lives. Well, I hope not but that is sort of the computer is a whole world in itself with great depth. It’s censor, of course you can’t always be sure you’re getting real information, but it’s incredibly interesting.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, I know you’re a very strong woman, a very determined woman. I’d like to explore that a little bit later on, a very strong human in fact. I don’t distinguish between men and women in that sense, women are incredibly strong. I asked you before we were putting this together a couple of weeks ago, your idea of what you’d like to talk about. And you said you only see one substantive pro question for you and that’s proposed questions about solutions.

Malcolm Roberts:

You suggested some. What can we do about our unsustainable unrepayable sovereign debts? The US federal debt is now $30 trillion, not counting unfunded future liabilities. Second question, what to do about inflation. Third question, how to make banks and banking work for the people. Fourth question, how to make national currencies honest? So they’re the questions I’d like to ask. But first of all, I think we have to define the problem. So let’s define the problem. Let’s understand the issue, which is the problem. So what’s money Ellen?

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

Well, economists say there are three critical factors in money, which is, it has to be a medium of exchange, a unit of account and a store of value. So virtually everything we call money today, doesn’t really qualify on all those points are not very well. Store value, that value keeps fluctuating. Well, even gold. I have some gold and I have some gold stocks and I totally think it’s a good idea but it does fluctuate a lot. And so it can go up $50 in a day. I think just from reading your email, I suspect you favour a gold backed currency, but it didn’t work in the 19th century. That’s why we went to Fiat money anyway. So there’s that. That’s one definition.

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

There’s M1, M2, M3, the way the Federal Reserve defines it or M0 to start with. So those are all different levels of how liquid the money is or how accessible. So M0, they get kind of confused together, but say M1 is cash, which is obviously very fungible and your bank reserve or your bank deposits. And then bank reserves are created by the Federal Reserve and you can’t actually spend those, but those are I think they’re called M0. Anyway, M2 is the larger circulating money supply. M3 they no longer even count it anymore, but it included all the shadow banking, which is unregulated forms of money. I just read that estimates are that there are $50 trillion in Euro dollars traded every single day. And these are totally unregulated. The Federal Reserve has no control over them, they’re called dollars but they’re not even really dollars. They’re Euro dollars means any dollars created outside of the United States. So it could be Japan or anywhere.

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

And they’re really just banking accounting. It’s an accounting thing where they’re basically creating credit and credits and debits that there’s no physical paper involved. Anyway, it’s a huge amount of money it’s in the shadow banking system, nobody knows for sure even how much it is. It’s certainly not transparent. It’s not trackable at all but it’s between banks. It’s legitimate. Apparently banks can’t operate without it. And I remember reading that on the gold system, the only reason it really worked was that you had a lot of credit that ways of expanding credit besides the gold, because there’s just not enough gold to do all the trades that need to be done.

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

Even if you take one single product, I think there’s [inaudible 00:14:31] was talking about this and he, he has a gold bug, but he said that to do like a hundred dollars product, you have to do many hundred dollars worth of credits because every producer in the chain of production operates on credit. So they have to pay their workers and materials before they get paid. And then the next step up also needs. So they would also need gold if we were only operating in gold. So you can’t do it in just one metal. The Euro Asian Economic Union that’s headed by Sergei Glazyev. I just wrote an article on that. They’re proposing a new monetary system where it wouldn’t be backed by gold in the sense of that you could take your dollars and cash them in for gold at the bank, which is what you actually could do in the 19th century.

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

And that’s what happened. That’s what went wrong in the 1930s to ’33 collapsed where people were rushing to the bank and trading in their dollars for gold. The banks didn’t have that much gold and they were on a fractional reserve system. So they only had a certain percentage of actual gold. So they ran out of gold so the banks then went bankrupt. So you’ve got to have credit on top of your gold in some way. But anyway, so the Russian system that is being proposed and that maybe our new banking system is, it’s not exactly backed in the sense of you can cash in your dollars for gold, but it’s measured against.

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

So it becomes a stable unit of value because it’s measured against a basket of commodities and currencies when I wrote Web of Debt, I was proposing that you could use the cost of living index. In other words, a basket of things that everybody uses. And then you could figure out what the value or how much it would cost in dollars, how much it would cost and pay us, et cetera. And that would be your exchange rate rather than what we have now, where exchange rates are easily manipulated by speculators that short sell the currencies. And we’ve had several crises over that. Anyway, so what money is, is very fluid.

Malcolm Roberts:

Wow. What an answer controversial, sorry your last word

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

And controversial.

Malcolm Roberts:

Controversial. I was just about to summarise it. I asked you a simple question, simple question. Money, what is it? No, no, you’ve done a brilliant job. It’s a medium of exchange, which enables people to exchange my work for someone else’s goods and someone else makes a different product. So he makes butter and he exchanges it with someone who makes clothes and she makes clothes. So it enables an exchange of… It’s a medium of exchange. So we have to have that. Otherwise, it’s back to barter system. And a medium of exchange enables us to specialise, which gives us efficiency.

Malcolm Roberts:

The butter maker will be far better at making butter than I will be. And I don’t have to have the dairy cattle to make the butter. Then you also said, it’s a unit of accounting. It’s a measure of an account. And then you also said, it’s a store of value. So wonderfully, clearly they’re the three things. And then you went on with how liquid the money is, the bank reserves, unstable, shadow banking, credit, fractional reserve, a stable unit of value, manipulated, speculators. It’s a real mess. It’s a real nightmare. No wonder people don’t take much interest in this because it’s so damn complex yet let’s try and simplify it before we get onto your-

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

Yeah, well, I should have… The most important thing and the most what you might consider fraudulent thing is that it’s not created by the government. Virtually all of our money is created by banks when they make loans, which I actually think is a good thing. We need a credit system and that’s a way to do a credit system. But the problem is who controls the banks? Who owns the banks? Who has first access to the money, which is called the can Cantillon effect. Whoever gets their hands on the money. First is most able to profit from it. So obviously the private banks, Wall Street, City of London, et cetera, they can create money on their books for their cl their favourite clients who may be one big cartel.

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

And so they have easy access to cheap money and they can raise the rates to whatever they want on the rest of us. So, anyway, there’s the problem is that money is created by banks. They do it by double entry bookkeeping. So if you go to the bank to take out a loan, let’s say you want to buy a house and you take out a loan for $500,000, the bank will write $500,000 on one side of its books just into your deposit account, your checking account. And you can now write checks on that. And on the other side of their books, they’ll write the same $500,000 as an asset because you have agreed to pay that back. You’ve signed a mortgage, et cetera. You’ll pay that back plus interest.

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

Whereas, on the deposit that they wrote on the other side of the books is a liability to them because when you pay your seller, if the seller is in another bank, then the bank will have to come up with that 500,000, which they probably don’t have. What they do is they borrow it somewhere. So they borrow it. It used to be, they borrowed it in the Fed funds market from each other, but they don’t do that much anymore although that’s the interest rate that the Fed is allegedly raising and that’s supposed to cure inflation, which it absolutely won’t right now under these circumstances. We know it’s not that kind of inflation. But anyway, so now I lost my train of thought.

Malcolm Roberts:

So what, what you’ve talked about now is there’s the way the banks create money. I’m not bragging here, but I went to the University of Chicago, which is in the city of Chicago, as you know and it’s won more Nobel prizes for economics and finance than any other university in the world anywhere. So it’s got a very good name for finance, and they never told us that. They never told us how they create money, who controls the money creation and what you’ve just said, I’m going to give you an example to back you up in a minute but what you’ve just said is that banks create money in the first place by ledger entries, journal entries. And I can confirm that because I asked the Deputy Governor of Reserve Bank of Australia, Guy Debelle, he was the deputy governor at the time.

Malcolm Roberts:

And I said, so what you’re saying is that money is created using journal entries. And he looked at me hesitated, and then he said, “Electronic journal entries.” So it’s created as some people would say, it’s not quite right, but it’s created out of thin air. And as you just said, the person who creates the money has the greatest control, but then these same people, privately owned banks, the same people control the Federal Reserve Bank, the same people determine interest rates. The same people determine the money supply, how easy it is to get money. So they really control the government. They really control the economy, don’t they?

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

Right. And also to confirm that in 2014, that the Bank of England came out in their first quarterly report and said contrary to popular belief, banks do not act simply as intermediaries taking in deposits and lending them out again. In fact, banks create money when they make loans. And in fact, they said that 97% of the money supply is created in that way. So that was confirming what used to be conspiracy theory before that. When I wrote about it, in Web of Debt, it was considered quite controversial but now everybody agrees. That’s how it’s done.

Malcolm Roberts:

So what we’ve got here is a money creation system that’s privately owned and privately controlled in large measure. And you wrote very glowingly of the Commonwealth Bank, Australia’s Commonwealth bank early last century. And rightly so, you did a very good job on that. However, it was a rarity. And so the Commonwealth Bank had to be killed because it provided competition for the private banks, Wall Street and the City of London banks did not like it at all. It held them accountable, it controlled the money and it had to go and both Labour and Liberal party governments over the last a hundred years have well until 1995, ’96, when Keating sold off the last of the Commonwealth Bank.

Malcolm Roberts:

It was destroyed over a period of about 70 years. And my next guest will explore that further. So money is important in an economy. It’s important to economic health. You’ve already talked about how we measure it. M1, M2, M3, M0, volume of money. You’ve talked about the fact that money is not honest. Money is controlled, so let’s go on banks. What’s their role in relation to money Ellen?

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

Well, as the Bank of England is confirmed they’re not merely intermediaries taking in money and lending it out again. They’re actually creating the money, which sounds shocking but actually we do need that sort of system. We need a credit system. The question is just who owns the bank and who controls the bank. As you’ve said, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia originally was an excellent model. We’ve had several quite good models too. Historically Alexander Hamilton’s original plan was to have that sort of infrastructure and development bank in the end, it wound up privatised over his objection. He didn’t think that stocks should be… Well, it was sold to foreigners over his objection. But anyway, that was the intention was sovereign money and sovereign credit. And of course the American colonists started out with sovereign money, which was original to them at the time, not counting the fact that the Chinese did it like about a thousand years ago.

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

But for Western civilization, anyway, that was unique that we didn’t have money. The colonies didn’t have money. And so it was the Governor of Massachusetts in 1691 I think who got the bright idea of paying his soldiers, but just by issuing these little receipts, which were considered an advance against taxes, which was the same system as the tally system which was done by the British from like 1100 to 1700, something like that where they would split a… Well, I hope I’m not getting too far out.

Malcolm Roberts:

No, no, keep going.

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

Okay. So in the tally system, they took a stick and notched it. So it was an accounting system and then they split the stick. And since no two sticks split the same way, it was foolproof against forgeries. So you could put the sticks together. So the government kept one half the stick, and then the payee kept the other, other half of the stick. And then those sticks circulated in the economy as money. And that’s basically the same thing that the American colonist paper money was, which was, and you’d pay it to somebody who had delivered goods or services to the government. So the collective body of the people acknowledged that this was a debt owed to this person or whatever. And then that paper would circulate in the economy and when tax time rolled around, you could use it to pay taxes.

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

We actually did that in California in 2008, but the problem was that the government, the local government wouldn’t take the money back in taxes. So it did work. It would work, it works as an advance, but you have to agree to use this to take it back. And that’s what does give it its value and stability and so forth. But anyway, it worked well for the colonists, except for the fact that it was a lot easier to issue the money than to pull it back in taxes. Because these are frontiers when they didn’t like the idea of taxes in the first place, they were kind of hard to nail down.

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

We didn’t have a computer system at that time. But anyway, it worked pretty well except that they wound up hyper inflating or over printing and devaluing the currency until the Pennsylvanians, the Quakers in Pennsylvania got the idea of forming their own bank. So instead of just printing money and spending it, they printed money and lent it to the farmers. So that’s the ideal. That was the first US public bank was this the Pennsylvania state or colonial bank where they printed money, lent it to the farmers at 5% interest, which at that time was a quite good interest rate. And then the farmers would pay it back. So it went out and it came back. So it was stabilised. It was sustainable. It wasn’t just money going out and going out and going out.

Malcolm Roberts:

Okay. So we’re going to go for an ad break now, but before we do, I’ll just make a statement that we can ponder over the ad break. Ron Paul who’s very, very highly regarded. Former Senator says that the Federal Reserve Bank in America is neither federal, it’s not a government body, nor has it got any reserves. It’s a privately owned entity. Beyond the reach of the president, beyond the reach of Congress. And that leads to complete absence of restraints on bank’s power.

Malcolm Roberts:

Now we have bailouts and we have bail ins, which have been enabled to protect the banks at the cost of the everyday Australian. We’ve seen you’ve documented the international role and power of banking associations, like the bank for international settlements, the world bank, the international monetary foundation, their role in ruining nations and making nations dependent. The IMF international monetary I’ve forgotten what’s the F for? Foundation. I’ve forgotten.

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

Fund. International Monetary Fund.

Malcolm Roberts:

Thank you. I just had a complete blank will crippling, Mexico, crippling Russia, the Malaysian Prime Minister at the time McCarty he’s one of the feud have called out the globalist banks their power is enormous. So when we come back, let’s talk about the fact that Henry Ford said, “If the American people knew what was going on with banking, there’d be a revolution by morning.” So rather than have that revolution on the streets, could you talk about your main questions and I’ll remind them of remind you of them. What can we do about our unsustainable unrepayable, sovereign debts? What can we do about inflation? How do we make banks and banking work for the people? How to make national currencies honest? We’ll go for the ad break. And then we be right back with Ellen Hodgson brown to give us the solutions.

Speaker 1:

The midterms and America votes on November 8th, with his expert analysis and opinion. This is TNT radio with Jeremy Beck.

Jeremy Beck:

An important recall vote in San Francisco took place on the 7th of June alongside the many primary elections on the same day. Voters decided to oust the radical District Attorney Chesa Boudin whose soft on prime approach has overseen a horror show of lawlessness for the many victims of crime. Boudin is one of several dozen rogue prosecutors elected to public office largely thanks to funds from billionaire George Soros.

Malcolm Roberts:

So we’re back with Ellen Hodgson Brown discussing money and banking. So Ellen, what can we do about our unsustainable unrepayable sovereign debts? You’ve mentioned that the United States federal debt is now about $30 trillion, not counting unfunded future liabilities. What can we do about it?

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

Well, sovereign debt of course is the debt of the government. Dealing with personal debt is a lot harder. Actually the first money system I probably should have mentioned this was that the first money system in recorded history was the Sumerian money system, which Michael Hudson’s written a lot about. And it was just an accounting system, but they did charge interest. And when the debts got too high, they would have a debt Jubilee periodically. So they would wipe out all the debts and start all over. And that’s obviously the ideal, if you can do it. But the reason they could do it was that the king was considered the representative of the gods and the gods owned the land. And so the king could just order that the debts would be wiped off the clean slate. But today the debts are owed to private banks and we just wouldn’t be able to do it legally.

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

So doing a debt Jubilee for the people would be a lot harder, although it certainly would be, it seems like it’s needed because one problem with the way we create money is that banks create the principle, but they don’t create the interest. So debt always grows faster than the money supply, and there’s not enough money to pay it all back without borrowing more which means the debt just goes up and up and up. It’s a pyramid scheme. So how do we bring about a debt Jubilee under today’s circumstances? Alexander Hamilton actually had a very good plan, which I think we could do. Although you know obviously it’s probably not going to happen, but what Hamilton did with the state’s deaths, the colonies debts that became the states was to roll them to accept them in exchange for stock in the first US banks.

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

So you could pay partly in gold and partly in these debts. And we could actually take that $30 trillion in debt and turn it into stock in a big bank and pay some dividend on it. And actually, there is a bill that we have here in the US right now, a National Infrastructure Bank Bill, where they’re modelling it on the first US banker, the Hamiltonian model, where they would take federal securities and in exchange for stock in the bank. And that’s how they would capitalise it. So that’s one possibility. Another possibility, as long as you don’t pay interest on it, really the debt doesn’t hurt. If you just keep rolling it over and over and over. So you could just have the Federal Reserve buy all the debt. The central bank returns its profits to the treasury.

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

So it doesn’t keep the interest. It’s really the interest that’s the problem. That’s the thing that we have to pay year after year and projections are that in a few years, it’s going to be up to something like a trillion dollars a year just for the interest. So that’s getting right up there with the military and are really expensive things in the budget. But that’s another possibility. In other words, you can just keep rolling it over and hold it by your own central bank assuming your central bank were actually publicly owned and controlled and serving the people. So it could be dealt with. Now foreign sovereign debts, it does look like half the world is likely to join this new [inaudible 00:37:10] system and just walk away from their debts. That’s what Sergei Glazyev said that they don’t need to pay their debts.

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

They just walk away from the debts in dollars and start their own system. And that could happen. Would it destroy the dollar? I don’t think so. Because of the amount of dollars that are out there in the Euro dollar system, I mean the dollar is basically our unit of account. It’s just how people measure value. And it’s so entrenched that I’ve read other experts who say that it probably can’t be shaken loose even if half the world does abandon the dollar and take up some other currency, but I’m getting far a field again. Sorry.

Malcolm Roberts:

So Ellen, before we move on to the solving inflation your ideas on comments on that, there are many different ways of do doing this, but what seems to be coming out of it is that we need to talk about it. We need to have an open Frank discussion about it. We need to have the truth on the table. We need to understand who owns what in this, who controls what so that we can then establish a system that is good for the people rather than just for a few globalist predators.

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

Right. Transparency and accountability. Totally.

Malcolm Roberts:

And they’re the enemies at the moment and so there’s no transparency. A lot of this is hidden. Okay. So the solution is not an easy one, but it must be achieved. If we don’t achieve a solution by open honest frank discussion, then it’ll come through some form of control and that’ll be devastating for everyone ultimately for the global predators themselves. So what to do about inflation Ellen?

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

Well, the argument is that this is a monetary inflation, and they’re trying to tighten the money supply and not supposed to fix it, but it’s not a monetary inflation. It’s a supply problem. There’s two sides to inflation that you often hear that inflation is always and everywhere, monetary phenomenon. But that’s not true. It’s half a monetary phenomenon, it’s a half a supply phenomenon. In other words, if money goes up and supply goes down, you’re going to have too much money competing for too few goods.

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

But if you can keep the supply and the money in balance, then you don’t have inflation, then prices remain stable. So what we need to do is up the supply, which a good infrastructure bank would do it, we’ve got the amazing model of China that in a couple of decades, they came up from absolute poverty for most of their people up into well, anyway, how did they do it?

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

But they have these infrastructure banks where they just basically create the money as credit build the thing like the high speed rail, and then the fees from the trains pay back the loan. And that’s the way it should be. You extend the credit, you use the credit to build something productive, don’t keep pumping it into existing houses, which will just drive the price of houses up. But you put it into new productivity, new infrastructure, which we desperately need in the US and probably, I don’t know how Australia is, but here we got a serious infrastructure problem, build new infrastructure, put money into all sorts of productive things. That’s what Roosevelt did in the 1930s with the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, he funded anything that was productive that would pay back, not speculative, but actual producing assets. So that’s what we need to do.

Malcolm Roberts:

Okay. That makes sense, because if you generate something in terms of productive infrastructure, and then you use that to generate wealth, then you don’t have inflation and you do have prosperity wealth.

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

The interest rates is going to just make it worse because all the producers have credit lines and they’re not going to be able to afford their credit lines. We’re already seeing that business is falling off.

Malcolm Roberts:

And what you just said worked in the Commonwealth Bank when it was a true public bank in the early part of last century generated infrastructure and we… We’ll come to that more later. I won’t go on any more of that now. How do we make banks, coming to your fourth question, how do we make banks and banking work for the people Ellen?

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

Well, they need to be public institutions, publicly owned and controlled, the sustainable, transparent and accountable that they need to be. When we have this, the public banking institute, our mission is to try to get public banks established in the US like the Bank of North Dakota. And you often hear people say, you want to give the government a bake, because people don’t trust the government anymore than they trust bakers, but you need to design the system so that it is responsive to the people, accountable, transparent and so that we actually have control over it.

Malcolm Roberts:

So that again mimics what happened with the Commonwealth Bank. The Commonwealth Bank, when it was formed. The first governor was a man named Dennison Miller who was very energetic man who really aspired to do something really well. And he was working for the Bank of New south Wales. What is now known as Westpac. He was taken from Westpac of Bank of New South Wales and made in charge of the Commonwealth Bank. And he had a wonderful objective then to do the best for the country.

Malcolm Roberts:

And he basically ran the Commonwealth Bank very, very well and worked for the country despite Labour Party and Liberal Party or the precursor Liberal Party, trying to undo it all because one of the things that the Commonwealth Bank did when it was a true people’s bank in the early part of last century, was it provided competition for the private banks. The private banks were then held accountable, which is what you just said. The accountability is so important, but that accountability has to be to the people you’d agree with that.

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

Right. Totally.

Malcolm Roberts:

Okay. Thank you for mentioning the Commonwealth Bank in your book, the Web of Debt. The fourth question, your last question.

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

[inaudible 00:43:57] very inspiring.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yes. The fourth question you suggested was how to make national currencies honest? How do we make them honest? Because as you pointed out at the moment, whether it’s seashells or paper or trinkets or tally sticks or whatever medium is that it can be corrupted. It’s not necessarily backed by anything. There’s no real reserve there. There’s no real value there other than what it’s deemed to be valued. It’s Fiat. It’s an announcement, a pronouncement. So how do you make national currencies honest?

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

Well, I’m not actually opposed to national currencies. I’m not sure I know the answer to that. There are a lot of people attempting to establish an alternative currency system, like a cryptocurrency system, a crypto currency would be honest if it’s backed by something like food back currencies, I think would be a great idea where it’s basically an advance against the future productivity of the farmers. They could issue their own cryptocurrency. But anyway, I think our Fiat system is not that bad. It’s who creates it and who controls its creation. In other words, if you had public banks that were actually accountable and sustainable and what was the other word I forgot now, anyway, it’s getting late here. So if you had public banks that were there to serve the people and the people in control of it actually had that sort of sense of mission that you could have an honest fiat currency.

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

Fiat currency is not really unbacked. It’s backed by the full faith and credit of the people, which means the people agree that to accept it. It so if I went to the grocery with a gold coin and tried to pay for my groceries and said this is worth 1800, whatever it’s at right now at 1850 or something, the grocer wouldn’t know what to do with it because they wouldn’t know for sure that it was valid. He’d say, “No, give me paper money or give me your credit card.” Because things are valued in the Fiat currency and that’s one of the properties of a good currency. I don’t know what, how do you answer it?

Malcolm Roberts:

It’s very difficult, but it seems to me that what you’ve said in answer to each of the four major questions is that it has to go back to being publicly owned bank, a government led bank, not, not necessarily led because governments can then do political things but an independent bank that’s independent from privately owned banks because privately owned banks are the root of the problem. These privately owned banks, these globalist predators, when things are going well, they love capitalism. When things are going badly, they want socialism.

Malcolm Roberts:

And that seems to be a major problem for these people because they make so many… Without any accountability, they make horrendous decisions which ultimately the people pay for in a loss of their house, the loss of their cars, the loss of productive capacity of the country, the decimation of a whole economy. And then you extend that power, that national power internationally through the Bank of International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund, the world bank, et cetera. You’ve got a huge problem and they’re basically controlled by the same globalist predators. So that seems to be the core to take it back and give it to the people. But either way you’ve done a marvellous job in painting the fact that there are no simple solutions and yet there is a basic simple solution and that is people’s banking. Ellen, can I ask you some personal questions?

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

Sure.

Malcolm Roberts:

Because I’ve got just two minutes to go and I like to finish on the hour rather than early. First of all, I want to thank you so much for joining us. And I look forward to staying in touch, but I read that you were born in 1945, that makes you almost 77, 76. How do you do it?

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

Almost 77. Well, how do I do it?

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. You look at the research, you’ve done the clarity, your ability to say that it’s not all bad. Some things that need to be considered, but you’re juggling all these complex concepts in your head.

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

Well, it’s incredibly interesting. Don’t you think?

Malcolm Roberts:

Oh yes.

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

You’re doing marvellous work and just the idea of cracking this nut. Like how do we figure this out? And, well, actually I got divorced if you want to get really personal 20 years ago. And I was quite depressed. And so at some point I said, “I don’t want this body anymore, but if somebody up there has a good idea for [inaudible 00:49:03].”

Malcolm Roberts:

So you took it on as a challenge. I’d want to give you the last say we’ve got 20 seconds left. How do they learn more about you? What’s your website?

Ellen Hodgson Brown:

Oh, ellenbrown.com or publicbankinginstitute.org.

Malcolm Roberts:

ellenbrown.com or publicbankinginstitute.org. Thank you so much Ellen. What a wonderful person you are. Thank you for being so open and honest.

/by

The Malcolm Roberts Show – Journalist Tony Thomas

,

I talk to journalist Tony Thomas who is interested in climate change, indoctrination in schools and universities, the ABC, and Aboriginal politics. See all episodes of my show on TNT radio.

Recorded 19 February 2022

Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):

You’re with Senator Malcolm Roberts on Today’s News Talk radio, TNT.

Senator Malcom Roberts (00:07):

And welcome back to Today’s News Talk radio, tntradio.live. This is Senator Malcolm Roberts, and I just want to apologise for my amateurish approach to the microphone. I’m learning this game as we go. So bear with me, please. Hope this is much better now. I’ll look for some feedback from the panel in the gold coast. This hour coming, I’m going to be chatting with the real journalist. Tony Thomas is someone who hasn’t lost sight of the dignity and responsibility of journalism. Tony’s now 81, he’s been in journalism for more than 60 years. Since he started his cadetship, and I want to emphasise that word cadetship, in 1958 on The West Australian newspaper, he spent a decade there, followed by 10 years writing economics for the age in the Canberra Press Gallery. Through the 1970s. He’s an ideal person to talk about the Press Gallery and the media in Canberra reporting on politics.

Senator Malcom Roberts (01:04):

He spent 20 years with weekly business magazine, BRW, including as associate editor. Since retiring from salary journalism in 2001, he’s published more than 400 features for Quadrant and Spectator magazines, and his work is marvellous. It’s always factual and accurate. He’s done a part-time master’s degree in literature and a bachelor of economics at Australian National University and published nine books on history, business, and current affairs, including four books of collected essays in the past five years. So you can see that he’s across many different topics. One of his books on business won an award in 2000, from the chartered accountants body as quote, “A substantial contribution to the literature of the industry.” Tony’s major topics currently include climate change, indoctrination in schools and universities, the ABC and Aboriginal politics. Welcome to tntradio.live. Tony.

Tony Thomas (02:04):

Thanks very much Malcolm, a very nice introduction.

Senator Malcom Roberts (02:10):

We always start with appreciation. Tell me something you appreciate, no matter how briefly, no matter what topic, what do you appreciate?

Tony Thomas (02:18):

I appreciate the ability to research right, and get published with alacrity. There’s no fun writing for a publisher, and then your book comes out 15 months later, but writing for Quadrant Online, I put the article in within a day or two it’s up on the blog site. So, that’s very satisfying.

Senator Malcom Roberts (02:43):

Thank you. Now I want to go back to your cadetship. How did young journalists operate? Is it like the classical movies tell us 40 years ago, they would sniff an issue, they would go out and research it, they’d talk to people, above all, listen to people, give everyone a fair hearing. And then they would write an article without fear, without favour, objective. Is that the way you started? Is that the culture in which you started?

Tony Thomas (03:14):

Yes. In those days, the young journalists were monitored and herded by old veteran pot belly grizzled journalists changed [inaudible 00:03:27], who’d been in the game since before the war, who would roast you for the slightest grammatical mistake or sloppiness, and so on. I must say though, The West Australian was a monopoly in that capital city. So they weren’t as sharp as many other newspapers are where everybody’s competing, but still it was a four year cadetship. I did three years and you learn shorthand. I actually learned shorthand twice over once at school and once on the job. And you were put through all sorts of experiences, especially court reporting, which may seem quite okay for a young cadet. But in fact, it’s the most difficult and exacting form of reporting. And if you get one little thing wrong or you mishear something because of bad acoustics, you are in big trouble. So the training was quite slow in those days, but thorough.

Senator Malcom Roberts (04:30):

Thank you very much. So basically it’s an apprenticeship and you learn-

Tony Thomas (04:35):

That’s right.

Senator Malcom Roberts (04:35):

…the tools of your trade and the methods of your trade and the processes of your trade by the guidance of experienced people, successful people. You also said something else, implicitly. You said that The West Australian was a monopoly. And therefore it wasn’t as sharp as some of the other papers where there was cutthroat competition. You also said there’s shorthanded school as shorthand was at school, basic skills that are not taught today. Now, just of something of interest. And you also mentioned you were sent to court reporting, where you have to be accurate and precise and succinct, just a little sideline, whenever I’m approached by anyone in the media, whether it be by phone or personally, I always turn on my recording device.

Senator Malcom Roberts (05:23):

The other day in parliament, I was wandering through the corridors on my way to Senate estimates hearings, and Andrew Probyn now with the ABC saw me and he went past me and he said, “Can I just get your comment off the record, of course, about a topic?” And I said, “Hang on just a minute, I’ll just turn my recording device on.” And he said, “No, if that’s it, not interested.” So, there’s that kind of thing, he’s not willing to stand up to accountability because if he misreports, this is my opinion, if he missed reports, then I can hold him accountable for it. The moment I did that, he ran away. So journalists have prized impartiality, what happened?

Tony Thomas (06:09):

Well, what happened there, was the old story, as you said, of journalists not wanting to be accountable. Now, it’s 10 times worse with the TV journalism because the TV journalist will interview you for half an hour and then cut and snip the interview down to just a few sentences, according to whatever agenda he’s on. And some really clever people like Joanne Nova, the climate blogger in Perth, when she was met by the ABC filming team, had her own filming camera set up in the lounge room and she filmed the ABC filming. And so then she was able to say, this is what the ABC has done with that interview, where they’ve cut, how they’ve distorted it, and basically how much they left on the cutting room floor. So there’s an old saying about, trust me, I’m a journalist. Well, that’s ironic.

Senator Malcom Roberts (07:15):

Yes. That’s a really important point. You’ve just mentioned journalists, as we agreed is not accountable today. And it’s worse with TV because of the editing. That’s implicit in what you said, Joanne Nova’s filming the filmers. There’s a story, I was in Cannes with a candidate who was fairly inexperienced and he had a colourful background, nothing wrong with it, but he had background and some of the media locally were trying to distort that misrepresented to cast dispersions on him. And one of the journalists came up and I said to him that I was recording it in front of the candidate.

Senator Malcom Roberts (07:54):

And then I proceeded to answer his questions by asking him questions. And after a couple of minutes, he realised that he was being interviewed and I realised where the slant of his thrust was going to go. So what I did was I posted the recording on Facebook immediately. Now that’s taking away livelihood from a journalist, but in my opinion, it was also protecting an honest, innocent person from being slandered or being misrepresented. So that’s one way of fighting the media, but how else can we protect ourselves against the media?

Tony Thomas (08:36):

Well, before the online world happened, the journalists for print could write what they liked and the only response that any reader would have would be to write a letter of complaint to the editor. And then the editor, which is like complaining to your wife about your mother-in-law. The editor would normally pick a side of the journalist and throw the letter in the bin, or whatever. But now that there’s an online world, if a journalist writes a piece that people object to, either on that site itself or on their own blogs or anywhere, they can put a post up arguing back against the journalists. So, that’s what the online world has opened up. The journalists are now accountable to every person on the planet, which is an excellent thing.

Senator Malcom Roberts (09:32):

Yes, until we get censorship in social media, which is what Facebook and Instagram and Twitter and LinkedIn are doing. So how do we counter that?

Tony Thomas (09:43):

Well, as Trump and Joanne Nova, and people are doing, they’re finding other platforms, which are pretty obscure, and I’m not across them, I think a bit [inaudible 00:09:56], and these ones are open and not centering you. So that takes some power away from Twitter and Facebook.

Senator Malcom Roberts (10:05):

What about polls? What do they show about trust in the media these days, Tony?

Tony Thomas (10:09):

I’ve been looking into this and there, there was a poll by the Reader’s Digest of all things in Australia last year. And they wanted people to rank professions according to trust. And guess where journalists came, they came second last of 30 professions, just ahead of politicians. Sorry about that, Mal. And just-

Senator Malcom Roberts (10:32):

You’re not affecting me because we deal with honesty, Tony, I know exact be what you’re talking about. They’re [inaudible 00:10:38].

Tony Thomas (10:38):

Yeah. And just ahead of delivery drivers, and when you go to a place like the United States, there was a, I think a Pew poll, for how is trust in the media represented across 46 countries, and of the 46 countries trust in the media, in the US was bottom. You can’t get any lower than that. Only 29% of the population said they trusted the media. Whereas I looked up Australia, that was 43%, but Australian trust in the media is below what you got in Croatia, Poland and South Africa. If you want a bit more there’s other polls quite recently, where trust in the media overall in the US is only 36%, which is the second lowest ever since Gallup began polling, only 11% of Republican trust the media. But when you take all American adults, only 10% trust the media on their COVID coverage. Now that is truly remarkable and indicates that no matter what the press is saying, their audience frankly, is mostly not believing it.

Senator Malcom Roberts (11:59):

So, they’re startling figures. So trust is just about shot, which will ultimately lead to two things, correct me if I’m wrong, people will stop paying media. People will turn to alternatives as we are doing. We are turning to what I call independent truth media, podcasts, independent stations like tntradio.live. These are the things because ultimately there is a free market, but let me just check again. Pravda still exists, doesn’t it, in Russia?

Tony Thomas (12:36):

I think so. I’m not sure.

Senator Malcom Roberts (12:38):

I’m pretty sure it does. That means our journalists in this country, our media in this country are ranked below Pravda, who would’ve thought that 40 years ago before 1988? Who would’ve thought that?

Tony Thomas (12:52):

Well, I don’t know where the Russia who was on that list of 46 countries, but I’ll give you the benefit on the doubt there, Malcolm.

Senator Malcom Roberts (13:00):

Well, some of the Eastern block countries.

Tony Thomas (13:02):

Yes. Well, they were there. Poland, Croatia. You name it.

Senator Malcom Roberts (13:07):

Yeah. How effective is the ABC’s charter for impartiality?

Tony Thomas (13:12):

Oh, it’s really a joke. What it actually says is that the ABC reporters should follow the weight of evidence. So that means if there’s a consensus about something, they should reflect that consensus. But it says that all points of view should be covered over time. And what this has done is given a licence to the, in addition it said, you don’t have to worry about tinfoil hat conspiracists and [inaudible 00:13:44], and people like that who are not actually entitled to any sort of point of view in balanced coverage.

Tony Thomas (13:53):

Well, the ABC people of course have now lumped climate sceptics to take the most pertinent example, along with the tin hat foil conspirators, and they won’t touch any sceptic point of view. And on the rare occasions they have, such as on their science show where they interviewed Dr. Judith Curry, a very esteemed American climatologist with a sceptic point of view, they book ended her with two or three of their own pet climate scientists, so that everything that Judith said, they were able to drown out with opposing views from their several friends there. So, that’s how they pretend to keep their charter, while actually protecting the public from the views of a very large proportion of people on climate.

Senator Malcom Roberts (14:51):

Well, it’s very interesting you mentioned. I didn’t know those details about the ABC, even though we’d done some research and some work in response to some political activities a couple of years ago. They are a disgrace, in my opinion, I think they should be sold with the exception of the regional arm. And that should be retained, especially for natural disasters. So, I’ll come back to the ABC in a minute. Well, let’s deal with them first, before we go to-

Tony Thomas (15:16):

[crosstalk 00:15:16] Pilborough.

Senator Malcom Roberts (15:17):

…go to the Pilborough in 1980s, the ABC actually requires dealing with the consensus, supporting the consensus. Now, that’s very interesting because they don’t do their research. When it comes to climate, the consensus is with the scientists who don’t believe that carbon dioxides from human activity has to be cut. That is undoubted. The Oregon petition 33,000, 34,000 now scientists, who are opposed to what we are being told by the United Nations. Kevin Rudd as prime minister, what a disgrace he was, his behaviour was atrocious because he’d basically lied in parliament. He said that 4,000 scientists produced the IPCC’s report. I challenged him. I wrote to his office and I said that the claim is really 2,500, but of those 2,500, only about a 1,000 produced a science report.

Senator Malcom Roberts (16:24):

In the science report, and you would well know this, in 2007 there was one sole lonely chapter claiming carbon dioxides from human activity effects climate, needs to be cut. The rest was bumf, fluff. That was it. Chapter nine, from memory in 2007. In that chapter, the reviewers numbered about 57, of those reviewers, only five endorse a claim that carbon dioxides from human activity affects climate, only five. And there’s doubt that they were even accredited scientists. So we have, not 4,000 that Kevin Ruddd told us, we had five. That’s from the UN’s own process, the UN’s own data, which Dr. John McClain painstakingly took from UN documents. After that exposure by Dr. John McClain, the UN stopped producing reports on the numbers of scientists, but that is a blatant lie. Now what makes it even more so atrocious, Tony is that I wrote to Kevin Rudd, his department responded to me. I then told them why their response was nonsense. They then responded to me again, from memory. And then I told them why that was nonsense. I won the argument. They didn’t respond. Hard data they go against.

Tony Thomas (17:48):

Yeah, I actually am a friend of John McClain, here in Melbourne.

Senator Malcom Roberts (17:53):

Wonderful man.

Tony Thomas (17:54):

Yeah. He tipped me off that there’s a key chapter in the IPCC reports called Attribution Studies, where they have to literally attribute global warming to CO2, via their modelings. And I’m not sure which report it was. It could have been the 2007 one. There were only 60 scientists involved in that attribution exercise, and basically all of them were in a network where their peer reviewing each other’s work, and hobnobbing together, and you can do one of those spider graphs where you can link just about every one of them to every other one. So it was a small group, a closed shop of people, but there were 60 people basically dictating this entire global warming hysteria that’s been going on now for 30 years.

Senator Malcom Roberts (18:51):

Well, not only that, I’m pretty sure you’re citing the data there that I also cited. There were 60 authors of the critical chapter, the sole chapter, again. The overwhelming majority of them were climate modellers, not empirical scientists.

Tony Thomas (19:10):

Sure.

Senator Malcom Roberts (19:10):

And there’s no empirical data, which is the fundamental root foundation of science. Objectivity is based on empirical data, hard facts, hard observations. None of that appears in chapter nine, 2007, the sole chapter that claims warming and attributed to carbon dioxide from human activities. What’s more though, is we see… And why hasn’t the ABC reported that? Why hasn’t anyone reported that? Because they’re too lazy, in my opinion Tony, to go and do the work, do the research that you were trained to do. And now it’s that second nature to you, but not only that, they don’t report on the links, the links to, for example, the network of very close, I think about four institutions, those 60 odd scientists, I don’t call them scientists, I call them academics. The 60 academics that produce the chapter nine, but largely modellers overwhelmingly were modellers.

Senator Malcom Roberts (20:12):

But more importantly, they were from, I think about four different modelling organisations. All enrolled in spreading this climate crap. And so they feed off each other, they validate each other’s papers. And when you look through the peer reviewers, they’re all forming a very close club and they depend on each other to maintain their positions. But there’s also another connection, a colleague of mine in Canberra, who I think you know, Peter Bobrov, he did an analysis of those who are connected to the United Nations or globalist organisations. Overwhelmingly, the loud voices, the mouths that spread this nonsense, they’re academic activists, advocates. They’re all one in the same, it’s hard to tell the difference between academia and activists these days, but they’re overwhelmingly connected to the UN or associated globalist bodies.

Senator Malcom Roberts (21:14):

And then David Karoly, he was editor, lead author for one chapter, I think it was in 2001 for the sole chapter that claims warming and attributed to carbon dioxide. He was also one of the three primary reviewers of the same chapter, the equivalent chapter, sorry, chapter nine in 2007. And the 2007 report just built on the 2001 report. So if we’ve got crap at the start in 2001, and it was, then it was validated by the people who produced the crap. It was validated in 2007. And David Karoly, despite people saying the science was settled back then, received a grant for $1.9 million to research this climate science, despite it being settled. And it’s just stunning the money that taxpayers spread out through people like Kevin Rudd, and sadly the liberals. So there’s this very tight incestuous group, but the media doesn’t talk about it.

Tony Thomas (22:17):

Yeah. The Australian Academy of Science in 2015, put out a booklet called a Question and Answers on the Science of Climate Change. And I immediately went looking for where are they going to produce the evidence for the CO2 causing the warming? And it said, “Paleo climate studies plus outputs from modelling provide compelling evidence of the connection.” Well, since when is output from models, been compelling evidence, it’s just a scientific absurdity. And this booklet would’ve gone through the hands of dozens and dozens of academy of science people, making sure that they weren’t going to get caught out on anything, and this just goes through. Output of morals to them is compelling evidence. It’s shocking, really.

Senator Malcom Roberts (23:14):

But no media journalists pick it up apart from Adam Creighton and Tony McCrain and sometimes Graham Lloyd. The media seems to willfully ignore it. And when you challenge him, aren’t they still ignore it. You mention the Australian Academy of Science, I had dealings with will Stephan, who is a member of the Academy, from memory. He was on four government funded organisations. And yet when he was introduced as a newly selected member of the climate commission, or should that be climate [inaudible 00:23:44], but anyway, climate commission, the minister at the time for climate, pushing climate, he was Greg Combet, and he said that Will Stephan. And the others were all impartial.

Senator Malcom Roberts (23:55):

They already had strong connections to the government. And as you point out, that the only thing that they can hang their hats on now is modelling. We had 90 models producing vastly different outputs. So which one of these is the settle science? And now we have whittled that down from 90 to 40, they say. So as it was asked in Senate estimates last week, if you’ve got 40 models producing different results, what does that tell you about the science being settled?

Tony Thomas (24:29):

Yeah. Yeah, that’s right. What they’re now going for is to pretend that basically the consensus is overwhelming and there’s no more argument. And so if you start signing the pledge and so on, that is proof that everything’s okay, there’s this organisation called Covering Climate Now based in Columbia University, School of Journalism and The Guardian and a few other groups, and they’ve got 460 media groups worldwide to sign the pledge, to do their utmost to hide global warming and shun any critics of it. And to use words that the guardian recommends like global heating, global crisis, emergency climate breakdown. So they even want to constrict the language into this campaign of theirs. Well, once you realise that 460 media outlets have signed that pledge, how can you possibly imagine that any of them remain objective on the subject?

Senator Malcom Roberts (25:40):

Exactly. And I love your use of data. Your readily available at your fingertips data. And I note that News Corporation in its editorial, leading up to the Glasgow Conference of Parties with the UN back in, what was that? November last year. The news Corp said, “We’re going to change our editorial policy slightly. We’re going to be reporting more implicitly,” didn’t state it directly, a slanted view, but Tony, we’re going to go to an ad break now. What I’d like to do when we come back in a minute or so is have your views on the role of the now activist global news agencies like Associated Press, AFP, Reuters, AAP, et cetera. We go to the ad break.

Tony Thomas (26:29):

With pleasure. I’ve been researching that all week. Okay. Thanks Malcom.

Senator Malcom Roberts (28:38):

Welcome back you’re with Senator Malcolm Roberts interviewing a journalist with 60 years of experience, Tony Thomas. Tony, one of the advertisements a minute ago just said “Your future depends on how you think.” Could it be any better said? The quality of our decisions depend upon what we think or on how we think. And particularly based on data, how can we make a sound decision on voting, which will determine taxation and community policies, defence, social policies, industry policies, productivity, with a biassed media? People have been asleep in this country. The media perpetuates the two parties, which are so similar. It’s really a uni-party, but people are still asleep. COVID though have as awoken people, and no matter how much the bias is there, and it’s very solid. People seem to be waking up. What’s the role of the now activist global news agencies?

Tony Thomas (29:36):

Well, people don’t really realise or appreciate that if it wasn’t for the huge global news wholesalers like Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, Reuters and Bloomberg, their newspapers would be half empty and the same with the radio, news, and so on. That they just shovel in the output from these news global wholesalers. And I’ve just been checking, and I find that AFP, which has got literally thousands of journalists there and probably thousand or more media customers, and Reuters and Bloomberg have all signed this covering climate now petitioned to hype global warming and stamp out any dissenting views. And then I began to realise that The Australian newspaper, which has been my main reading and I’ve always respected it, is taking basically ghastly climate propaganda from AFP. And there is an example, just the other day about a headline, The acceleration of global warming code red for humanity.

Tony Thomas (30:58):

And it was illustrated with a picture of a cool city with beautiful green grasses, blue skies, pink, white, fluffy clouds. And then because of CO2 on the left side of the picture, it turns into a boiling hot hellscape, fires and cracked earth, not a green thing in sight. And this was all under the heading, Breaking News. And then I found that the same guy from AFP who’s their global head of climate coverage called Marlowe Hood has got more than 20 of these propaganda pieces into The Australian.

Tony Thomas (31:41):

And it’s just unbelievable that they wouldn’t at least be put under comment, but to have them all in the news section like that. And clearly The Australian having paid for a feed from AFP, just uncritically takes everything that they offer. But if we move on to Associated Press, there’s a huge scandal just broken in the United States, where five leaftist philanthropic foundations have given Associated Press $8 million to hire 20 new reporters to push the climate change message.

Tony Thomas (32:29):

So this means that when you are reading climate stuff from now on, from Associated Press, you could be reading material by people who’ve been hired with money from foundations like The Rockefeller Foundation, the James and Catherine Murdoch Quadrivium Foundation. There’s the Walton Foundation, there’s another one that I’ve forgotten. Anyway, they’ve all got green leaf credentials. They’re all determined to save the planet. And this is so contrary to the codes of ethics of Associated Press itself, which it says don’t allow money to influence anything you’re doing and always be wary of anyone offering money to influence your coverage. And in point, they even said, announcing this $8 million grant that they were no longer going to be so wary because the money from these foundations is such nice money, and we really need it. I mean you can’t make this stuff up.

Senator Malcom Roberts (33:41):

No. And we know that I think it was John Rockefeller. One of the early Rockefellers about a hundred years ago, thanked the New York times, that’s right, for keeping the global control under wraps. So not being impartial, just silencing the control of the major 46 newspapers in the United States that were biassed and controlled by the globalists. And then there’s another problem we have Tony, and that is that I think it was Julia Gillard’s Labour government that had in amongst its ministers and its staff, amongst its MPS. It had something like 150 journalists working for them. Anastasia Palache was recently reported, was it 30 journalists reporting to her or reporting in her department-

Tony Thomas (34:39):

There could have been.

Senator Malcom Roberts (34:39):

…and what’s happening, sorry?

Tony Thomas (34:41):

Well, it could have been triple figures for all the media Flex in the Palache Queensland government. And it’s much the same in the Andrew’s government. The teams of media flex that he owns are probably larger than the teams in any other media outlet stable.

Senator Malcom Roberts (35:03):

So the point I was getting to, that’s a really important thing to say that the biggest employers of media are in fact, the politicians because what’s happened with increasing competition, especially from the internet, is that some of the conventional, what I call the legacy media, especially the print media, are now shutting down. Well, have been for many years, shutting down the number of journalists they have. And so journalists go and are employed by the politicians, especially those in government with seemingly endless taxpayers money to employ journalists. And this army of journalists, writes crap. And then the under demand journalists in the mainstream media, the legacy media, they just take whatever they’re given and copy and paste it, straight into the media. And so what we’ve got is, we’ve got governments of both types, labour liberal, both virtually writing newspaper articles.

Senator Malcom Roberts (36:07):

I cancelled my subscription to Sky News because it’s now woke, lame. Prime Minister Morrison seem to do some favours for some of the journalists in Sky News. And now they just gush about him. It makes people sick. And Sky News is dropping in viewership now. I don’t buy any newspaper, other than The Weekend Australian because my wife likes The Weekend Australian magazine, some News Corp journalists are quite good, Alan Jones, but he’s sacked or he’d been let go. So, that tells you something about News Corp. Bolt has been throttled, Terry McCray’s good, Graham Lloyd is sometimes impartial. We’ve got these temperatures. The temperatures today are cooler in Australia than the temperatures in the 1880s, 1890s. Fact Bureau of Meteorology’s own record. We know that temperature hasn’t increased. There’s been no warming trend since 1995, none globally.

Senator Malcom Roberts (37:14):

If you take away where the El Niño and Southern Oscillation in this, which is cyclical, there’s been no warming in Australia. We see now that we’ve had two experiments, real life experiments, and that’s the key to science. In 2009, there was a massive recession, a pretty severe due to the global financial crisis near the end of 2008. So when we have a recession, industrial production goes down, which means the consumption of hydrocarbon fuels goes down, which means the production of carbon dioxide from human activity goes down. It went down enormously. So the human production of carbon dioxide went down enormously in 2009. Yet the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued increasing unabated, same linear trend of increase. In 2020, we had almost a depression around the world due to government restrictions on COVID, not due to COVID, but due to government restrictions because of COVID.

Senator Malcom Roberts (38:18):

And so again, we saw a reduction in carbon dioxide from human activity, and yet the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued increasing at a linear trend. We know from science that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are controlled entirely by nature. We know that there’s 50 to 70 times more carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans than there is in the entire atmosphere. And the UN has given us those figures. And so slight changes in temperature of the ocean, which is naturally variable, lead to either absorption of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or liberation from the oceans to the atmosphere.

Senator Malcom Roberts (38:58):

So we’ve got this massive facts staring at us in the face. And yet we don’t see any of it reported in the media. So the media is destroying itself, people are losing trust. As you’ve pointed out, alarmingly. The people are losing faith in the science because they know there’s no overall warming, that people are losing faith in politics because of the lack of responsibility. And that means people don’t take responsibility because they don’t see that they can affect the outcome of politics. So these are not good science for our society, are they?

Tony Thomas (39:34):

No. Sure, the one sided reporting is pretty terrible, but even getting away from the climate issue, the public have got so many good reasons not to trust the media. I was just been looking into the scandal at the New York Times, which is the premier masthead in the world, old where-

Senator Malcom Roberts (39:56):

Well, I’ll disagree with you, but you can have that view.

Tony Thomas (40:00):

Yeah, well, but for 10 years, they were taking a $100,000.00 a month from the Chinese Communist Party to run Chinese communist propaganda in the guise of advertorials from the China Daily newspaper. And it only came to light because Republicans began demanding from China news, full details under probably the foreign lobbying act of just what they’d been up to with the American mainstream media. And it turned out that since 2016, they basically bought the American media for as little as $20 million, that included the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, New York Times, and running these propaganda pieces about which islands belong to China, and which don’t, and how nice the Chinese have been to the [inaudible 00:41:00].

Tony Thomas (41:00):

And it turned out that the New York times had run 200 of these pieces. And when China daily got sprung, the New York Times, which has kept their archives back to 1850, that’s how comprehensive they are. Sneakily went in and deleted all 200 pieces from their archives. So, this is an enormous scandal and you wonder the New York times would have any reputation at all left after this. So that’s just one of the latest scandals to hit the American media, which helps explain the low levels of trust there.

Senator Malcom Roberts (41:45):

What about the role of fact checkers these days? Are they a restraint on bad reporting?

Tony Thomas (41:51):

Well, they’ve been captured by the very same people, who are running so many, dare I say, fake news items. For example, Facebook contracted out fact checking to some group. And when somebody sued Facebook over their fact checks, Facebook said, but our fake checks are only opinion and that’s protected under the first amendment. Well, once they’ve said that, you know what fact checking’s all about. Now Agence France-Presse, and I think Associated Press have also got their fact checking outfits alongside, but of course, who needs fact check more than AFP and AP itself, there’s been a whole litany of leaks and stories from within these large media groups, like the New York Times where.

Tony Thomas (42:48):

For example, the New York Times editor, when it came out, the Trump collusion with Russia story was dead in the water, briefed the journalists to say, well, we gave that one, a good run. We focused our whole coverage on the collusion story. Now that’s gone. We need a new cause. So let’s focus on how racist America’s been since 1619, I think it was. And so that’s the new line that is being propagated through the New York Times, all about race and identity politics and so on. Well, once upon a time, or as the TV, people used to say, just the facts ma’am, just the facts. Well, now you’re getting just the narrative, thanks. Just the narrative that we’ve selected.

Senator Malcom Roberts (43:39):

And we’re getting something else too. I think Tony, from the use of these labels like racist, Islamophobe, homophobia, misogynist, et cetera. What I’ve noticed happen is that if I present something or when I present, so that is solidly backed by data, which is my habit, and a logical argument that shows cause and effect. Then people respond, especially journalists with either silence to shut me down, stop my common sense getting out or with labels. So they call me racists, Nazi, whatever they want to call me, tinfoil, hat wearer, a conspiracy theorist. And what I’ve learned to do to them is to turn around and say, well, thank you for just confirming that you have got no data or you can’t string together a logical argument for rebutting what I’m saying. Thank you for admitting that you’ve got no data and that I’ve won the argument, because if you had any argument, you wouldn’t be using labels, instead you’d be presenting the data in the argument, instead of valid response.

Tony Thomas (44:48):

Well, that’s an excellence response from you and basically name calling does lose you the argument in any debate. I must say there’s a new trend. It’s creeping in everywhere where the reporters are writing. What’s supposed to be a straight story and they’ll suddenly throw in the words “He falsely claimed,” or “He claimed without evidence,” or ” XYZ is a conspiracy theory.” And they attach these completely subjective labels to what they’re reporting. And I think as Joanne Nova said, “As soon as you see any of those labels, like false, misleading, without context and so on, have a good look because it’s very likely that what you’re reading’s correct.” And I could give you a recent example, the ABC 7:00 PM news last Sunday had a report on Scott Morrison, the prime minister accusing the opposition leader, Albanese of being soft on China. And the reporter said, Morrison accused Albanise, without evidence of being soft on China.

Tony Thomas (46:02):

So I put in a complaint to the ABC saying, what evidence would actually satisfy your reporter, that Albanese was a tool of China. Would you want a stat deck from three government ministers? Would you want a high court ruling? Would you want a Royal Commission that establishes the truth? Do you want a court case leading to a victory for Albanese, and how come you never say that Albanese, when he turned around and accused the prime minister of being the Manchurian Candidate no less, how come you never attach the label without evidence to that one? So I’ll be interested to see how the ABC replies to my complaint there. Sometimes I win these complaints. So that one time in three, I’d say.

Senator Malcom Roberts (46:51):

Well, I’m going to set aside. I’ve had questions that I prepared for you, further questions. We could go for hours, but I’m going to set them aside entirely because I’m sensing something far more interesting here. We’ve established what the media is like these days sadly, they’re propagandist. But I want to know about Tony Thomas, you’re 81, you’ve got the voice of someone in their 40s. You’re taking on these bastards in the media, you’re taking on these bastards in the government. Tell us what you do during the day. It’s fascinating.

Tony Thomas (47:28):

Well, I’ve been retired a long time and I don’t have too many babysitting duties. So I just think of a subject, research the hell out of it, wind up with maybe 30,000 or 40,000 words of raw material on it. And then I boil it all down to about 2,000 words and send it off to Roger Franklin at Quadrant Online. And as I said, he publishes it very, very promptly. And I love finding out stuff that’s so outrageous, that people have to say, Tony must be making that stuff up, but I’m always scrupulous to put in my links and evidence for everything I say. I mean the latest article I wrote-

Senator Malcom Roberts (48:12):

I’ve seen your work.

Tony Thomas (48:15):

…Biden’s new assistant deputy secretary for nuclear waste disposal, being a fetishist to do with gay men, pretending to be dogs with tails stuck up their rectum and all sorts of goings on there. And copiously illustrated with photographs. And this is the man now in charge of America’s nuclear waste industry, and as some of the commenters have said anything to do with nukes, you wouldn’t let a man like that, normally within a thousand miles of it, I mean, he’s entitled to his hobbies after work, but he’s making an absolute parade of his fetishisms. And as somebody else said, are his subordinates going to respect him in his role? Or is he basically shot his credibility, even in the nuclear waste area where he is qualified and nobody’s claimed that he’s not qualified. So, that’s the sort of article I love writing that just make people real back saying this can’t really be happening in the world I live in.

Senator Malcom Roberts (49:29):

Well, maybe giving Biden the button to obliterate the world through America’s nuclear arsenal is good because I don’t know if he’d be able to remember where it is. So may maybe very safe. Tell me what is most satisfying about your whole career spanning now 60 years? What are the highlights?

Tony Thomas (49:50):

When I was in the Press Gallery in the 70s, I was the only journalist who immediately spotted that Rex Connor, the minister for minerals and energy was a nut case. And I spotted this because he’d drawn a map with gas pipelines, going all over Australia, which is about 2,000 miles wide and high. And he apparently saw no technical problem with crisscrossing the country with these gas pipelines. And then he got up and told parliament, he was going to set up a nuclear enrichment plan on Spencer Gulf in south Australia, because there, it would be safe from enemy submarines.

Tony Thomas (50:30):

And I just knew that this man was short of a few kangaroos in the top paddock and began writing that way. So for a couple of years, I was almost the only writer who was critical of this minister for energy until he fell flat on his face, trying to do deals with raising $4 billion from Saudi Arabians. And it was all just a fantasy. And so he got sacked, his mate, Jim Cairns got sacked and then Whitlam, the prime minister got sacked, and that was the end of the labour government. So I think that was my proudest moment.

Senator Malcom Roberts (51:13):

And you weren’t proud, from what I can pick up, of leading to the dismissal of the labour government. You were proud of the fact that your facts eventually prevailed because of your gathering the data and your dogged persistence. And this is where it’s wonderful to be on a station like tntradio.live, because I happen to have been brought up in a family, and we’ve only got a minute or so to go now, Tony, before the news.

Senator Malcom Roberts (51:38):

But I was brought up in a family that ridiculed Connor, but later on, I talked to people and listened and there was some marvellous, what would you call it? Overall aims that he had for protecting our resources? Not for nationalising them, but for protecting them and getting a good price for them. So I can see both sides of the argument, but what’s important here is not whether I agree with you or disagree with you because in part I agree, I can see some things I disagree, but the fact that you were determined you would [inaudible 00:52:09] and you got the facts out and that’s extremely important, isn’t it?

Tony Thomas (52:12):

And unpopular, you could say.

Senator Malcom Roberts (52:16):

So that’s something to really wear proudly because it’s something that Pauline and I do as well. Proud of being honest. Tony, I want to thank you for speaking so bluntly, so refreshingly purely, so objectively, and thank you for coming loaded with data. This is Senator Malcolm Roberts on tntradio.live. Thank you very much, Tony Thomas.

/by

The Malcolm Roberts Show – Professor David Flint

, ,

Today I talk to Emeritus Professor of Law David Flint about our broken system of democracy, the monarchy and republic fight, China, ABC, Biden and much more. Listen above or read the transcript below. See all episodes of my show on TNT radio:

Recorded 19 February 2022

Transcript

(00:01):

You’re with Senator Malcolm Roberts on Today’s News Talk Radio TNT.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (00:07):

Good afternoon, or wherever you are in the world. It may be good morning. This is Today’s News Talk Radio, tntradio.live. Thank you for having me as your guest in your car, your kitchen, your lounge, to your shed, or wherever you are right now. There are two themes to my show, freedom and personal responsibility. Freedom is specifically in the context of freedom versus control. As we can see under assault all over the world is freedom right now. The control freaks want to take over. It’s basic, freedom is basic for human progress and people’s livelihood. The second theme is personal responsibility and the importance of integrity. That’s also basic for personal progress and for people’s livelihoods.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (00:55):

Our show’s direction and tone are along these lines. I’m fiercely pro-human. I’ve had enough. I’ve had a gut full of the media and politicians bagging and ragging on humans. Excuse me. I’ve just been told that my mic level is too high. The second thing is that I’m very proud to be part of the species that is the only species in the world that is capable of logical thinking. Although sometimes I wonder if all people are capable of logical thinking. Another aspect and tone is that we are positive. While we are here to deal with issues that people face and are concerned about, I encourage our guests to provide solutions, lasting, meaningful solutions, as well as what’s wrong with politics, what’s needed in politics. As well as what’s wrong with politicians, what we need in politicians. As well as what’s wrong with the media, what’s needed in the media.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (01:58):

We’ll get to the core issues, words and all to develop solutions. We’ll cover the human aspects, the strengths, the weaknesses, the vulnerabilities, the failings, the highlights. What makes people real? We want to be data-driven. We will be and are data driven, factual, truthful, and honest. And we will speak out bluntly on the issues. I had the privilege, and I mean that sincerely, the privilege of being one of the many hundreds of thousands of protestors in Canberra last weekend. I was down there, was due to come home for the weekend, but decided to stay. And so glad am I that that happened. My wife and son drove down the 14-hour trip to join me and join hundreds of thousands of protesters in Canberra.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (02:47):

And those protesters were either ignored by the media or downplayed into just a few thousand or maybe one channel even had 10,000. That’s complete rubbish. It filled acres and acres of land between the old parliament house and new parliament house. And what an exciting buzz it was. It was phenomenal energy there. People are angry, but they weren’t violent. They were calm. They’re determined, they’re encouraging, supportive of each other. The posters that people had, the signs, it was just beautiful. It was absolutely stunning to be there. And after the protest, I went down to Camp Epic, which is where tens of thousands of people are camped out. People have driven here from Perth, driven to Canberra rather, from Perth, from Darwin, from Brisbane. It was absolutely stunning.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (03:37):

And the environment, the tone, the energy was electric, but it was also people having fun. People just being themselves. It was a real community, tens of thousands of people from all over the country showing what real Aussies are about. And they’re about respect, they’re about care. They’re about freedom and they’re about community and connecting with each other. It’s one of the highlights of my life to just feel that atmosphere. It was just absolutely marvellous to see that back in Australia, after months and months, two years of government control.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (04:11):

What I’d like to do today is talk about the media. And it was triggered, this topic, by something David Flint, Professor David Flint said during his talk on the conversation two weeks ago with me here on TNT Radio. He says that the first duty of the press, The Times newspaper declared in 1851, “The first duty is to obtain the earliest and most correct intelligence of the events of the time and instantly by disclosing them to make them the common property of the nation.” David Flint is a very honourable man, a highly respected man, and he’s nailed it right there with that quote from The Times. So I’m going to hold the media to account today with my two guests.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (04:58):

First up, it’s great to be talking with Professor David Flint again. He joined me last fortnight to chat about the constitution and we invited him back. I didn’t realise it would be just within two weeks. Professor David Flint, who has an order of Australian medal, is an emeritus professor of law. He read law and economics at Universities of Sydney, London, and Paris. After admission as a solicitor of the New South Wales Supreme Court in 1962, he practised as a solicitor from 1962 to ’72 before moving into university, teaching, holding several academic posts before becoming professor of law at the Sydney University of Technology in 1989.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (05:38):

Professor Flint is the author of numerous publications. His publications include books and articles and topics such as the media, international economic law, Australia’s Constitution, and on Australia’s 1999 Constitutional Referendum. And I almost made the mistake of voting for that referendum until I listened to some high court judges in Brisbane. And then I became totally in favour of our constitutional monarchy. He was recognised with the award of World Outstanding Legal Scholar. I’ll say that again, World Outstanding Legal Scholar, awarded by the World Jurist Association Barcelona in October, 1999. He was made a member of the Order of Australia in 1995.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (06:23):

There’s a higher qualification though, that David has. He has come from lofty academia. He works and rubbed shoulders with some of the most powerful people in the country, and he is respected by them. But he remains a man of the people. You’re just as likely to bump into him on the street, bump into him at a protest, bump into him at a conference. He challenges the elites and the establishment, but is still highly respected by even them. He’s aware the system is broken and the media is responsible for perpetrating the two party system, the pseudo-democracy. Well, we’re given a choice, but there’s no real choice because they’re both the same. Welcome, David.

David Flint (07:03):

Well, thank you very much. Lovely to be on your programme again, Malcolm.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (07:11):

Something you appreciate, David, what do you appreciate?

David Flint (07:14):

Well, I appreciate common sense. Particularly because I think it’s such a guide in relation to politics and all sorts of public activities. Common sense mixed with integrity, if you have those two, I think you’ll go a long way. And that is what is so missing in the management of society today. You quite rightly quoted that comment from The Times back in 1851 at the time of the referendum in 1999, which wasn’t just a referendum about royalists wanting to keep the monarchy. It was about requiring those who wanted to change the constitution to be doing something to improve the governance of the country. We had quite a few slogans in that campaign. And one which really cut through was vote no for the politician’s republic because this was going to increase the power of the politicians.

David Flint (08:25):

It was going to take away the role of the crown as providing leadership above politics, and playing a role as one of the guardians of the constitutional system. That’d be taken away, and what you would have would be a puppet president and the power of the politicians, that is the two-party cabal, would’ve been significantly increased. But what we found in that referendum was that most of the politicians wanted the politician’s republic. The extraordinary thing was that the media, which have a duty because they get all their freedom. They get their freedom in return for being responsible,, for giving that real information to the people without bias and without distorting emphasis and not suppressing anything that’s in their code of ethics.

David Flint (09:22):

They have that enormous freedom so that they can be responsible but they weren’t in the referendum. And this is where I particularly noticed it because I was chairing the vote no group. And we used to meet regularly every day, and we would be amazed sometimes by the way in which the arguments were distorted. But there was an independent observer of that referendum in 1999. This was Bill Deedes, and later on made Lord Deedes. He was a very distinguished fighter during the Second World War, and he was one of the very lofty stream of people who’ve been editors of London Telegraph. London Telegraph is one of the most reliable newspapers in the world.

David Flint (10:14):

But he wrote this about the Australian referendum, “I have really attended elections or votes in any country. Certainly not a democratic one in which the newspapers have displayed more shameless bias. One at all, they determined that Australians should have a republic and they used every device towards that end.” That’s all of the newspapers. Most of the electronic media, all of the public media, the ABC and SBS, all of them were pushing one way. There was only one major person in the media who offered something towards the no case, and that was Alan Jones. Alan Jones used to say when people rang in and said, “Alan, I don’t know how to vote. What should I do?” He’d say, “If you don’t know, vote no. If you don’t know, vote no.”

David Flint (11:18):

But the fact is, even with all that massive campaign, all of the politicians, almost all of them, just a handful of them who were coming out and saying this model’s no good, all of the media, except Alan Jones, as a major person in the media, and many of the elites, big businesses, they’re all saying vote for this republic, although it would’ve increased the powers of the politicians. And yet, we were able to get a vote, which shows the common sense of the Australian people. We were able to get a vote, which produced a national majority. It produced a majority in all states. In a referendum, you’ve got to win at least four states. We got all states and we won 72% of electorates. Not relevant to a referendum but it just shows how sweeping that decision was by the Australian people, which shows that there’s a lot of common sense out there among the electorate. And-

Senator Malcolm Roberts (12:22):

Let me jump in there, David.

David Flint (12:25):

Sure.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (12:27):

That is a remarkable statistic you’ve just given us. But overwhelmingly, the Australian people, despite the media, despite the politicians being almost exclusively in favour of the republic, and despite the propaganda, the constant barrage all through the media, with exception of Alan Jones, the people still kept their sanity and the people prevailed. So that’s really important to understand.

David Flint (12:56):

And remember, we didn’t have much money. We didn’t have the money for advertising that Malcolm turn … Malcolm [inaudible 00:13:04] funded most of the republican campaign, and he put a lot of money into it, but it didn’t make that much difference.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (13:13):

Let’s come back to the media because I’d like to include this in the summary when I give it in a minute. You’ve written articles on the degradation of today’s journalism. People worldwide are waking up to the death and the dearth of journalism talent. What is it that you have been railing against in your articles against the media and that people are now waking up to?

David Flint (13:37):

Well, I think we’ve seen the worst in the United States where the mainstream media and a lot of the social media have decided to become the propaganda arm of the democratic party of a democratic party, which is swung to the far left. And when the media decided to become a propaganda arm, it’s like living in a communist country. It’s not as bad because you still have other media. But we saw this, for example, when Hunter Biden lost his laptop, and that laptop contained an enormous amount of information, which demonstrated that the Biden family had been operating as an enterprise while he was a senator while Biden was vice president, and now as president. He was operating as an instrumentality, particularly when he was vice president, which offered to plutocrats, usually in authoritarian countries. Offered to them access and influence in Washington, but highly improper of course, but that laptop showed this.

David Flint (14:55):

What happened when that laptop came out and young Hunter Biden didn’t deny that what was on that laptop was his. He didn’t deny that, although some people are saying it’s a Russian setup, but it turned out to be perfectly real. What it showed was that the Biden family was behaving, offering access and influence to plutocrats and their favourite plutocrat, because they were the ones willing to pay the Chinese communists. Now, what did the mainstream media do? What did the social media do when this came out before the final voting and the election? They killed it. Twitter and Facebook closed down the New York Post to cut … But New York Post was one of the few journalist outlets that was willing to broadcast this and mention this.

David Flint (15:55):

And after the election, there was an opinion poll, which showed that the majority of people didn’t know about what was on the laptop. They didn’t know about the laptop story because the press managed to hide it. And the majority of them said that if they had known, they would have voted against Biden. Well, that just demonstrates that the median America, a lot of it owned by corporate interests who were making a lot of money out of slave labour in China and the sort of things that go on in China, and they hoped to make a killing in the Chinese market, they were willing to sacrifice their media ethics to make sure that Trump didn’t get in.

David Flint (16:48):

Because Trump had shown himself to be the first president of the United States since Clinton effectively, unleashed the communist by allowing the communist to join the world trade organisation in the hope that they would follow its rules, which they haven’t. I mean, that’s why we’ve got a tax, I think of about 280% on our barley, because they had questioned the origins of the virus, which we’ve suffered from. That’s the situation-

Senator Malcolm Roberts (17:23):

We suffered from the virus, David, or have we suffered from government restrictions and mismanagement?

David Flint (17:27):

You’re absolutely right. And this really comes to the question we’re discussing. You’re right. This virus is benign in relation to the majority of the people. It’s one of those viruses where we’re fortunate enough to know who the vulnerable are. The vulnerable aren’t the healthy children, they aren’t healthy people. It’s essentially those people who are both elderly and suffering from other illnesses, they’re the ones who are the most vulnerable. And they’re the ones who should have been looked after. You’re so right, we’ve suffered terribly from government decisions, but it hasn’t been the virus that has caused the suffering for the great majority of people. And even in relation to the vulnerable, more people, more vulnerable have died than should have died because of the activities of the government.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (18:28):

I agree entirely but nowhere have I seen that in the media, except for maybe Adam Creighton in The Australian, a wonderful economist who speaks with data and truth. Terry McCrann, similarly. Perhaps if I could give a summary, and then we’ll start the conversation about what triggered me to invite you back so quickly. First of all, you’ve mentioned the politician’s republic, the vote for a republic would’ve been a vote for a politician’s republic to increase people’s power. That’s a wonderful insight that I didn’t realise until you mentioned it to me last week and you’ve repeated it again. You also mentioned that the media gets its freedom, whether implicit or by law, if it presents impartially.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (19:15):

You chaired the no vote group and you saw yourself, shameless biassed back then, I was too young at the time to realise that, but I thought newspapers were objective, but I realised now it was completely biassed. And you mentioned that was across all forms of media, all papers, most electronic media, the ABC, the SPS, the public broadcasters. And you said quite rightly so, there’s only one major media person who was opposed to the republic vote. And that was Alan Jones. How many times have we heard Alan Jones being pilloried for being alone in dissenting from the majority view? Majority of the media view that is.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (20:02):

And I loved your comment about Alan Jones saying, “If you don’t know, vote no.” And I would say that right through almost every topic today. And you pointed out something that was the core to what you said, despite all the political propagandist, the overwhelming weight of political opinion, political experts, which are not really experts, and the media, the people prevailed. And that’s why in my opening comment, I support humans because when we’re aware, we prevail. You then went on to talk about the USA gives us the worst examples of media bias, democrat bias, social media, which is paid to shut down opposition, the media itself. You quite rightly pointed out. And that’s significant, Professor Flint, because the USA is known to be the home of modern democracy.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (20:56):

We could argue Britain is, but in terms of modern expression, the USA thumps its chest about that a lot. And yet the USA now has the worst censorship because it’s hidden censorship. And we know for example, that if the tanks roll in and the army gets out with guns, we know that we’re being controlled. But what you’ve done is you’ve highlighted the hidden control, the subtle control, the invisible control, which is every bit as effective as a gun or a tank. The media has silenced me. They sometimes silence Pauline Hanson. And it’s significant to understand, I don’t know if you mentioned this, but you did mention that the corporates control the media and the media has become a propaganda arm.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (21:40):

That was mentioned to me by someone called John McRay back about 10 years ago, that he showed me quotes from the owners of the media, the Rockefellers, controlled by the banks, the major banks pushing the bank propaganda. And we’ve been under this not just for the last two years of COVID, not just for the last 24 years since the referendum, but we’ve been under this for a hundred years and longer. And you also pointed out that the communist part, Chinese Communist Party controls many of the corporations or the same people who control those corporations are in bed with the Chinese Communist Party to control humans around the world, not just China.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (22:20):

So we are in fact, while not ruled by the Chinese with guns, we are ruled by the corporate globalists with silence and with propaganda. Now, you mentioned, Professor Flint, that in my show two weeks ago when we had a chat, that the media perpetuates the two party system. And it’s really a one party system because the policies are almost identical and we’re given a choice, we think, but in fact, there’s no real choice because we get shafted with the same policies. How is the media perpetuating the two party system that is effectively one party?

David Flint (23:01):

Well, I think we see this, for example, in relation to the Wuhan virus, which the communist wanted us to call COVID-19 and the WHO, which is under their control, agreed to. But they do this because they’ve become the propaganda arm of the politicians. And that means the two party system, which as you write this in many ways is becoming almost one party because like oligopolist in a small market, they’re not competing. In a small market, oligopolists don’t compete on price. They compete on product or brand distinctions, different ways they advertise, for example. And that’s what the politicians are doing. They’re both, for example, for net zero emissions, they have very similar policies on most things, but they make a slight difference by saying one will be harder on China than the other.

David Flint (24:02):

Although both sides demonstrate that some politicians when they retire seem to be able to get very good jobs with the Communist Chinese. I think they’ve become, in many ways, the propaganda arm. And you see this in relation to the virus. Their favourite phrase is doing the right thing or the people have done the right thing. These people are going to do the right thing. We have to do the right thing. The right thing means what the politicians have decided is right. And this is from a group of politicians in the national cabinet most of whom have had no life experience and really don’t know that much about doing the right thing. Because they’ve been so up to their necks in political manipulation that they’ve lost a lot of the ideas of what the right thing is.

David Flint (24:58):

And just take it, for example, just take it at the beginning. They’ve ignored the common sense rule in relation to [inaudible 00:25:06]. Two common sense rules. Firstly, you look after the vulnerable. And if the virus is such that we know who the vulnerable are, and here we do know who they are, you look after them and you let everybody else get on as best they can with their lives. But what do they do? They abandon the vulnerable, the premier of Victoria being the worst there. And they tied down the rest of us as though we were all sick so that we couldn’t go out. We had to stay home. I live near Bondi Beach. The first thing they did was to close the beach. Though anybody with any sense knew that the virus didn’t survive in the sun and the wind, but it was probably the healthiest place to go to. It was the first place they closed. And the second thing that they-

Senator Malcolm Roberts (25:58):

Excuse me, David. Oh, sorry, when you finish this point, we’ll go to the ad break.

David Flint (26:03):

Yes. The second thing they ignored is [inaudible 00:26:07] fundamental rule for any decent constitutional system, that is that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. They’ve whittled away all of the controls on the politicians. We’ve had just some minister or the premier deciding on a whim, for example, in New South Wales that they’d closed down the construction industry. They didn’t even have medical advice to do that. She closed down the construction industry for two weeks costing one and a quarter billion dollars and it wasn’t justified. And the reason is these regulations, these regulations are now made by a minister in his office in the middle of the night. Whereas once upon at a time, the regulations were to be submitted for audit by the executive council, the government council, even in colonial terms this was done.

David Flint (27:07):

And the second big thing, even more important was the regulations were subject to parliamentary scrutiny, particularly by the upper house and how fortunate we are to have a senate as we have now, unlike the Canadians who have a weak senate, we’ve got a strong senate because we based it on the American senate rather than the appointed Canadian senate, which is just a political stitch up. And that senate and the upper house in the states, except Queensland, which the way the politicians took to work, the upper houses can disallow the regulations. That’s a very important power. And the politicians know they have a sword of Damocles above their heads when this political system works, but they’ve been whittling this away just like the republic. The weakness in-

Senator Malcolm Roberts (28:00):

Thank you very much. We’ll resume this conversation with Professor David Flint after a minute or so of advertisements. Thank you very much, David.

David Flint (28:11):

Certainly.

Automated (28:11):

TNT Radio’s, Mike Ryan.

Mike Ryan (28:13):

What do you miss the most about being able to, or not being able to practise medicine? What the actual, what it all means to you? Because I mean, it’s overall saying, oh, well he’s got to going to go to court. It’ll be handled legally, but it’s much more than that. It’s your whole life, your whole being. What’s the thing you miss the most about not being able to practise medicine?

Mark Hobart (28:42):

Being part of the community in North Sunshine where I grew up, where I went to school. A community is so important. It’s your connection to everybody else. We’re all connected to each other. We’re connected to each other through love. That is the number one binding force of the universe’s love. And the other force is not love. It’s the opposite, it’s destruction. And that’s what we’re facing.

Mike Ryan (29:23):

Dr. Mark Hobart, truly an honour to speak with you.

Automated (29:26):

Mike Ryan on Today’s News Talk TNT Radio.

Automated (29:31):

We want to show you what’s dangerous about this river, but we can’t. That’s the problem. You can’t see ice cold water, snags like tree branches or strong currents. So in enjoying our rivers, remember where a life jacket avoid alcohol around water, never swim alone and learn how to save a life. Our rivers are beautiful, but more Australians drown here than anywhere else. It’s simple, respect the river. Head to royallifesaving.com.au/respecttheriver for more information

Automated (30:11):

For the news and talk, you can’t hear anywhere else. It’s TNT Radio.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (30:18):

Welcome back. This is Senator Malcolm Roberts, and I’ve got a very intriguing and very expert guest, Professor David Flint. And I’m going to give you a summary now before we resume our conversation with David. David pointed out that the media is pushing the two party system and it’s really one party. It’s perpetuating the two party system. At the War Memorial last week, the week before last, I took part in the service that precedes the opening of parliament for the year. And they call on the prime minister and the leader of the opposition. At the church service before parliament started the next day on Tuesday two weeks ago, they called on the leader of the opposition and the prime minister to take readings from the Bible.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (31:08):

And as professor Flint pointed out, the policies are almost identical. They’re so similar. And so we need to understand who controls the parliament. I’m going to be asking Professor Flint that in a minute. During the week, David, I was in Senate estimates and I asked Senator Seselja a simple question that anybody should have been able to answer. He’s in the government, as you know. And we were questioning the CSIRO, and in that segment, I said to him, “Minister, your party, led by the prime minister, won the election in 2019 based largely on one particular issue.” He said that the labour party was in favour of the UN’s 2050 net zero policy that the Liberal Nationals Party was not, it opposed UN 2050 net zero.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (32:04):

“Where is the evidence for that change in policy? What changed in the science?” And David, I have never seen anyone so uncomfortable. He didn’t look me in the eye once. He looked down, head was bowed. He was squirming in his seat. He was just making up words as he went. Then I said to him, “Let’s go back in time. Tell me the basis of your policy.” And the same endless dribble. And he’s a nice man, Senator Seselja, but he was talking absolute nonsense. He could not tell me the basis of the policy that is now gutting air energy sector, stealing land from properties, stealing property rights from farmers, decimating our manufacturing, controlling our water, locking up our resources all on behalf of the UN.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (32:54):

Then I asked him a simple question, policies should be based upon hard data that shows the impact of a certain amount of a specified, quantified impact of carbon dioxide. What it will do to temperatures? Rainfall. I asked him, “Isn’t that fundamental?” And again, more waffle, looking down in the eyes, head bowed, squirming. They haven’t got anything but they get away with it because as Professor Flint said, the media pushes the two party system, which is really one party and the narrative. And then they come up with slogans, as Professor Flint said, doing the right thing. These politicians are lacking practical experience. Very few of them, none of them have worked for a few years at the coalface, as if literally at the coalface underground, lacking practical experience.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (33:43):

I asked a simple question, Professor Flint, who among the politicians came to Canberra to listen to the people at the protest of where every day Australians came out in the hundreds of thousands? I’ll tell you who. Pauline Hanson, Malcolm Roberts, Gerard Rennick, George Christensen. You just pointed out some fabulous points with COVID. They have ignored the fundamentals. They have ignored common sense. They have not looked after the vulnerable. They have betrayed the vulnerable. That’s something I’ve been talking about in the senate and publicly for many months now. Then they tied up or they tied down the rest of the people, the healthy people. They stopped exercise on beach. They stopped fresh air. They stopped access to the sun for vitamin D.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (34:33):

And as you said, Lord Acton said that the power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. Regulations being made by the minister, just being introduced in the middle of the night. Professor Flint, one of the things that’s emerged from the response to the virus is that the state and federal governments, labour at state level, liberal at national level have worked together on this. That’s completely opposed to the intent behind our constitution. Isn’t it?

David Flint (35:11):

Yes, we’re supposed to have competition and the states are supposed to take decisions in relation to state interests and the federation in relation to federal interests. But you say right, they do work together. And one of the things the media does, which really irritates me is that they attribute to the politicians the fact that our death rate is lower than that of a number of other countries. This completely ignores the fact that the real reason for that is we are a remote island nation. And like all other remote island nations, we’ll have a lower death rate from this sort of virus. And to attribute that to the politicians is ridiculous.

David Flint (35:57):

But then we get them when they stand up there, the politicians will refer to the medical advice and the journalists just accept that. We never know who the medical advice was from or rarely know it. We never see it so it can’t be tested. We are given glib answers like follow the science. Whereas we know that the scientists are divided on a number of significant issues. And we saw that in relation, for example, to ulcers and Australia went to scientists, received the Nobel Prize because they went against the science view that it was just a disabling condition. It could never be a disease, and they found that it was a disease. And for that, they were given the Nobel Prize. And then you’re told, believe the experts.

David Flint (36:52):

Well, having worked in a law office when I was young, in a law office where you are involved in a case concerning two sides and you’re acting for one side and there’s another people, people acting for the other side, each side has their own experts. Whether they be medical experts or engineering experts. They’re all very well paid. And I’m not saying they act in any way improperly, but they give different views. Experts are divided all the time. This idea that you must believe the experts, which means you must believe the expert that the politicians that are trying to adopt as their view is ridiculous.

David Flint (37:32):

But I think the very worst thing they do, Malcolm, this is this rule against medical treatment, including prophylactic or preventative measures in relation to this virus. It’s the only malady I know of where doctors are instructed to do virtually nothing between somebody catching this virus and really getting a serious case of it, be aware when they start putting them onto a ventilator. But nothing happens in between because they’ve ruled that none of the medical treatments, which have been shown in a number of jurisdiction to be very effective, can be used. And we know also that most of the media won’t mention these things, particularly the social media, because it goes against the interest of big pharmacy.

David Flint (38:25):

And we know that big pharmacy needs under American law, they needed to get approval for their vaccines. They needed to be able to show that there were no preventative measures, which could be taken against the virus. Hence, this campaign to kill off Ivermectin and other. This is not just the magic cure but there a number of things used either to prevent it or to cure it in the early stages. And these proved very effective. Yet in Australia, we’re told that you can have no medical treatment and no serious medical treatment between catching it and really getting a very bad dose when you’re … There’s nothing much they can do if you are in a weak condition. Otherwise, you might get out of it and they put you onto a ventilator.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (39:26):

Well, David, perhaps I could summarise your points again. The media has been silent on the live and the prime minister has repeatedly said, “Australia has no vaccine mandates.” Yet the Morrison, Joyce Federal Government drives the vaccine mandates, and at the very least enables mandates through many means. The Morrison, Joyce government bought 280 million doses of these things. They could easily stop the mandates at the state level by withholding these injections from states that don’t make it optional, but make it compulsory through stealing people’s livelihoods. The federal government indemnified the states. Senator Hanson’s bill could amend that so that the federal government can stop mandated injections.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (40:15):

The states said, this is the fourth point I’m making, the states say that the vaccine mandates are in line with the unconstitutional so-called national cabinet that the prime minister leads. The prime minister, as you’ve just pointed out, his government withdrew the proven, safe, effective, affordable treatment using Ivermectin and various other drugs. And it’s significant, Professor Flint, that you can freely mention Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and alternative natural treatments on this TNT Radio station. But you can’t mention it on any other network apart from podcasts. You can’t mention it on social media without being banned.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (40:58):

The federal government health department provides the data and systems that the state’s access to enforce the mandates. The federal government mandated vaccines in aged care workers. The federal government mandated vaccines in the Australian electoral commission poll workers. They’re mandating it in some defence personnel to inject. They drove the employers to mandate injections, BHP, for example, and they funded ridiculous policies by the premiers of the states. And yet, despite all these things showing completely that the states could not have mandated injections without federal government enabling them to do so, supporting them to do so, the prime minister of this country has repeatedly lied to the people.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (41:47):

“Australia has no vaccine mandates,” he says. That doesn’t get reported in the media, or if it does, it’s done in a positive way that the prime minister says that. And yet at the rally last weekend in Canberra, hundreds of thousands of people were walking up and they were saying he’s a liar. The prime minister is a liar. So we come back to government control and that is only one on side controls the media, and that’s the money side, the corporate side. Professor Flint, do they also control the government?

David Flint (42:25):

Well, I think they have a very strong power over the government. It’s in the interest of government to follow what is in the interest of big pharmacy it seems. You can only judge politicians by their results when they’re in government, not what they say. For example, in education, for example, they say that they’re very interested in children’s education, but the fact is that we know that there’s a very strong Marxist influence in education departments. We know that notwithstanding the increase in funding, which I think is about 40% increase since that was introduced, we know that standards in Australia have fallen more than any other OECD country except perhaps Finland.

David Flint (43:22):

So the more money we’re putting in, the standards are falling and that’s because our education departments are not allowing or not encouraging the teaching of children in the really important disciplines. They’re filling their minds with all sorts of propaganda and Marxist rubbish. Their obsessions, for example, you get some new dogma for example, about gender fluidity or something like that. And that becomes an important issue as we saw in relation to the religious legislation. But as you say, there’s this obsession with vaccines as though it’s the only thing which should be followed. And that’s where the money is. That’s where the very big funds are being made by big pharmacy, instead of things which should be associated with vaccines.

David Flint (44:12):

For example, early treatment, that should be the first thing that they should be following because that would’ve saved lives in relation to the vulnerable. And it’s something which I don’t think we should be considering seriously for children, given that these only have a temporary authorization. We don’t know the long term consequences of some of the things which are being put into children’s bodies. They’re very serious things, which are being done. And the national cabinet has gone along with what a really communist solutions that is lockdowns. Lockdowns don’t work. They regiment the people even more, but they certainly have had no effect in relation to getting rid of the virus because they don’t get rid of the virus. And they’ve resulted in more deaths in Victoria, which had the most serious lockdowns, had more deaths among people from suffering from the virus. But you are so right-

Senator Malcolm Roberts (45:17):

Yeah, go ahead.

David Flint (45:17):

Certainly.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (45:20):

I’d like to interrupt to summarise what you’ve said before getting onto the solutions. Because I know you’re a man of solutions. So let me just summarise what you’ve just said. The media is culpable for serious damage, serious problems in our community. Medicine, it’s enabled deaths because it doesn’t hold the government accountable for its complete obsession with unproven injections and reliance on them. Greg Hunt, the federal health minister has said, “The world is engaged in the largest clinical vaccination trial. These drugs, these injections are experimental. It’s a trial. And we are now talking about injecting them into kids without any assessment of long term consequences.”

Senator Malcolm Roberts (46:06):

In the United States you also mentioned that a lot of this is driven by money. In the United States, 70% of American advertising in the media is funded by big pharma. And yet, as you rightly pointed out, the obsession is leading to deaths through the mismanagement of COVID and the application of experimental injections. You pointed out the damage to our educational sector, the 40% collapse in measured outcomes. And yet the manipulation of kids growing at adulthood, children, I should say. You mentioned the early treatment that’s proven affordable, safe, successful around the world. And you also mentioned that lockdowns are effectively a communist solution.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (46:59):

Journalism, Professor Flint, over the decades, journalists have fought for freedom to tell the story and rights to privacy of sources. Yet, they’ve shown no regard for the freedoms and privacies of the people as you just pointed out. Yet, their duty is to provide, freely tell both sides of the story with accuracy and balance. Who holds them to account? And where do we go to from here? How do journalists restore their reputation? Because at the moment they’re feeding on each other and the people are watching them destroy themselves. But we do need a strong, solid press, don’t we? So what do we have to do now? What are the solutions?

David Flint (47:35):

Well, the solutions I think, are by going to those outlets such as this station where the truth is being presented. That is our best solution. I would not recommend the regulation. You can’t have the regulation of the press because they’re free. And there is some protection from defamation laws, but that only relates to individual reputation and not reputation of institutions and things such as early medical treatment, which is important. So we have the power. We have the power to deal with the media and we have the power to put the right politicians in office. And this is something which Australians must seriously do. They did that in America with President Trump, they got a man in who was obviously going, from what he promised, was going to change the direction of the United States.

David Flint (48:36):

And this had a magnificent effect because the Republican Party is so open in the way in which it pre-selects. And it doesn’t restrict pre-selection to even members of the party, any registered supporter of the party can vote in those pre-selections, which gives tremendous power to people in America. We don’t have that, but we can choose people from other parties or at least give our first preferences to people like yourself. Now, you One Nation, New AP parties, which are talking about this, what you said also about the federal government, I’d like to comment on that briefly.

David Flint (49:18):

The federal government had the power to stop mandated vaccines. And you were quite right, the legislation that you proposed, I think One Nation introduced legislation to that effect that I think was within power. The commonwealth has the power to move in relation to quarantines. It can occupy the field. And that’s the core part of the management of vaccines, the control of quarantines. And I think that the commonwealth should have continued in that first case concerning the West Australian border. It should not have allowed the states to close off their borders, locking down whole states that achieved nothing in relation to controlling the virus.

David Flint (50:08):

And it was most inappropriate, in relation to Australia. The whole real economy should have continued. As you rightly have pointed out in the past, it’s not the politicians who are imposing this sort of thing, lockdowns and so on, who suffer. It’s the people who lose their jobs. It’s the people who lose their businesses. The people who are tied up, they’ve put their savings into some business quite often. They’ve mortgaged their house. And an enormous number of people have been ruined by the activities of the government, who’s only just beginning to start again.

David Flint (50:45):

There was no need to close down vast parts of the economy in Australia to stop this disease. What they should have done was looked after the vulnerable. What they should have done was encouraged early measures and preventative measures, prophylactic measures. If they’d done those things, as the media should have been calling on them to do, we would’ve been in a better situation than we are today. And we wouldn’t have this massive debt, which is going to be carried by the next generation of Australians.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (51:18):

So I’m going to have to summarise now before we end the show, because I wanted to do a summary. You’ve raised some marvellous points. The solutions you’ve said are up to the people. The market, choose the media well. We have a choice as to which media we watch. The media is sweating on that. We see Joe Rogan topping the media ratings in the United States with 11.5 million views of one of his podcasts with Robert Malone. The nearest competitor was Fox News with 3.5 million views. That’s a long way behind. CNN, the propaganda experts in America, around about 800,000 views [inaudible 00:51:59]. Don’t have regulation, that just gives more control to the globalists and to the government.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (52:04):

It’s up to the people through media choice and through political choice at votes. We have the power, you said, Professor Flint. I make a note that pre-selection in the liberal party now on New South Wales is becoming just like labour, fictionally written. You’ve pointed out that the commonwealth government has the power, it just hasn’t exercised it. And you’ve pointed out something that I’ve said repeatedly in the senate, people are paying the price for police stupidity.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (52:30):

The governments and the politicians make the mistakes regardless with no responsibility, and the people pay the price. For goodness sake, people of Australia, wake up. Choose who you listen to in the media with your wallet, follow and vote for politicians who work for you, serve you, and give your preferences at accordingly. Professor David Flint, thank you very much again for yet another wonderful session. I love your practicality, your common sense, your good sense. Thank you so much.

/by

The Malcolm Roberts Show – Grazier Dan McDonald – 05 Feb 2022

, ,

Dan lives with his wife of 25 years and three children on their property approx. 160 km north west of Charleville.  They run about 1000 head of cattle and have Droughtmaster breeders.

Like so many people in Rural Queensland, Dan and his wife Katrina have invested their working life of blood, sweat and tears into purchasing their own Freehold property so as to provide their family’s livelihood by breeding and grazing livestock.

While not one of the most willing students at school, Dan lives by the principles of respect, observing those around him, looking, listening and ‘having a go’ as the means of learning life’s valuable lessons.

Dan’s key interests are, in order of priority, his wife, his children and everything that makes up his livelihood from machinery to animals to the governance of not only his livelihood but the governance of our society as a whole.

Acknowledging the sacrifices made by our forefathers and the selfless conviction of the men and women of our current defence forces, Dan cannot and will not sit back and watch our government throw away our rights and freedoms so hard fought, won and defended by our nation’s most courageous people. Dan has first hand experience when the Constitution doesn’t work for us as it should.  In 2017 he was convicted of six tree clearing offences with the magistrate fining him $40,000 and ordering him to pay costs of more than $72,000.  Later it was dropped to $10,000.  He is going to share his story with me today.

Transcript

Senator Malcolm Roberts (00:05):

Welcome back to today’s news talk, radio TNTradio.live. We’ve just spent an hour with Professor David Flint learning more about Australia’s constitution. In this next hour, I’m going to chat with Queensland’s grazier, Dan McDonald. Now I said of Professor Flint, that he is an expert with international recognition, and international awards, yet he’s a man of the people. He’s one of us. He gets down and dirty, mixes with people in the streets, in rallies, in meetings, he attends functions and speaks knowingly, but also lovingly, with the people.

                Now we have a man who is of the people, but can mix it with the experts, and he’s self-taught. Dan McDonald lives with his wife of 25 years, Katrina and their three lovely children on their cattle property. About 160 kilometres Northwest of Charlottesville. They run about 1000 head of cattle and have drought masters breeders. Like so many people in rural Queensland, Dan and his wife Katrina have invested their working life of blood, sweat, and tears into purchase their own freehold property, so as to provide their families livelihood by breeding and grazing livestock. So he’s used his initiative, done this, they’ve both used their initiative to do this, and they’re try to make a living, which is a purpose; one of the things we have to do in life.

                While not one of the most willing students at school, Dan lives by principles of respect, observing those around him, looking, listening, and having a go as the means of learning life’s valuable lessons. Dan’s key interests are in this order of priority: his wife, his children, and everything that makes up his livelihood from machinery to animals, to governance of not only his livelihood, but the governance of our whole society, as a whole. This man has gone into battle for us all, and what he’s going to talk about affects every single Australian and their children, and our country itself and our country’s future. Acknowledging the sacrifices made by our forefathers, and the selfless can conviction of the men and women of our current defence forces, Dan cannot, will not sit back and just watch our government throw away our rights and freedoms so hard fought, won and defended by our nation’s most courageous people.

                Dan has firsthand experience when the constitution doesn’t work for us, as it should. In 2017, he was convicted of six tree clearing offences with the magistrate fining him $40,000 and ordering him to pay costs of more than 72,000, up for 112,000. Later in an appeal that was dropped to 10,000. Dan’s going to share his story with me today. And I want to remind people, I have eight keys to human progress, the first is freedom and the free exchange. Second is the rule of law. Dan is going to talk to us about the rule of law, because the law is supposed to protect people, not control people. Hello, Dan.

Dan McDonald (03:27):

Good day, Malcolm. How are you?

Senator Malcolm Roberts (03:29):

I’m very well made. What’s something you appreciate?

Dan McDonald (03:33):

Oh, Malcolm, I think the top of that list would be my family, and second to that would be honesty.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (03:40):

Amen. Okay. Dan, let’s get stuck into it. Property rights; tell us what they are and why they’re so important, so fundamentally important to everyone.

Dan McDonald (03:52):

Absolutely. So, Malcolm, we have two different elements here; we have property and we have of rights, and I think it’s important if we just touch on both. Essentially what property is, is anything tangible and intangible that is capable of ownership. So, quite often we have, and being related to land, we can say that’s tangible. It’s something that we can see, we can touch. But of course, we also have elements of property that are intangible; we can’t see them, we can’t touch them, but they certainly exist, and they certainly have a value, and they certainly play a very important role in all our lives. So when we combine the two and we talk about property rights, what whereas essentially doing is talking about our right to use our property. Rights in themself are essentially defined as a power over, or an authority to use, to enjoy, to occupy or to consume.

                If you have a right to something, that is what gives you the authority or the power over that thing. And when we combine those rights with property, essentially, we’re talking about the most valuable element; it is the right to property, that is, I say it again, the most valuable element. If we take rights of use away from any property, essentially it becomes absolutely worthless. We cannot underestimate or overestimate that it is the right of use of property, whether it be a cup of coffee, whether it be a motor car, or whether it be your house and land, it is the right of use of that property that actually affords it value. If we just use a cup of coffee, as an example, if we buy a cup of coffee, the most valuable element that we are purchasing there is the right to consume it. How many people out there would buy a cup of coffee if they did not have the right to drink it? So we can apply that same principle to all forms of property; they all have rights attached, and as I say, it’s usually a right of use a right of enjoyment, a right to consume. So there’s no doubt about it; property rights are extremely important. Indeed, they are the most fundamental element of a free and democratic society.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (06:30):

And just to interrupt, I’m hoping to not disturb your train of thought, but it’s so important that in our federal constitution our forefathers, the inserted Section 51 Clause 31, which basically says that if the federal government interferes with someone’s right to use their property, the federal government must pay them just terms compensation. In other words, if you destroy someone’s, or impair someone’s right to use their property, you must pay compensation, which is essentially you are buying their right to use that portion of their property.

Dan McDonald (07:08):

Absolutely. That’s right. And just to go back there just quickly, and give another example of how, how rights in property can work. We can have a land owner, owner parcel of land, and of course that gives them the absolute rights of use of that land, but then that land owner can of course, lease that property out or rent it out. Now, when someone enters into a lease or rental agreement on a home, they also acquire a right. The right they acquire specifically is the right to occupy. So if someone rents a home, the tenant that’s paying the rent actually holds the right to occupy that dwelling. Once again, that’s a property right; a very clear example of how rights can be owned, and obtained, and held without physically owning the tangible property. The tenant holds the most valuable element of that property when they enter into that agreement by physically owning the right to use that is whatever they comply with the terms of, of an agreement.

                So this is how it works, and this is why it’s so very important. Essentially, Malcolm, we could not have a stable society anywhere throughout the world without having secure property rights; it is absolutely fundamental. When we don’t have them, well, essentially we’re inviting outright anarchy, because we just cannot exist without them. I cannot overstate that. None of us, whether you are a farmer, whether you are a business owner in the city, no matter what you do, every element of your life every day involves the use of an enjoyment of rights, property rights, so, it’s something that we certainly cannot live without.

                When we talk specifically about an impact on, on farming, as you pointed out in your introduction, I’m in the business of farming, a food producer, it is extremely important to have property rights, because it is not actually the land itself that allows us to produce food; it is our right to use the land that allows us to produce food. It doesn’t matter how good our soil is. It doesn’t matter how much rain we get. It doesn’t matter how much fertiliser we use. If we don’t have the right to use our land, we can’t produce anything. So it’s extremely important. And of course, essentially in a civil setting as such, we don’t lose our property. We don’t lose property full stop, because we’re afforded protection by our legal system, supposedly. And I say that for this very reason, that in a civil setting, if someone comes and takes your property, you are able to, throughout our legal system, seek to recover that property, or certainly seek damages for it, if it’s unrecoverable.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (10:34):

So could I just jump in there for a minute because you’ve raised two extremely important points, firstly, a new slant on things, which will help us all; it certainly was new to me: rent. If I go to rent your property, then I am buying the right to use your property without owning that property.

Dan McDonald (10:53):

Absolutely.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (10:54):

So property rights, thank you so much for that clear, succinct example. It reinforces the fact that property rights is about, if you buy something, you have a right to use it. And so it’s not simply the owning of something, but it’s owning the right to use it. That’s very important.

Dan McDonald (11:15):

And that’s why, Malcolm, we need to always remember that rights in themself are property.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (11:21):

Yes. Thank you.

Dan McDonald (11:22):

They’re capable of ownership. As I said earlier, property is anything capable of ownership. And there are many examples where we can own rights. Where rights are owned and it’s no different. If we hire a motor car from a car rental company; when we hire that car, we purchased the right to use that motor car. Very similar to, as we said, with a tenant renting a home, a tenant actually acquires the right to occupy the dwelling. That is the whole purpose of it. So there are elements of ownership, of rights, right throughout everything we do.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (12:01):

And there are protections too, because, I hope we get onto, I’m going to let you just go wherever you want to go. Okay? Please, because you are so knowledgeable and so basic.

Dan McDonald (12:14):

As far as you go talking about protections, Malcolm, that is the most fundamental element of all when we talk about rights, when we talk about property-

Senator Malcolm Roberts (12:21):

But before we get into that in detail, if I, as a landholder, a grazier, destroy my land, and wash the top soil into the neighbouring property, and destroy his or her use of their land, then my neighbour has a right to Sue me for impairing his right to use his property, for stealing his right to use his property. Correct?

Dan McDonald (12:46):

That’s correct, because-

Senator Malcolm Roberts (12:47):

So there are natural protections. Away you go.

Dan McDonald (12:49):

If you cause damage to another party, you are liable.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (12:51):

Yep. So away you go. Now take off.

Dan McDonald (12:54):

So, it’s very important that we have security of property rights. Now, as we know, all throughout the developed world, we have elected governments in our supposed democratic societies, we have elected governments that are effectively administrators, and as you would well know, and I think your previous call had pointed out, effectively governments act as administrators to serve the people, and effectively provide us with security. Okay? So that’s one of the most fundamental elements of any democratic society is a government providing a secure environment for us all to live in. We have to be able to rely on our institutions of government to protect our property. That’s where the buck stops. That’s where our judicial system operates from. So essentially, we have to be able to have trust in government to protect our property. It’s the only foundation upon which any of us could invest or acquire any form of property. However, as I’ll get to a bit later on, in my own case, it was actually the administrator, it was actually government that have taken my property from me. And that, of course, not only does it add insult to injury, it really leaves you in a position where you are totally powerless, when the administrator that you have to go to for justice is actually the same body that’s taking from you, all hope is gone.

                So I’ll just touch on this, Malcolm; if a food producer loses property rights, they’re extremely vulnerable. It’s no different to someone living in a rented house. If a tenant has fully complied with the terms of their rental agreement, yet the landlord, the owner of the property comes along and says, “Well, I’m not happy with you being here today, get out.” Well, of course the tenant becomes extremely vulnerable. They’ve got an absolute reliance upon their right to occupy that dwelling. So in that same context, a food producer must have the right to the use of his land to produce food. If you don’t have the right to use your land, what have you got? How can you operate? Where is the security of your equity? Where is the security to invest your blood, sweat, and tears, if you don’t hold the right to use your land. So the loss of property rights in a farming context is extremely devastating for landholders, but it is also a situation that leaves the vast majority of populations all over the world, vulnerable.

                And as I say that for this reason, we have to, we have to never forget the fact that food producers are a very small sector of our overall population. Just to give a brief example, Malcolm, in Australia, we’ve got just under 26 million people. We have approximately 87,000 farm businesses, and the vast majority of those farm businesses are family operations; they’re husband, and wife and children. We have 65% of our production gets exported. Okay? And ironically, we actually import about 15% of our food consumption in this country. But if we average all of this out, Malcolm, it’s quite clear that 87,000 farmers in Australia feed 130 million people. So essentially you break that down, we’ve got just under 1500 people relying on one farmer to feed them. Okay?

Senator Malcolm Roberts (17:23):

So what were those numbers again? 87,000 farmers provide food for?

Dan McDonald (17:26):

We’ve got 87,000 farmers. We’ve got 26 million people in Australia. Okay? We actually export 65% of our produce, and we also import 15% of our consumption, so if we base a calculation on the calories of food that we produce, okay? And the calories of food that are, on an average basis, consumed by human beings, it’s quite clear that we feed Australian farmers feed 130 million people that is, we feed our own population and we feed a large number of people just over 100 million people elsewhere throughout the world. So we’re

Senator Malcolm Roberts (18:10):

Feeding five times. Yeah, more than that. Yeah, no five times our population. Okay, continue.

Dan McDonald (18:18):

So, you break it down, you’ve got every farm entity feeding 1,494 people. Now, to my way of thinking, and I’m sure most would agree. That’s a fairly vulnerable position for that 1,494 people; they’re reliant upon one farm entity to feed them. You got nearly 1500 people that are solely reliant on one person to feed them, essentially. Every time we see another farmer go out of business or of their productivity, detrimentally impacted, that 1400 people have got to go somewhere else to get their food. Now you can’t keep doing this. You can’t keep working on that trajectory for too long before you certainly have a very vulnerable population across the globe.

                You know, we live in an era at the moment where most times people can go to a grocery store, and they can fill their trolley and go home and they can do it, arguably at a reasonable cost. But of course, let’s not forget that it is only the abundance of supply that both protects, and effectively ensures the sustainability of the population, but an abundance of supply also is what controls the value, the cost. So the more supply we’ve got, the more affordable food is for people.

                To get back to the property rights aspect, we have to remember that in producing that food, we are 100% reliant upon the farmer’s right to use his land. So effectively, all these 130 million people across the globe are fed by Australian farmers, their food security is underpinned, not by the farmer’s piece of land, or how much rain he got, but primarily by the farmer’s right to use his land. If he loses the right to use all or part of his land, he can’t feed anybody.

                So I can find no clearer example to demonstrate just how vulnerable city people are when it comes to their own sustainability. It is 100% reliant upon the farmer having security of the right to use his land. And unfortunately, Malcolm, that is essentially what is missing in this country. That is a major problem that has to be addressed. At some point it has to be addressed. We’ve been losing farmers in this country for decades. We’ve lost 50% of our farmers in the last 40 years. We go forward another 40 years, how many of us will be left? But at the same time, we’re told we’re going to have a growing population.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (21:23):

So, let me take us to the ad break in a few minutes, and we’ll when we come back, Dan, could you tell us your story? What happened? How could that happen? The constitution is there to protect you, what compensation did you receive for the theft of your property rights, the rights to use your property? But let me give our listeners, we’re guests in their company right now, so let’s give our listeners a summary of what you’ve said. The security of property rights is essential. It is the right to use the property that you have a right over. Governments should act as administrators to provide security. But we’ll see, after the ad break, that government has been the thief of your rights to use your land.

                I add here, Dan, the government has three roles: to protect life, protect property, protect freedom. And freedom’s absolutely essential, but so is secure property rights. Government is now the administrator that is committing theft, not protecting people. If a farmer or anyone who has an asset, such as a small business, and this is affecting small businesses right around the country with the government’s capricious restrictions over COVID mismanagement, small businesses have us the right to use this, what they own. If we lose the right to use our land, then you as a farmer, Dan, cannot earn a living. So it becomes a means of shutting down your provision of feeding your family. That is a fundamental human right that you are being denied. It’s also significant that the communists want to take away land and property. That’s one of the first things they do. The World Economic Forum has said, “You will own nothing and you will be happy.” That’s what the plan is right around the world.

                The bankers though, I hope John McCrae is listening here, a wonderful man, he was on our show two weeks ago. We’ll be having John back. He gave me a quote from the Bankers’ Association in America many years ago, “The banks want people to lose their houses, because when they lose their houses, they are at complete control of the major banks.” Dan just told us that Australian farmers feed around 1500 people, each Australian farmer. Now let’s have a look at the restrictions on property rights, and the rights to use our land. Have a look at when Dan comes back with this in mind; all restrictions apart from natural restrictions, like drought, are due to government. We have an abundance of supply from our farmers. Southeast Australia is completely green, producing massive quantities of food after the drought broke, yet, some of the supermarket shelves are bare?

                Why? Not because of a shortage of food, not because of a shortage of supply, not because a shortage of truck drivers, but simply because truck drivers are not able to come to work because of injection mandates, and because of close contact rules, which are completely wrong. They’re completely capricious. So government is acting to control the supply. And I must remind people before we go to the ad: 100% reliance of farmers to use their land is essential for us to feed our bellies, drink a beer, have access to just about everything over to you with the ad break,

Senator Malcolm Roberts (27:39):

And thank you for allowing me into your company with my guest today, Dan McDonald. Dan, you’ve told us the background, the foundation, now tell us what they did to you. The people who are supposed to be protecting us all are the ones who are thieving from us to control us. What happened?

Dan McDonald (27:55):

So Malcolm, to go back to the start of my investing in this big business, I and my wife chose to, to develop a grazing business, a livestock grazing business, and in doing that, of course we needed land upon which to do it. In that process, we sought out to purchase, so we had the absolute rights to the use of freehold grazing land. And that’s exactly what we did; we found some freehold grazing land, and that’s what we purchased against the backdrop of a secure element of property that would be protected at all costs, and we would be able to not only produce food for a hell of a lot of people, but in doing so, we would be able to sustain ourself and our family. So, we bought the land, and said about doing what was necessary to improve it from the perspective of grazing. So, infrastructure like fencing, and water points in the like-

Senator Malcolm Roberts (29:06):

So let me just show you what a keen student I am. When you bought that, you say you bought the land, you bought the land and the right to use the land according to how you and Katrina wanted to.

Dan McDonald (29:18):

Well, essentially, exactly that. And just to go a little bit further there, Malcolm, land right across Australia and, and most developed nations throughout the world is classified into primary land uses. So, you don’t go to the middle of Brisbane to buy a grazing property. Land in cities and towns will either be classified as residential, or commercial, or industrial, and right across Australia it’s like that. And essentially we purchased land that was classified as grazing land. Okay? So ironically, the primary land use for this land, as classified by government is grazing. And of course, in freehold tenure, our most fundamental issue there was buying land that we had the right to use. That’s what we did. And we’ve invested essentially our life’s work into doing that.

                Everything went okay there quite some time, but along the way, of course, when you’re running a grazing business, you’re actually feeding livestock; that’s the whole purpose of your business. And that’s exactly what we did. We just, we used our land to feed our livestock, and everything we thought we were doing was right. And as far as the letter of the law goes, it was right. We hadn’t stolen anyone else’s land. We hadn’t ran our cows onto someone else’s property. We were using our own land. Anyway, along, came the government, and essentially said to us, “Well, hang on, you can’t do the that.” And I said, “Well, what’s wrong? What can’t we do?” “Oh, you can’t use your vegetation to feed your cows.”

Senator Malcolm Roberts (31:10):

When did you buy it, by the way?

Dan McDonald (31:12):

2003.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (31:14):

Thank you.

Dan McDonald (31:16):

So of course, this came as a fairly big shock to myself, and my wife, and my children to have a government body telling us that we could not use our land. And I said, well, hang on a minute. That’s what we bought it for. And ironically, Malcolm, some of the land here that we purchased, we actually purchased from the Queensland government. So it was land that was essentially in what was called leasehold tenure prior to us buying it. We purchased it, and then obviously purchased the lease of it. And then we repurchased through an approval process, the freehold tenure to that land. So that gave us the unimpeded, supposedly, right to use the land. And it was a all done so under the classification of being grazing land.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (32:07):

So, isn’t the selling of something as a con, a confidence trick, so the government are con artists, the government is also misrepresenting something; they’re basically committing fraud.

Dan McDonald (32:22):

Exactly. Malcolm, there is no other the way to describe it. So when we go into a process of purchasing land of any sort, we have a contract. We buy subject to certain terms and conditions, and also, there’s a duty of disclosure there from a selling party. And particularly when the selling party is the government, they have a duty to disclose any rights or encumbrances that they wish to hold over that land. This is the whole purpose of our land, our property law regime that we have in this country, but essentially, government are not complying with that. Government are committing fraud; they are failing to disclose. And I say, deliberately failing to disclose their true intentions.

                If government offered land for sale, and in that process, they disclosed the fact that the purchaser would not obtain the right to use the land, or quite clearly, very few people would want to buy the land. Would they no different to, if you go to a coffee shop and buy that cup of coffee, but you don’t buy right to drink it, well, you’re not likely to buy too many cups of coffee from that shop. So, the government are actually committing fraud. They are failing to disclose they are selling land under that regime. And of course, then it’s not until you physically make use of the land that they’ll then quite happily come along as they did in our case, and prosecute us.

                So, in about 2016 Malcolm, they commenced proceedings against us to prosecute us, essentially under what they called a regime of illegal tree clearing, which in real terms, and as it was certainly adopted in the court, was essentially feeding cows, feeding livestock. We were grazing livestock with our vegetation.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (34:28):

And perhaps I should clarify; I’ve been to your place a couple of times, the trees that the state government alleges you were killing, clearing, were mulga. There’s scrubby bush, they’re borderline calling it a tree.

Dan McDonald (34:47):

Well, that’s correct, Malcolm and-

Senator Malcolm Roberts (34:49):

And cattle love it in the drought. And you bought that property, did you not, because it had some mulga on it because in a drought, it provides all provides very much more security. So you purchased it because of the mulga, and your right to be able to use that mulga?

Dan McDonald (35:05):

That’s right. That’s the feed source, and it’s a renewable feed source, essentially, all we do is effectively prune it to feed livestock, and it grows back again. It grows back very quickly. As a matter of fact, it would be extremely difficult to eradicate it, it grows back so quickly. However, under the government’s regime of land clearing laws, they’ve effectively locked it up as conservation. Just, it’s ironic; we have land that is still classified by government as grazing land. We have a situation where the primary land use is effectively now conservation. Government have implemented a regime across us where we do not now have the right to use our land at all. We physically do not have the right to use it. They will allow us to use certain areas of our land, under very strict guidelines, and other than that, our property is effectively conservation.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (36:11):

So hang on, hang on. You are charged with the responsibility of providing a livelihood. You have the right to use your land, but the bureaucrats in the city of Brisbane and the city of Canberra tell you how to use it. They’re running your farm.

Dan McDonald (36:29):

Absolutely.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (36:30):

That’s communism.

Dan McDonald (36:30):

Absolutely.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (36:32):

And now that you have had the right to use your land stolen from you, that is communism. They basically own it, even though you paid for it.

Dan McDonald (36:42):

If we get into the nuts and bolts, just briefly of how it all come about. I mean, obviously when this matter-

Senator Malcolm Roberts (36:49):

Go for it, we’ve got 17 minutes left.

Dan McDonald (36:51):

Yeah. When this matter came upon, as I sought to obviously investigate and represent myself throughout the court proceedings, and I did so, but the primary thing I wanted to work out, Malcolm, was where this came from, what was the root cause of the fact that I had had my primary element of property stolen from me. And essentially, that all came down to the federal government. The regime itself of taking white land was implemented by the Queensland state government. It fundamentally came from the coercion and pressure of the federal government, as it done across many states throughout Australia, but there was certainly no state more heavily impacted than Queensland. And primarily, the whole goal of the federal government’s taking of our property and locking it up for conservation was all about securing carbon credits to go into this ridiculous emissions trading type regime we now have being implemented across the world.

                So, effectively, instead of government coming along and paying me for the property that they wished to acquire, which would’ve been consistent with the constitution, they effectively stole it, by way of regulation, and that’s the situation we are now in now. And as I said earlier, that’s been a devastating impact to myself, my family, but it’s also a detrimental impact across the broader population, not only of Australia, but the world. This is not just my own property that’s impacted by this; it’s right across Australia, it’s certainly right across Queensland. And the loss of production that comes from that is profound. And essentially, that loss of production will only continue to increase, as in the productivity is declining, of our land or all the time, and there’s nothing we can do about that.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (38:57):

Okay, we’ve just heard from Professor David Flint, one of the world’s best and Section 51 Clause 31 of our federal constitution says that wherever the federal government interferes with someone’s rights to use their land, their property, they must be paid just terms compensation. What exactly did they do? Why did they do it? Without paying compensation? And how did they get away?

Dan McDonald (39:29):

Malcolm, the federal government got around it by actually getting the states to do the dirty work. You know, states were coerced financially into enacting the appropriate legislation that would effectively acquire the property in question for the federal government. And that’s the exact mechanism they used to avoid compensating anybody. No one’s been compensated; we were certainly not compensated at all. The most valuable element of our property was stolen from us, and we’ve never been offered 1 cent of compensation. So that’s the mechanism they use. States have their own constitutions. Interestingly enough, whilst there’s no specific provision for states to compensate when taking property, it is actually embodied within the state’s constitution, and it is also embodied in the state’s legislature. They do have legislation that says, if they’re taking property, they must pay fair compensation. But of course they refuse to do it. So-

Senator Malcolm Roberts (40:38):

So the state government-

Dan McDonald (40:39):

The situation we are in, and somehow that’s the environment within which we’re expected to produce food.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (40:47):

So, so let me just give the people who have us as guests in their present company, some details. Because I first learned about back around 2008, ’09 ’10, something like that. We had the UN Kyoto protocol, which came in in 1996. That was the same time John Howard’s government, and John Anderson’s national party government came into, into power in Australia. So the Howard-Anderson liberal national government said, “We will not sign the UN’s Kyoto protocol, but we will comply with it.” Now they had a choice they thought, “To comply with that. We will have to shut down power stations, reduce car travelling, reduce industry.” And John Howard’s government realised that was not going to be accepted by Australians, and rightly so. So, they concocted the idea, and the UN blessed it, that what we could do is stop the farmers’ rights to use their land, stop them clearing the land that they bought. And in that way, they would save the trees and absorb carbon dioxide. Forget for a moment that grasslands absorb more carbon dioxide, and forget for a moment that it’s all crap anyway. Just forget about all of that.

                So then they had a problem. “Okay, so now we’ve protected our power stations from the UN, we’ve protected our cars, our industry from the UN, how do we steal it from the farmers? Because we have to pay just terms compensation, and that would be a couple of hundred billion dollars. Okay, so what do we do? Oh, I know. The states, they don’t have to pay compensation. It’s advisable to, but they don’t have to, so we’ll do deals with the state governments.” At the time in 1996, and I’ve seen this document, another property owner showed it to me. An agreement was started between the federal and state governments. At the time, the Prime Minister signed it on behalf of the federal liberal national government. The premier of Queensland signed it on behalf of the National Party government. At the time in 1996, Rob Borbidge was the State Premier. All the officials who signed this were either members of the National Party or members of the Liberal Party. Three from federal, three from state of Queensland.

                And later on, that was an understanding that they would comply with the federal request to curtail, to steal farmer’s rights to use their land. Correct me if I’m wrong here, anywhere Dan, and then-

Dan McDonald (40:47):

No, you’re spot on, Malcolm.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (43:47):

And then, when Peter Beattie came to power, the labour government in Queensland in 1998, the rubber started hitting the road. And Dan bought his property in 2003 with no understanding of this, no disclosure from the owners of the land, the Queensland state government.

Dan McDonald (44:04):

Absolutely.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (44:04):

Then when he started using it, he was penalised for doing so. Now it’s very important that people understand Queensland’s state [inaudible 00:44:16], the parliament entry record includes in its records letters from John Howard, the Prime Minister, federal liberal Prime Minister to Peter Beattie, the State Labour Premier saying basically, “Please stop farmers clearing their land, for the purposes of the UN Kyoto protocol.” And Peter Beattie responding saying that they would do so for John Howard’s governments to compliance with the UN. The similar thing happened in New South Wales and Bob Carr, I think he was in Environment Minister at the time, but he was on YouTube. I’ve seen it. He was gloating, laughing, saying that he stole farmers’ rights to use their land, so that the Howard government could comply with the UN’s Kyoto protocol. And what happened was John Howard’s government, the Howard-Anderson liberal national government went around the constitution deceitfully to steal farmers’ rights to use their land. Is that not correct?

Dan McDonald (45:22):

That is absolutely correct. So, the primary security mechanism we had to protect our land has been totally ignored. And of course, government acting as the primary administrator, yeah, they’ve just totally ignored it. And, and essentially we don’t have anywhere else to go. It’s a fundamental issue that will continue to play out for a number of years. And I think I’ve highlighted the vulnerability of the greater population. Malcolm, let’s never forget that besides water, food is the most valuable commodity on this planet.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (46:06):

Oh, hang on, hang on, also oxygen. Well, and now they want to tax our carbon dioxide that we exhale.

Dan McDonald (46:14):

We’d like to hope that we can continue to breathe without having to pay a tax.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (46:17):

But they’re taxing it.

Dan McDonald (46:19):

The most valuable on the planet, and the only protection, right? The only protection for consumers comes from an abundant supply, which stems from secure property rights. We are losing our property rights, and effectively, we are now losing our productive capacity.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (46:41):

Thank you. Thank you. This goes to other areas as well. There is a grazier, or at least he used to be a Grazer near Okie, which is an army defence base. It’s got an army Air Force squadron there, and they have to use PFAS chemicals well, they don’t have to, but the government chose to use PFAS chemicals for firefighting. That PFAS is now polluting the in underground water. It’s destroying the soil so much so I won’t go into the details now, but the Defence Department, after doing this to David [Jefferies 00:47:23] and Diane [inaudible 00:47:23] property, does not pay compensation. The state government under Campbell Newman, I think, liberal government, I can stand be corrected, but I’m pretty sure it was Liberal National Party government under Campbell Newman, took the water rights from David Jefferies and Diane [inaudible 00:47:41] with no compensation. Water is essential for farming. And then John Howard’s government, John Anderson’s government stole the farmer’s property rights before that. And so, the rights to use their land. So, our food production is really threatened. And this is all about control of land, is it not, Dan?

Dan McDonald (48:07):

Absolutely Malcolm. Absolutely. And look, let’s just never forget the fact that rights are property, and rights are always owned by somebody. And it doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about rights to use land, to drink a cup of coffee, to drive your motor car, or indeed rights to breathe oxygen, those rights belong to somebody, okay? So, your rights are your property. All of us own property, we all do. Don’t think you need to own something tangible to own property. Your rights to breathe, your right to choose what you do with your body.,Those rights are your property. You own them. Nobody else, no one else has the right to them. They’re yours. And they must be protected. Unfortunately, this is the biggest downfall of our society and our government at the moment; our rights are not being protected. Indeed, if anything, they’re being totally denigrated and decimated by government.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (49:11):

Well, as I mentioned earlier on governments have three roles: protect life, protect property, protect freedom. The government in your case has hurt all three. They’re not protecting life; they’re creating a woody weed monoculture that is destroying life. They’re destroying your opportunity to provide a livelihood for your family. They’re destroying your rights to use your property. They are stealing your freedom in the name of protecting the environment, but really in the name of the United Nations to control land. We can see it in native title legislation; the land was taken from some people, and handed back to the Aboriginals we were told, but the aboriginals can’t use it. It was stolen to lock it up. Murray–Darling basin, more legislation that the Howard-Anderson government introduced in 2007 was done to do exactly the same thing. It’s to steal the right to use the land. And in Dan’s case, it was done without compensation. Is there anything you’d like to say; we’ve got about two minutes left before I have to wrap it up, Dan.

Dan McDonald (50:31):

Malcolm, I’d just say that we’ve got to remember the fact, and I would say that you spoke then of the impacts to people like myself, the impacts to farmers trying to generate a livelihood. Malcolm, I would contend that the impacts are far greater for the vast population. Because as I pointed out, every farmer is feeding almost 1500 people. The greater impacts of all of this are on the vast population. They haven’t seen it yet, but there’s one thing for sure, they will. The only protection that consumers have is abundant supply, which stems from our secure property rights. That’s where it all comes from. We cannot afford to have rights in any way, shape or form just denigrated, and not secured. It’s the fundamental pillar, fundamental foundation of our very existence.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (51:32):

So my eight keys to human progress, number one is freedom, because that’s where you invent, you initiate, you exchange ideas, you exchange concepts. Number two is the rule of law, so that what you earn, you keep, and your neighbour can’t steal it from you. Number three is a constitutional governance that provides continuity, so that provides security; a stable environment. Number four is secure property rights. And Dan’s explained that, and shown us how he’s fought to try and get them back, and failed. Dan, it is so important, a true liberal in terms of a Liberal Party, a true liberal says there is nothing more sacrosanct apart from the right to life, than the right to secure property rights, yet it’s the liberals and the nationals who stole them.

Dan McDonald (52:33):

Yes, that’s right, Malcolm. The fact are that that over the last 20 years, a little over 20 years now, the most detrimental impacts, and policy directions in this country have came from the supposedly conservative side of government, the Liberal National Party, it is the coalition at a federal level that have driven this all the way.

/2 Comments/by

The Malcolm Roberts Show – Professor David Flint – 05 Feb 2022

,

Professor David Flint AM is an Emeritus Professor of Law.  He read law and economics at Universities of Sydney, London and Paris. After admission as a Solicitor of the NSW Supreme Court in 1962, he practised as a solicitor (1962-72) before moving into University teaching, holding several academic posts before becoming Professor of Law at Sydney University of Technology in 1989.

Professor Flint is the author of numerous publications. His publications include books and articles on topics such as the media, international economic law, Australia’s constitution and on Australia’s 1999 constitutional referendum. He was recognised with the award of World Outstanding Legal Scholar, World Jurists Association, Barcelona, in October 1991.

He was made a Member of the Order of Australia in 1995.

So David is an expert in constitutional law and I am going to chat about with him about Australia’s Constitution – a document that most people never give a second thought to.  Over the last couple of years, as we have watched our freedoms being eroded, references to the Constitution have reached a level of popularity equivalent to “new best seller”. 

The Constitution is also being misused and mis-referenced and there are a whole lot of crazy stuff going on in the name of the Constitution.  David is going to help me make sense of it all.

The Malcolm Roberts Show – Professor David Flint
Senator Roberts also interviewed David Flint a second time, expanding on these topics and discussing others.

Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):

You’re with Senator Malcolm Roberts on Today’s News Talk, TNT.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (00:05):

Thank you for having me as your guest in your car, your lounge room, your men’s shed your kitchen. It’s indeed an honour all over the world to be with you today. There are two themes to me and my show, freedom specifically versus control, and it’s basic for human progress and people’s livelihood. And the second theme is personal responsibility and the importance of integrity. That’s basic for personal progress and people’s livelihoods.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (00:35):

So we have three aims for the show in the terms of direction and tone. I just let you know, now that I’m under apologetically fiercely, pro-human. I’m tired of the media and the politicians ragging on humans. And I’m going to tell the truth about humans and humanity. I’m proud to be one of our planet’s only species capable of logic and loving care. We’ll be positive. We will certainly deal with what’s wrong with politics. But we’ll also deal with what’s needed in politics. We’ll deal with what’s wrong with politicians and what we need in politicians. We’ll deal with what’s wrong with the media, as well as what’s needed in media. We’ll get to the core issues, what’s and all to develop solutions. We’ll cover the human aspects, the strengths, weaknesses, vulnerabilities, failings highlights, and what makes people real.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (01:24):

The second basic aim is to be data driven and factual, truthful and honest. And the third thing I’ve been given and that I comply with and why I’ve been invited to compare this show is to speak out, to be blunt and will certainly be that. Hubert Humphrey who lived from 1911 to 1978, served as the United States vice president from 1965 to 1969. And he said, and think about this as we remember that a private company is locking down private citizen in an age care facility. He said, “The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the Dawn of life the children, those who are in the Twilight of life the elderly, those who are in the shadows of life the sick, the needy and the handicapped.”

Senator Malcolm Roberts (02:20):

Well, think about our society in Australia and growing around the world. This week in the news, there were stories continuing regarding age care residents being literally locked because residents and staff have COVID. In some cases, apparently there’s no COVID, but they have been locking down anyway. So today I have two very impressive guests. First up, I have the privilege of talking with Professor David Flint, and this man is not only an expert, he’s a wonderful person. Professor David Flint order of Australian medal is an Emeritus Professor of Law.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (02:57):

He read law and economics at universities of Sydney, London, and Paris. After admission as a solicitor of the New South Wales Supreme Court in 1962, he practised as a solicitor for 10 years before moving into university, teaching, holding several academic posts before becoming professor of law at Sydney University of Technology in 1989. Professor Flint is the author of numerous publications. These include books and articles on topics such as the media, international economic law, Australia’s constitution.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (03:30):

And on Australia’s 1999 constitutional referendum. He was recognised with the order of world outstanding legal scholar. I’ll say that again, world outstanding legal scholar. The World Juris Association Barcelona in October 1991, he was made a member of the order of Australia in 1995. So David’s an expert in constitutional law, and I’m going to chat with him about Australia’s constitution. A Document that most people never give a second thought to. Over the last couple of years, as we have watched our freedoms being eroded references to the constitution have reached the level of popularity equivalent to the new bestseller.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (04:12):

My office is handing them out will very, very frequently. The constitution is sadly also being misused and misreferenced. And there’s a whole array of crazy stuff going on in the name of the constitution. David’s going to help me make sense of it all. Now importantly about David he’s one of the world’s most eminent legal scholars, and professors, in academics, but more importantly he’s one of the people. This man you’ll see him at social functions, gatherings with speakers speaking in the street, he speaks at rallies.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (04:49):

He is truly a wonderful human being. And to give you context, there are eight keys that I have for human progress. The first is freedom. The second is the law rule of law. And the third is the constitution to provide continuing ongoing governance and succession. The purpose of law is to protect people, not control people. So welcome David.

Professor David Flint (05:16):

Well, thank you very much. That is a very kind introduction and I’m honoured to be on your programme.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (05:23):

Well, it’s a pleasure having you here and we’ve met a few times in the past. What is it… David, before we start what is it… Tell me something you appreciate.

Professor David Flint (05:33):

Well, listening to what you said. I do appreciate integrity, but I also appreciate common sense because common sense seems to be escaping so many in public life these days. And I suspect that goes back to belief, to strong belief in principles and a commitment by those in public life towards the national interest and not their personal interest. And I think there’s a lot of that missing today. And not only in Australia.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (06:06):

I think it’s rife in the Western world where there’s something afoot and it’s beyond our national borders, David, but we can see what’s going on. The governments and the parliaments, state and federal level. Their aim is not to control the virus because clearly they have failed at that. Other countries have succeeded in that and the recipes are simple, but the aim is not to control the virus, the aim is to control the people. And yet, we have a constitution to protect us. What is the constitution? What’s its purpose, role? Why is it significant and why is it failing?

Professor David Flint (06:46):

Well, I think we have to remember that we were already self-governing before we entered into our constitution. By the middle of the 19th century, the British had given us self government. We were still part of the empire, but we were governing ourselves with our own system of government and they gave us the one that they knew that is the Westminster system in contrast to the American system. Instead of having an executive who’s independent of the other two powers, we have an executive which is controlled by the lower house, must be responsible to the house of representatives.

Professor David Flint (07:26):

And ours is a collective executive, unlike the American, which is essentially an individual or president, ours is a collective like the British always responsible to the house of representatives and liable to lose office. If they lose a vote or lose the confidence of the house of representatives. Now that’s a good system. It works well. And it has been exported. I think between the American and the British, there’s not much difference except a difference way of dealing with the problem of government.

Professor David Flint (08:01):

And the essential problem of government was set out by Lord Acton. A great English peer and historian who stated an essential principle. And that goes with the nature of man. And that is that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If there’s a lesson in government, that’s the lesson because there’s Madison and all that. One of the great American founding fathers said, man is not perfect, and that’s why we need government.

Professor David Flint (08:38):

But we can’t give if absolute power, there must be checks and balances. The Americans have it in their constitution, we’ve got it in ours. But what our constitution was essentially, was a document to bring six self-governing countries, states, there were still self-governing colonies to bring them together into one country that was its purpose.

Professor David Flint (09:08):

There’s a constitutional system, and then there’s a federal constitution. The constitutional system is wider some of it is not as guaranteed as in the constitution. For a definition of constitution I think one of the very best definitions given by Berlin Broke in England a few centuries ago, in which he said a constitution is that body of laws, customs, and institutions by which the people have agreed to be governed. That assembly of laws, customs, and institutions by which the people have agreed to be governed. So it’s the people who are the essence of this. One of the really great things that happened when our six colonies decided to federate was that in the course of that, it was firstly, that was the process.

Professor David Flint (10:10):

When we first had a convention appointed by the state parliament, it met together, they drew up a constitution. And then when it was sent back to the sixth state parliament, they all bickered among themselves, tried to do it again. And there was a conference held at a place called Corowa, which was on the border of New South Wales in Victoria. Important in those days, because we had tariffs between the colonies. If you wanted to transfer goods from one colony to the other, you had to pay a tax. And that of course was inimical to forming one country.

Professor David Flint (10:50):

People met at Corowa was a private conference, a conference of people. And they came up with a solution to the problem of overcoming the politicians, and getting a constitution which could unite this country, the first continent of the world to be formed into one country. So they met in Corowa a man there called Sir John Quick, who’s not remember today, no school child wouldn’t know anything about him, but he came up with a proposal which was adopted by the conference.

Professor David Flint (11:25):

And that was the future conventions should instead of being appointed by the state or colonial parliament, they should be elected directly by the people. The second part of his proposal was that when the convention had decided on a constitution, on a draught and sent it out for discussion by the people, by the six colonial parliament, it would then come back to the convention. They’d settle the final form, and then the way of getting it approved would be to have referendums in every colony.

Professor David Flint (12:15):

So we had six referendums. New South Wales was proved to be a little difficult so it had to be done again, but eventually it was all passed. It was the people who agreed to the constitution and because they had that model in it, they put in a vital part of the constitution. In fact, the prime minister of South Australia as the premiers used to be called Charles Kingston, wanted to introduce into the constitution, not just having a referendum, not just require a referendum for changing the constitution, but also introducing more control over the politicians so that the people could in relation to any new legislation, stop that legislation. If they petitioned for a referendum and the people in that referendum decided they didn’t want that piece of legislation.

Professor David Flint (13:19):

So he was going to introduce much more of what we call direct democracy. America, Australia, Britain, we’re all representative democracies. We elect people to represent us. And then the past laws on our behalf. In Switzerland, and in later years in parts of the United States and Canada, they’ve introduced more direct democracy. And what that means is that the politicians are much more accountable to the people than they are in a pure representative democracy. There’s a Sword of Damocles hanging over the head of every politician, which is the ideal. I know you won’t like that Malcolm.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (14:11):

No, no. No, no. David, I love that idea.

Professor David Flint (14:15):

You’d love it. Good. And it’s wonderful because you are a good politician, but there are not many who follow, who do what the people want. And if the politicians did something which the people don’t like, the idea is, well, they could by petition ask for a referendum to decide whether that should happen. To take it a step further they could even have a referendum in which they propose their own legislation, which then has to be adopted.

Professor David Flint (14:50):

Now, some people say that won’t work, it works very well in Switzerland, every three months, every three months, they have a number of referendums, which the people propose and being a federation, they proposed at the central level, the federal level they’re also propose is at the state level, they call them cantons at the state level. But also at the municipal level, the local government level. And you don’t have to vote if you don’t want to.

Professor David Flint (15:21):

It’s not compulsory as in Australia, but it does mean that everybody can have a say and the people can make decisions, which doesn’t prove the quality of government and certainly improves the quality of politicians. So we have a federal constitution, and those parts which essentially relate to creating a single country. Those can only be changed by the federal parliament proposing referendum and the people then agreeing to that. But not everything is covered, not everything in that constitutional system is covered by that.

Professor David Flint (16:00):

And two things which are not covered in the constitutional system came out very much during the crisis over the pandemic. And this was that most of the decisions the politicians were made on the quite often on the spur of the moment too often for political reasons, rather than genuine health reasons. And they were made by way of regulations. That is by the executive government quite often just by a minister. And that was never envisaged to work that way.

Professor David Flint (16:47):

And this was done without any parliamentary scrutiny. Even in colonial times we had two checks and balances on the making of regulations, which seemed to have been whittled away. One was that for important regulations to be made, these had to be done by the governor in the executive council. The governors in Australia is appointed by the crown on the recommendation of the local premier or the federal government. But the role of the governor or the governor general is as a sort of auditor to see all the [inaudible 00:17:33]in the two he’s crossed that all the proper details are there before regulation is adopted and it’s adopted properly.

Professor David Flint (17:43):

Instead of, as for example in New South Wales, there’s a moment in New South Wales, one of the Australian states where during the pandemic, the premier that’s the first minister, the prime minister of the state. The premier decided suddenly that we should close down the building industry. It was closed down for two weeks until there was enormous amount of outrage over it. But that cost $2 billion put a lot of people out of work, stopped all building in the cities. And even the bureaucratic medical advisor said, “Well, I didn’t advise that, there were no health reasons for that. It was just that the premier thought this is a good idea at the time.”

Professor David Flint (18:36):

Now that should have gone to the executive council, it should have been put to the governor who wouldn’t decide on the merits. The governor would just make sure that all the documents there, the argue were there. And most importantly, that this was in power because the regulation about closing the building industry was being made under health legislation. And surely there would have to be documents there supporting the case for some health reason to do that. But in addition to having the executive council, what we thought of, and this was in colonial times. Wat we thought was also an important check and balance was that the two houses of parliament and all states except Queensland in Australia have two houses and governments rarely control the upper house.

Professor David Flint (19:31):

The two houses of a parliament exercised close scrutiny over regulations. They call for evidence. They call the minister before them to explain why this regulation was made. And they have a power of disallowance governments, as I say, rarely control the upper house. And if the cross bench and the opposition joined together, they can quite often get a majority. And a lot of the excesses might have been stopped in the upper house after a proper scrutiny. But those two things, both of those two things disappeared during this crisis. And quite often, the power to make regulations for health was abused.

Professor David Flint (20:24):

In what lawyers would call misfeasance in public office. The trouble with the laws, you would know Malcolm is it takes a terribly long time for a case to come on. If you want to argue that the government has exceeded it’s powers in making regulation, it can take years. A few years ago, we had a ban on the export of live cattle to Indonesia. There were complaints that in some abattoirs in Indonesia, the cattle were being treated cruelly. So the minister adopted a regulation banning cattle to those abattoirs were ones where there might be inhumanity to the cattle. They weren’t being treated properly. But then a few days later, because of pressure from the left, from the ABC and other sources, the minister issued a second regulation.

Professor David Flint (21:32):

And that was to totally ban all export of cattle from Australia. That was done suddenly, it ruined farmers, it ruined people working for farmers, it ruined people working the ports. People lost their jobs. Those people who suffered were indigenous people. We have a great concern in Australia about the indigenous people. They also suffered all done suddenly, and they all decided to assume about this. It took almost 10 years to get together the facts, get together a case and get a ruling by the judge who found that there was in fact misfeasance in public office that the minister went too far.

Professor David Flint (22:21):

Now, damages are being worked up, but guess who pays the damages? Not the minister he’s in retirement. He’s got other jobs, no doubts, consultancies, and so on. He’s living well. The government’s living well. When the damages are worked out, it’ll be the poor old taxpayer who’ll pay the damages, but it took a long time for that case to come on.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (22:44):

David, can I interrupt you there for a minute, please? Well, actually we’re going to have to go to an ad break. This is wonderful. It is absolutely wonderful. What I would like to do before going to the ad break is to summarise for our listeners and then go to the ad break and come back and let you continue. And I’d like to get onto a couple of specific things after we come back. For now my summary is that you mentioned Madison and you mentioned that man is not perfect.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (23:13):

And Jefferson recognised the failings of humans. And he recognised we need to protect individuals in government, in Congress, in parliament, from those failings, because everyone has them. The second thing is that you have made it very, very clear. The core of the whole parliamentary process should be the people. You’ve also said that there is a need for a solution to overcoming the politicians. You’ve also said that it was the people who agreed to the constitution. You’ve also said that it’s the politicians who must be accountable to the parliament and that they aren’t.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (23:56):

You’ve also said… Implicitly, sorry, I’m going to extend what you said here. Leaders, in my opinion are servants. There is so much material you are raising that I would like to invite you back now for a second show sometime in the future, if you could do that. But leaders are servants. Whether it be in business, corporations, clubs, parliament, football clubs, the community leaders go and listen to people and then develop a vision. And then they have to convince people that their vision is the best solution. If the people believe it is they will follow.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (24:33):

The whole of this COVID nightmare, this mismanagement has been atrocious in Australia. The whole thing is about control of people not serving the people. This is not… And the leadership has not been about leadership, it has been about coercion and forcing sometimes brutally and inhuman immoral ways. You’ve mentioned that there’s a lack of parliamentary scrutiny. I couldn’t agree more. David, this is echoing throughout the west because the west is under people now who want to control the people and it’s happening in the west. And perhaps that’s for another discussion in the future.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (25:12):

But I do want to finish with the words of Jeannette Young. She was chief health officer for Queensland during most of this mismanagement. She admitted to her credit that as chief health officer, she was responsible only for people’s physical health. The premier is a really guilty one here in Queensland and right throughout the country, because the premier abdicated, she said, “It’s all about physical health.” Well, that is complete rubbish. It is about people’s economic health now and in the future. You mentioned the construction industry in Victoria being brought to its knees for no valid reason. She also ignored the premier up here, ignored people’s mental health. They did nothing to do that. And they made it far, far worse, all to control people.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (26:06):

And now you’ve told us how suing parliament to prove malfeasance takes a decade. And that’s because the damn parliamentarians are not doing their job. And you finished with one key statement. Always the people pay the price. And that’s what makes me sick because I’ve noticed this time and time and again. The government stuffs it up. The parliament fails to hold them accountable because they’re both working together and the people pay the price. So let’s go to an ad break now and come back and listen more to professor David Flint.

Speaker 1 (26:44):

You should hear what Patrick Hening’s talking about.

Patric Henson (26:47):

They outsource a lot of this what they call Turk work, believe it or not, Amazon coined that term called Turk work. So they farm all this stuff out to various places around the globe. Try to take advantage of the cheaper labour. No, in theory, there’s nothing wrong with that. Yes, they are creating jobs to some degree, but that’s not the point. The point is this, the point is that either algorithms or some completely unqualified person in a foreign country is actually, looking at the dashboard and deciding what gets banned, what doesn’t get banned. And most of the times the people making these, the human decisions on this, they have no idea what the issues are.

Speaker 1 (27:30):

Patrick Henson on Today’s News Talk-TNT radio.

Yon (27:35):

Using meth taught me everything about freedom. Only, not like you think it taught me how easy it is to lose your freedom. If you think meth is taking control of you, ask for help, you have the power to be truly free. I know I’m Yon and I’m free from meth.

Speaker 6 (27:53):

If you or someone you know, is struggling with meth, call 1800-662 help for 24 hour free and confidential treatment referral. Learn more at samhsa.gov/meth.

Speaker 7 (28:04):

A few years ago, Steve Fair Cow’s lungs were failing.

Steve Fair Cow (28:08):

I don’t think I had more than a couple weeks to live.

Speaker 7 (28:11):

That’s when Steve received a lung transplant made possible by an organ donor. Now Steve could do things he never imagined like climbing 94 floors to the top of a skyscraper.

Steve Fair Cow (28:20):

I never knew that breathing could feel this good. It’s an incredible gift.

Speaker 7 (28:24):

What could you make possible as an organ organised tissue donor leave behind the gift of life. Go to organdonor.gov, US department of health and human services, health resources, and services administration.

Speaker 1 (28:36):

This is the Malcolm Robert show on Today’s News Talk radio-TNT.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (28:40):

Welcome back. And thank you for having me as a guest along with professor David Flint, as a guest, wherever you are. Professor Flint has just given us a very, very comprehensive, yet succinct summary of the constitution in Australia. Professor Flint, before we move on to you’ve identified some problems in our constitution before we move on to discussing some of this solutions, perhaps you could deal with some questions on something that is at the moment, occupying a lot of hype, particularly on social media, regarding people serving papers to public officials under the banner of the wait for this, the international court of common law in the high hope that we can restore our freedoms. What is the common law courts?

Professor David Flint (29:31):

Well, the international court of common law or something I would suggest when people receive these documents, they should look up. They should Google it because I regret to say it doesn’t exist. The top court in Australia is the high court of Australia. There’s no such court above the high court of Australia. In fact, such a court does not exist and people are being misled by this. I can understand there’s a great need for change. And I don’t agree with all of the decisions of the high court. I disagree with a number of them, but one has to accept them because those are the decisions we have, but what we have to do rather than being way laid by something, which doesn’t exist.

Professor David Flint (30:21):

These documents concoct a court which has no presence. And you’ll notice that quite often, there are not many names on it of judges whom you could check on as to whether they exist. These documents relate to something that somebody is creating for their own purposes. And I can understand people feeling upset and dissatisfied with the system. And there’s a very full reason for this as I’ve quite often said it’s hard to think of any one problem confronting Australia, probably many other countries, hard to think of any one problem confronting Australia, which is weren’t created by politicians has not been made significantly worse by them.

Professor David Flint (31:06):

And we have to have a system which overcomes that. Australia is in a particularly poor position because in Australia, we have a situation where a rigorously controlled two-party system has been captured not by the members, but by cabals of power brokers who control pre-selections. Who are making quite often a lot of money out of government transactions. It is much more controlled in Australia, for example, than in the United Kingdom. Just take for example, question time in the house of representatives and compare it with question time in London, at Westminster.

Professor David Flint (31:49):

At Westminster, it works properly, real questions asked. In Australia questions asked from the government side are written by the whips, the officials in the party, the ministers know of them in advance. And they say, “Thank you for the question without notice.” And they know it’s not a question without notice. It is a choreographed third rate theatre, unlike the situation, in west minister, where quite often you get it in the house changes among the party members who just cannot abide with what their government is doing for example-

Senator Malcolm Roberts (32:28):

Can I jump in for a minute, please Dave?

Professor David Flint (32:30):

Sure.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (32:32):

In fact, members of the Labour party, the Liberal party, the National party have told me that question time is theatre. Much of parliament is theatre. And I sit back, I’ve never yelled out in parliament. And I sit back and I look at these monkeys and I think they are showing so much disrespect to the people, perhaps before we go on to the changes necessary. So what you’re saying about these, the international court of common law is that it’s not real. So who are the sheriffs? The judges that are mentioned are they self-appointed?

Professor David Flint (33:09):

Well, do they exist? There are names there. Sometimes there are names. Sometimes there are no names, but do they exist? Are they real people? And what is the purpose of this? People are being misled, unfortunately. And the solution is very simple as to ascertain whether this is real. Do a Google search or take it to a lawyer and say, “Well, can this be progressed?” And the lawyer will now tell you, “Well, this is not a real document. Quite often as a nice seal on it, but it’s not a real document.” And I cannot understand the purpose of this. We have a problem, a serious problem as this is not the solution. I think that if I may go onto the solution, the solution is-

Senator Malcolm Roberts (33:58):

Prof, before we do it, just a couple more questions on the specifics, please David.

Professor David Flint (34:01):

Certainly.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (34:01):

So someone’s put a lot of effort into creating these documents. What do you think they hope to achieve? And is it an act of desperation and can they get away with it?

Professor David Flint (34:09):

No.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (34:10):

They claim to be charging people under fake court orders.

Professor David Flint (34:14):

Well, you’ve got the declarations that they found a number of governors and premiers and the prime minister guilty of treason. And others, guilty of misprision of treason that is of hiding treason or letting people get away with treason. Now that’s a very serious offence that would involve life imprisonment in Australia, along with the death penalty but’s very serious. These just do not exist. There have been no such trials. There are no such courts. It is being run for some purpose, perhaps it’s somebody using this to try and get votes, to get into parliament. We don’t know what it’s all about, but it is not true. A few years ago, there was a similar thing where, because the government is registered on the financial markets in New York and it has the state as a corporation.

Professor David Flint (35:14):

This led to a great debate that the government had turned itself into a corporation. That the wrong seal was being used because the seal had changed. That the queen’s title had become the queen of Australia by legislation, which is perfectly proper. All of these were pointless, and they would’ve carried no water in any competent court. And it was very difficult to see for what purpose this was being undertaken? People have to do something about the serious problems that we just lived through, but they won’t do it by being sidetracked by this nonsense.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (35:53):

So these people are essentially misleading for potentially political purposes. Well as significantly they’re wasting politicians time. They’re wasting the public’s time. They’re wasting the people’s time. They’re diverting valuable attention, time, resources, and cruelly. They’re giving false hope.

Professor David Flint (36:15):

That’s the worst thing.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (36:17):

And to me, I know that a simple definition of fraud is the presentation of something as it is not for personal gain. So if people are doing this for political purposes and to mislead people and to scrounge votes, then this is fraud. And that’s very, very hurtful fraud.

Professor David Flint (36:34):

It is. It’s because people are being lulled into believing that there is a simple solution and there’s no such solution. This is fabricated. And as you say, this is a fraud and it should be ignored because it is such a fraud. And if the police are involved, they should be involved about the fraud. I noticed there’s a script there to go along, see your policeman, what to say about your police-

Senator Malcolm Roberts (37:00):

There is a script in this so-called international court of common law summons.

Professor David Flint (37:06):

You take eight people along to the police and you say, “Go through the script.” Now this it is unfortunately nonsense. And understandably. If people fabricated a statement concerning medical treatment, well, I wouldn’t know what it was all about, and it could well be fraudulent. And that would be just as bad because this is fraudulent. It has no effect and it will cause no advantage and it won’t solve anything.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (37:37):

And as a member of the federal Senate. I agree completely with you that our country has been dragged down. To me there is not a problem with the constitution, but with the way the processes outlined in the constitution are not being followed bypassed. You’ve already talked to us about two of those. Most decisions are being made by politicians on the spur of the moment. Secondly, for the political benefit. Thirdly, by regulations at a time when the Senate doesn’t sit to disallow. So you’ve already mentioned those. You’re going to mention a few solutions now. Could you tell us the solutions because understanding is our constitution is a wonderful document, but it’s not perfect. What would you do to make it perfect?

Professor David Flint (38:26):

Well, and if I may refer to it, I do have a petition on this. May I refer to the short title for that, that’s change.org/takebackyourcountry, change.org/takebackyourcountry. And firstly, people must be very careful in elections. The major political parties are under the control of cabals of power brokers, and people should be very careful how they vote. And in particular, which parties they give their first preferences to. And it would be a mistake I suspect to give your votes to the major parties, at least your first preference votes, who should be looking at the smaller parties who offer sensible solutions, that’s important.

Professor David Flint (39:22):

And the second thing is we desperately need significant change. We do need to make the politicians accountable. And the best way to do that is to demand that a convention be elected by the ordinary people of Australia, whereby certain important changes could be made to the constitution. The most important change is to empower the people so that the politicians don’t have to face the people quite often in confected election. The elections are confected because the pre-selection are often prearranged and people by habits tend to vote for the major parties.

Professor David Flint (40:07):

It’s not like the United States where there’s much greater flexibility in relation to choosing candidates. In Australia the choice of candidates is controlled very much. In America, particularly in the Republican party it’s a wonderful system. And that allowed Donald Trump to emerge as the dominant candidate in the last presidential election, because the control of the pre-selections is not in the party bosses because the selections are done not only by members of the party, but also registered supporters of the party. So you get a very democratic way of choosing candidates we don’t have them in Australia.

Professor David Flint (40:51):

What we need in Australia is we need a convention like the choral war convention, which wrote and founded our country. We needed a convention, an elected convention for the people to review the constitution on the Corowa principles. It’s all set out in my proposal. This is very important because if we don’t make changes to the constitution to block the politicians, to make accountable 24/7. You know, Malcolm in most jobs as you would know, you’ve held jobs, you’ve had real life experience. Unlike most politicians, who’ve only had a political life.

Professor David Flint (41:36):

You’ve had real life experience and you know as I know that in most jobs, in most businesses, you’re subject to accountability, you’re accountable to your customers, your clients, to your bosses and so on. You’re accountable, 24/7. The politicians aren’t, they’re only accountable in these elections. And when they confect the elections where the pre-selections are done by the party bosses, you’ve got a situation where the people’s voice is not there because of the habit of voting for one of the major parties like we desperately need change. And I’ve suggested in this petition, the changes which the convention should make to the constitution.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (42:21):

Are they the five Rs?

Professor David Flint (42:24):

Yes. The five Rs. And very briefly I set them out in that petition. The five Rs are that at this convention, we’ve got a return to the constitution because we’ve got a way for the constitution. Our high courts, like the American Supreme courts has too often indulged itself with the judges deciding that the constitution means what they want it to mean. And we’ve seen several cases of that in America, where the Supreme court has written things to the constitution that are just not there. For example, a constitution right to abort.

Professor David Flint (43:04):

There’s nothing in the constitution about that. They invented that. So firstly return to the constitution. Secondly, reduced Canberra’s powers and taxation because Canberra powers have been expanded beyond that in the constitution. The high court has given Canberra powers the people never agreed to. And I went through a number of powers. I was looking at them and I found sometimes the people had refused to give the federal government a power up to five times in referendums. They refused to give them that power up to five times.

Professor David Flint (43:45):

And what’s happened is the high court has given them that power, which is completely wrong. Then we’ve got to reform the political parties. The political parties get enormous advantages, financial they get a money for each vote. They get exemptions from a number of pieces of legislation, electoral privacy and so on. In return for that, they should have to be open, transparent and democratic. They don’t want to be open, transparent, and democratic and run by the members. Then they wouldn’t get all of those advantages. The third R is reform the political parties. The fourth is recall elections. We’ve got to be able to give the people the power to create an election as they can in California.

Professor David Flint (44:35):

We’ve got to have the same power in Australia, whereby petition there can be a vote on whether there should be an election. And finally referendums initiated by the people. The people should have the power to initiate referendums, to stop legislation, to initiate their own legislation, to initiate regulations if they wish. All sorts of things that the people should have the power to do. And we should give that power take it away from the politicians and give it to the people.

Professor David Flint (45:06):

This is what we must do, and that can only be done through a convention. And the politicians will only allow a convention to be elected with appropriate powers. If there’s an enormous demand for that, they’re not going to give the people of Australia any extra power they’re going to hold onto it and abuse it and use it for their own benefit.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (45:31):

Well said, well said, that’s exactly what happens. The everyday Australian though provides a conundrum because David, the people are responsible, ultimately. Who we vote for determines the composition of our parliament. And that means that we ultimately responsible for the mess and which our country is now in. However, what you are saying is that the system has been corrupted and the people are being bypassed. You’ve said that with the people being hoodwinked and bypassed yet the yet… Sorry, the people are quite smart.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (46:13):

We as voters are quite smart, we’ve knocked the politicians back on their changes to parliament on the changes to the constitution. Yet we are bypassed by the high court. So I just realised we’ve only got seven minutes left and I’d like you to take it right to the end of the programme. So let me go through a summary for people now. And then I’ve got one question and then let you continue. Your petition is at change.org/takebackyourcountry. The major parties you said are under the control of cabals of power brokers. That is exactly what is happening.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (46:51):

I know from being inside parliament, that is ex exactly what’s happening. So therefore what I’ve been saying to people is, and pretty much your message, put the majors last. You want a constitutional convention, elected by the people for representatives attended should be reelected by the people. I’d like to get your views sometime about Trump. You mentioned the key in all of this accountability, and that’s been missing in federal parliament. Pauline Hanson. And I try to get accountability. We held them accountable verbally at times, and we get the message through.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (47:29):

Yet it is so difficult being the only two that are really doing that. We need to return to our constitution. It’s been bypassed, undermined, we need to get back to it. Professor David Flint provides solutions with the five Rs. Return the first of all return the government to the country. Return the government of the country to the principles set out in the constitution and agreed in our old constitutional system. Get back to our constitution, return. Number two, reduce Canberra’s powers and excessive taxation, which is part of the first return to our constitution. Now, number three, reform the political parties.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (48:12):

Number four, recall elections. Number five referendums that is comprehensive. David before getting onto whatever you want to close the show with for the next five minutes. Could you tell me effectively we are a Republic already? Aren’t we? I know we’re a constitutional monarchy and as a young man, I didn’t want the British to be running out country. I realised they don’t. And When Malcolm Turnbull’s dreadful referendum proposal was put up, I listened to three high court judges, including Harry Gibbs, who was at the time, the chief justice, I believe. And I immediately changed my mind and protected this constitution. And I have been ever since. We’re effectively a Republic. Are we not or?

Professor David Flint (49:03):

Yes, we are. And even Britain in 1688, the Glorious Revolution that was referred by Montesquieu as a disguised Republic, because the idea of the king having great powers disappeared in 1688. But we have in Australia effectively, a crown Republic. If we’re anything, we’re a crown Republic. In fact, we are a constitutional Commonwealth. We chose the name Commonwealth, which is the English word for Republic. And if you look at the definition of Republic and the Corel dictionary, the Australian dictionary you’ll find that we fit in with easily most of the definitions of Republic and argument, certainly the other one.

Professor David Flint (49:49):

But the point is that the we’ve chosen the Westminster system. There was an option at the time. Not many people know about this, an option at the time during the conventions, there was a proposal that the governor general be allowed to develop into effectively, a president elected by the people that was a proposal. And that was rejected strongly, not because of a debate over monarchy or Republic. It was because our founders decided that after experience the United States and in the United Kingdom, they said it’s better to have a collective executive rather than a one person executive, who’s very difficult to remove. That was their argument. And sometimes I think that’s probably better, but when Margaret Thatcher lost office, I thought, “Well, that wasn’t so good.”

Professor David Flint (50:44):

When Donald Trump was elected, I thought it wonderful because I didn’t know anything about him. You asked me about him. I didn’t know anything about him, but when I looked at his Gettysburg address and I saw what he was going to do. I thought if he does a third of that, he will be wonderful compared with his predecessors back to Ronald Reagan. And I wrote two pieces for the Sydney daily Telegraph for, and received an email, for example, from a friend in Thailand saying, “Have you lost your marbles?” But I thought that Donald Trump would be a brilliant president. He turned out even better than I thought he was. And this is one of the problems we’ve got you.

Professor David Flint (51:20):

You talked about the people voting the wrong way. Well, the problem is the press, the media, the media supposed to be there to exercise their vast powers and liberties to tell the truth, to inform the people. But we saw in the United States, the mainstream media joined up with those power who wanted to get rid of Trump, who that they, for example, they suppressed with the social media, all the information that people ought to have known about Biden and his role, the Biden family in their role in selling access and influence when he was vice president to foreign oligarchs. And that was an outrage and a new book has just come out by Peter Schweitzer, who points out that the Biden family has received 31 million.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (52:21):

I’m going to have to interrupt you there, David, because we are getting to the news break. Would you come back, please?

Professor David Flint (52:29):

Certainly.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (52:30):

Thank you very much. We have a lot of more territory to cover. This is Malcolm Roberts. I am staunchly pro-human and believe in the inherent goodness of human beings. We need to care for and love one another and remain proud of who we are. We’ll be back after news with another guest to apply what David is telling us.

/by

The Malcolm Roberts Show – 22 January Par

, , , ,

Transcript

Speaker 1:This is a Malcolm Roberts Show. On Today’s News Talk Radio, TNT.  
Ian Plimer:Today’s News Talk Radio, tntradio.live.  
 This is Senator Malcolm Roberts from down under, fresh from my COVID bed. Yes, I had COVID. Now I have the world’s most powerful immunity, natural immunity.  
 Thank you very much for having me in your car, your lounge room, your men shed, picnic. I hasten to say that I’m not contagious. I know that some people think that telemarketers and telehealth people have to get injected before they can speak over the phone, but I can assure with 100% confidence that you will not catch anything from me over the phone, other than a dose of the truth and some outspoken speech.  
 My session on the radio is governed by two things, freedom. Specifically, freedom versus control. That is basic for human progress and livelihoods. And we’re going to have a very special guest today to talk about that.  
 The second thing that drives me is personal responsibility and the importance of integrity. That’s the basics for personal progress and livelihood.  
 Before getting to our guests, let’s just cover my show’s aims, themes, and the focus. I’m fiercely pro-human. Yes, you heard that. I am fiercely pro-human. I believe in humanity. I am tired. I’ve had a gutful of the media and politicians ragging on humans and humanity. I am proud to be one of our planet’s only species capable of logic, and capable of love and care, and quite often giving that love and care.  
 I’m also fundamentally positive. I get excited by good things that are happening, and I want to contribute to that. While we are dealing with issues that people face today, and they’re concerned about, I will encourage guests to provide solutions, lasting meaningful solutions. Instead of what’s wrong with politics, what’s needed in politics? Instead of what’s wrong with politicians, and there’s plenty, what we need in politicians? Instead of what’s wrong with the media, what’s needed in media? And we can start that with the truth.  
 We will get to the core issues, whats and all to develop solutions, because it’s only by getting into the real issues can we have real faith in the outcomes.  
 We’ll cover the human aspects, strengths, weaknesses, vulnerabilities, failings, highlights. What makes people real?  
 The second thing about anything I do, it’s got to be data-driven. It’s got to be factual, truthful, and honest.  
 And the third thing, be blunt. We will be speaking out, calling it like it is. And I’ll be welcoming talkback callers in the near future. Currently, tntradio.live is betting down many systems. This is a truly global operation. It’s a gift to the world from the world. We’ve got hosts all over the globe, broadcasting from Belfast, London, Los Angeles, New York, Tel Aviv, Gold Coast, Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra, The Bush in Australia.  
 And I want to express my deep and sincere appreciation to Mike Ryan for restoring integrity to media and to politics.  
 This radio network, this global radio network will serve the people, not control and con the people. We will serve with truth, and we will be blunt.  
 Before getting to my first guest, let’s just cover a couple of things that have happened today in the news. First of all, right around Australia, to all the people taking part in freedom marches, whether it be in Newcastle din-making, or people in Brisbane, people in Melbourne, people in Sydney, people all over, country towns, regional towns, thank you very much. And, Robert F. Kennedy, and your supporters in Washington, D.C. tomorrow on their freedom marches.  
 I have brothers-in-law coming from the Southern United States and the Northern United States meeting in Washington. They’re going to tell Biden what we think about his mandates and his coercion.  
 I’ll see people in Maryborough tomorrow because we’re having a peaceful protest in Maryborough.  
 I want to express my condolences to the family of Meat Loaf. Meat Loaf was a big part of my life. He had such a wonderful voice. He could go down so low, and then belt it out so strongly, so powerfully. He brings back many, many fabulous memories of my time listening to his music and with friends.  
 For those listening outside Australia, you probably don’t know that it’s Australia Day this coming Wednesday. That’s when we celebrate our country, or some people try to.  
 A friend of mine sent me this. “On the Mornington Peninsula, this year, they have cancelled Australia Day celebrations, yet they have not cancelled the Invasion Day celebrations. Invasion day events …” he goes on to say, ” … are free for the indigenous and $39 for the non-indigenous. They’re setting up two countries, one against the other.”  
 Another news item. China coal production in the month of December alone, 384 billion tonnes in one month. China is by far the world’s largest producer of coal now, and it’s thriving because of it. Australia producers just under 500 million tonnes in a year. Our production is around 11% of what China’s is, basically, one tenth, yet we’re trying to gut our economy, thanks to the Liberal Labour Nationals and Greens. What the hell is going on? China will produce 10 times as much coal as we will. And our politicians want to gut our country. This is ridiculous. And my first guest will be talking about this and many other things.  
 Then we’ve got news that the Bureau of Meteorology has, wait for it, remodelled Australia’s official temperature record for the third time in nine years, and found things to be warmer than thermometer readings had measured.  
 The Bureau did not announce the changes, but details of them were published on the Bureau’s website. So we’ve got to sneak around trying to catch them out, because they won’t talk about it boldly.  
 Jennifer Marohasy, a noted scientist in this country, a fighter for truth has said this, “The bureau has now remodelled the national temperature data set three times in just nine years.” Do they have no confidence in their own revisions and modelling? They have to keep cooling the past and warming the present? Why aren’t they doing an independent open transparent scrutiny of all of this work that they’re supposedly doing to fabricate global warming?  
 My first guest, fittingly, is a true scientist and a remarkable human being with a remarkable sense of humour, and engaging lively real personality, and a wicked sense of humour. He’s won many international awards and recognition, but this man is no ivory tower preacher, no ivory tower academic. He’s a real world man, who gets down in the mud, wrestles, argues, debates in the bush, pubs, exploration camps, politicians offices, street corners, corporate headquarters, media, academics, anywhere. He’ll take on anyone anywhere. This man, Professor Ian Plimer has dismantled frauds wherever they appear. Welcome, Ian.  
 Well, thank you for having me, Malcolm.  
Malcolm Roberts:Always a pleasure, mate. I’ve known you for a few years now. I always start with something, and we’ll talk about the reasons for this later, what do you appreciate?  
Ian Plimer:Being alive. I’ve had many chances to die, but I think the devil has taken a good look at me and thought, “My God, the competition’s too great, so I’ll leave that one.”  
Malcolm Roberts:Right. Now, you are famous as a scientist, and as a speaker, and as a fighter for humanity. What is science?  
Ian Plimer:Science is married to evidence, and that evidence comes from experiment, it comes from observation, and it comes from calculation. It comes from, basically, collecting data. Now, that data, if it’s collected in Peru, or Poland, or Chad, or Canada, it makes no difference. It is data. And that data has to be reproducible. It has to be in accord with all other validated data.  
 And if it’s not in accord, then any conclusions based on the data are rejected. So science has a habit of rejecting old theories and building stronger, more valid theories. It is a way of understanding how the world works. And it is very much different from religion, which is an understanding of the world within, and science is an understanding of the world without.  
 And scientific ideas are always challenged. There is no such thing as consensus in science. There is no such thing as agreement in science. There are fads, and fashions, and fools, and frauds in science, the same as in any other area. And just because someone arrogantly struts around with a white lab coat, stroking their beard, and trying to look intelligent, doesn’t mean that what they’re promoting is correct.  
 Now, science is always changing, and so, to have a scientific concept wedded over time is non-scientific. And I argue that there are many things in today’s world that are not scientific.  
Malcolm Roberts:Well, Ian, fabulous discussion by the way. But perhaps we can bring it back to every-day lives these days, because a typical person today living on welfare, a welfare recipient … that’s not being denigrating, that’s someone saying is down on his luck at the moment, or her luck … a typical person on welfare today lives better than a king or queen did 200 years ago, longer lives, easier lives, healthier lives, safer lives, more comfortable lives, more entertaining lives, more diverse lives. Science gave us this, didn’t it?  
Ian Plimer:Yes. By every measure, we are living better than we did hundreds of years ago. The world’s gross domestic product and per capita GDP has gone up. The global population in absolute poverty’s gone down. The food supply has gone up. The tree cover’s gone up. The global urban population has gone up. Democracies, a number of democracies around the world has gone up. The deaths from natural disasters has gone down. And the list is a very, very long one.  
 We are living in far better times now than our great-grandparents did. And the reason for this is, that we’ve created potable water, we’ve created good sewage systems, we’ve created employment such that animals and humans don’t do the backbreaking work, that we have machines to do that now.  
 And so, we are living in an age where we have benefited from science … and you are an engineer, trained as an engineer … and from the application of science, which is engineering. And we are living in a far, far, better world than any generation has.  
 Now, we’ve had about 20,000 generations of humans on planet earth, and it is only the last four generations, where we’ve had an increase in longevity, and that is due to better science. But, not only medicine, due to the fundamentals by having a sewage system, by having drinking water that doesn’t kill you, these are the fundamentals.  
 And for people that moan and grown about how terrible the planet is, and how we’ve ruined it, should actually take a look at history. We have never, as humans, lived in better times, we’ve never eaten better, we’ve never had more shelter, we’ve never had more ability to travel. And that doesn’t matter, whether you live in Africa, or India, or the West, we are living in the best times ever to be a human.  
 And, yes, we have plenty of humans that need to be dragged up to the level that those in the West have, but the best way to get out of poverty is to get wealthy. And one of the ways of getting wealthy is to have a very cheap and reliable energy system. The West has done this, the UK, the U.S., and Europe have all gone from miserable poverty to living comfortable lives by having cheap reliable energy.  
Malcolm Roberts:So, science to me is something profound, something beautiful. It’s done, not only what you’ve just said in terms of our health and our opportunities, but it’s given us something even more fundamental, and that is freedom through objectivity. It is fundamental for freedom, isn’t it? Science.  
Ian Plimer:I think so. It provides you with the absolute tools that you need for freedom, and that is criticism, analysis, argument, and these must be unconstrained. And this doesn’t happen in some areas of science today. And we see that with the science on COVID, the science on climate. There is no freedom there. There is no ability to be able to express different views. That’s what we had in the past.  
 And we saw that with Lysenko, in Russia. Lysenko was a peasant. He managed to get into the establishment, and he established a concept called vernalization, and this is where seeds of plants must be persuaded to take on the communist characteristics, where they’re all equal.  
 And Stalin absolutely fell in love with this idea. The end result of that was that tens of millions of people died in famines. Those people who were engaged in genetics, those people who were engaged in trying to create better plant yields by using science were banished to the Gulags, some of them were killed. And this is a very good example of where science has not allowed freedom, where we’ve had one concept rule, and the end result was poverty, and tens of billions of people starving to death quite unnecessarily.  
Malcolm Roberts:I think we’re going for an ad break now, Professor Plimer, and we’ll be back in just a minute or so.  
Malcolm Roberts:This is Senator Malcolm Roberts, coming to you from Gold Coast in Queensland’s remarkable playground. And I have with me a special guest, Professor Ian Plimer.  
 Ian, science is more than just a word, it’s a process, a method, and as you’ve said, it never ends. We used to have science-driven policy, we now have, as you alluded to, policy-driven science, can you explain why that’s dangerous?  
Ian Plimer:Well, I think it’s extraordinary dangerous, because you do not get an independent conclusion on reality. And a lot of policy is driven by fairly young people in government offices who have gone straight from university into a government office, or into a union, or into a political office, and these people have absolutely no life experience.  
 And science is a constant questioning. Once you have a policy set in concrete, you are incapable of questioning it. The system doesn’t allow you to do it. And we have that with a couple of aspects in today’s modern world. So I very much reject the idea of policy-driven science. I would rather have facts, and I would rather have facts that are underpinned by the scientific method.  
 Now, policy-driven science is, in fact, having an opinion. I don’t have an opinion, I don’t have an opinion at all. I have facts. And if you want to challenge me on the facts, then we come to an argument about how we collected those facts, who collected those facts, where they were collected, what instruments were used, what was the order of accuracy? What corrections might have been used in collecting these facts.  
 So, I think we are facing fairly bad times when we are not looking at facts. When we have one group of people saying, “Oh, well you have your facts, and I have my facts.” I’m sorry, facts. There’s only one thing. It’s a fact. And that fact is reproducible. That fact can be validated. And if it’s not validated, then it gets thrown out. That is the basis of science.  
 And we have abandoned the scientific method in so many areas of our life. Medicine would be one of them, climate change would be another one of them. And if we had policy-driven engineering, you can imagine how many bridges would fall down, or how many aeroplanes  would crash. I mean, this is just absolute nuts.  
Malcolm Roberts:So you’re a scientist of the real world. Now, you are one of the most qualified scientists in the world. You’re esteemed. You’ve been given awards. You’ve been showered with praise for, not only your scientific integrity, but your guts, because you are a scientist who gets out in the pubs, and actually talks to people, listens to people. Above all, listens, because that’s another form of observation. You get into debates … you don’t hide from these things … you get into debates, where you flesh ideas out. What are your greatest qualifications, life qualifications, Ian?  
Ian Plimer:My greatest life qualifications is that I’ve worked underground. I absolutely love working in underground mines. And, there, you’ve got safety constantly in the forefront of your mind, but you are dealing with real people, and you can’t afford to be dealing with anything else. But, reality, when you are underground, these are real people, these people know how you convert a rock into money. It’s the same as if you’re on a farm, you’re converting soil into food or fibre. These are the real people. And I spent a lot of my time with real people.  
 Yes, I spent a lot of my life in the academic world, but that was also pretty uncomfortable because I was a square peg in a round hole. And none of the academics loved me, but the students absolutely loved me because I told it as it is.  
 So, when you’re underground, you’re in a totally different world. It’s a three-dimensional world. If you want to find some more oil, you have to use basic principle of physics, and chemistry, and geology. You have to understand how the rocks move. When you’re underground there’s always a bit of noise, the rocks are creaky and groaning. The miners say the rocks talk to you. So that was probably the greatest learning experience for me.  
 The other was working out in the bush and getting my hands dirty out in the deserts. And I have a great affinity for desert. I have a couple of places, houses out in the desert, and I absolutely love the desert. And this is unforgiving, if you make a mistake, you are dead. If you make a mistake underground, you are dead. If you make a mistake as a climate scientist, you get promoted.  
Malcolm Roberts:What an absolutely amazing explanation. And I share it with you, because when I graduated as a mining engineer with honours in 1976, I decided I better go and learn something. So I’ve worked as an underground coal miner and one open cut mine, but mainly underground around the country, mixing with people, learning about people, learning about underground.  
 And it is such a challenging place to be. It is such a wonderful teamwork environment to be. Surface mining, large open cuts, that’s just dirt shifting, Ian. We know that. But underground, that’s real mining.  
 And where did you learn to have your love of argument, because you just love argument. I’ve seen you run away from nothing. Why do you love an argument?  
Ian Plimer:Well, that, of course, goes right back to my childhood. I was always a little bit of a rebel with a number of things. I had relatives, and grandfathers, and great-grandfathers who were scientists, but also quite argumentative.  
 And my life was opened up when I was married, and my wife saw the potential, and gave me the freedom to argue and to fight. And this is how freedom, and argument, and science all come together.  
 Now, in terms of having debates, the one group of people who will not debate me are climate scientists. They will not debate me because I don’t use political policy, I don’t use opinion, I use facts. And you cannot get a climate scientist to stand up in public, and debate me, and then face questions after the debate. They will not do it. And I know why, because they are being funded to pursue the biggest scientific scam we’ve ever seen in the history of the planets.  
Malcolm Roberts:Correct. And I saw you and Viscount Monckton dismantle two members of the media in Brisbane several years ago. I think one of the poor fellows, Graham Readfearn, I think that was his name, just absolutely hopeless, you just tore him to shreds, so much so that his employer, The Courier-Mail, I think sacked him not long afterwards. Absolutely disgraceful presentation from him.  
Ian Plimer:But he’s still employed. He’s employed by The Guardian, and still writes the same codswallop that is going on with there. So there is the warning, no matter how hopeless you are, there is always something for you. And if you’re really hopeless, the left will look after you. If you’re absolutely extraordinarily unbelievably hopeless, the extreme left will look after you. And that’s what’s happened to Graham Readfearn.  
Malcolm Roberts:That’s absolutely so accurate, what you’ve just said. You have mentioned empirical evidence, the hard data, the observations, because your advice sometimes leads to the expenditure of billions of dollars, and your employers are not happy if it’s wasted. And you are held accountable because you’re working in industry, you’re working in academia, and you’re working in the community at large. You’ve worked in the global community.  
 What we’ve seen now is that science has been reduced to a label. It’s no longer a process, it’s no longer a methodology. It’s a label to justify policies that contradict hard data.  
Ian Plimer:Well, let me give an example. We have had trillions spent globally dealing with human-induced global warming. And what you do in science, is ask really simple questions. You don’t need to use nomenclature, you don’t need to use complex words, you don’t need to hide behind a lab coat and pretending you’re important. Just ask a simple question. And you’ve got to be polite. The simple question is, can you please show me that the human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming?  
 Now this has never been shown. You have pursued that in senate’s estimates committee meeting with Australia’s premier scientific organisation, the CSIRO.  
Malcolm Roberts:Premier?  
Ian Plimer:Well, they were ones-  
Malcolm Roberts:Bloody hopeless on climate, Professor Plimer.  
Ian Plimer:They were once a premier organisation in things like genetics, and wheat, and water, but they have now suffered from being woke, and they have suffered from being dragged into getting extra funding by following the climate line.  
 Now, that question, can you please show me that the human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming, it has never been answered. I have asked people who claim to be scientists, just give me half a dozen scientific papers showing that? I have asked journalists, can you please show me that? They can’t.  
 Now, of course, the next question is, if they could, you would then have to ask the next question. And 3% of all emissions of carbon dioxide are from humans, the other 90% is natural. And you then have to ask the next question, can you please show me why the 97% of natural emissions do not drive global warming? So it’s checkmate before the game even starts.  
 Now, these people who call themselves climate scientists, and these can vary from anything, from influencers, to lawyers, to sociologists, to historians, to mathematicians, and on we go, the whole basis of human-induced global warming has never been challenged. And as a result of that, we’ve had this massive waste of trillions of dollars.  
 Now, what flows on from that are these monstrosities like wind turbines. Now, to make a wind turbine, the amount of energy to make that is more than it will ever deliver in its workable life.  
 The second thing is, that the amount of carbon dioxide to make it and maintain it, is more than it will ever save. So why bother? And then when you’ve got these wind turbines, which have a fairly short life of about 15 years, they need to be disposed of after their working life.  
 And when you dispose of turbine blades, you start to contaminate the environment with some dreadful toxins. So you cannot claim that these burden, bat munching, scenery destroying monstrosities have anything to do with the environment. And the way to understand the way that climate industry works is follow the money. Just have a look at who is behind these wind turbines. If one country starts with C and finishes with A.  
 And then we look at the solar PV systems. Now these destroy huge amounts of [inaudible], and you have to clear a lot of [inaudible], that’s surely not environmental. To make them, again, use far more energy than they will ever release. They also emit, in the making of them, more carbon dioxide than they’ll ever save.  
 You can’t have solar power 24 hours a day. We can, but I’ll come to that in a second. When you dispose of those, you start to contaminate the environment with all sorts of toxins, of gallium, and germanium, and arsenic, and selenium, and tellurium. All the things that, of course, make your hair curl and kill you.  
 But just to show you what a scam, the whole business is, we have solar power generation in Spain at night. Now, the Spanish are absolutely wonderful, but to generate solar electricity at night? And you scratch yourself, and you think, well, how the hell do we do that?  
 The answer’s simple. In Spain, the solar panels are illuminated with floodlights from diesel generators because the subsidies are so great that they can make money out of generating solar power at night. And that demonstrates that we have got a total scam in solar and in wind power generation. Now that scam is coming towards the end of its subsidy life and solar and wind power don’t generate electricity. They generate subsidies.  
 And towards the end of the life, now the boys have got to think of something else. So they’re thinking of offshore wind, which is wonderful, you reduce the life of the equipment even more with the saline attack. You also now see people saying, “Hmm, I wonder if we can use this gas, hydrogen?”  
 Now people have tried to use hydrogen 100 years ago and it failed. It failed for three reasons. First, it’s super expensive. Secondly, there’re massive energy losses in making hydrogen, which doesn’t occur in large quantities naturally. And, thirdly, it has to be transported at -253 degrees Celsius and 700 times atmospheric pressure. Now, that is a bomb waiting to happen.  
 So the same people who are scamming on wind and solar, are the people now who are shifting into hydrogen saying, “Oh, we’ve got to try this wonderful new fuel.” Well, it has been tried and it has failed.  
 And in my latest book called Green Murder … and check it out on greenmurder.com … in my latest book, I go into all the details on this and other scams.  
 And this is how we’ve wasted trillions of dollars, and it’s been a slimy approach, every single person who’s paying an electricity bill gets a little slice taken off, and that goes to the scamsters. And this ends up in trillions of dollars in subsidies, trillions of dollars getting paid to people who are only interested in making money rather than providing long-term stable electricity.  
 And if it’s cheap, then it generates employment. And if you have employment generated, then you have less people on the dole queues. And if you have fewer people on the dole queues, then your economy thrives. It’s pretty simple. And we have been conned because we’re so wealthy, because we’re so comfortable, and people have said, “Oh, I can afford to pay a few more dollars because it makes me morally feel better.”  
 And in this book, Green Murder, I argue about the morality of The Green position. And I will give you just one or two examples. For example, if you are wanting to put in wind or solar, then the solar panels have a very good chance of being made by slave labour in China.  
 The wind companies and wind turbines are made by Chinese companies who are destroying the long-term, stable, cheap electricity, be that nuclear, be that coal, be that gas, be that hydro, and replacing it with what they call renewable energy, and I call it unreliable energy, because we once had cheap reliable energy. So there is a scam. And that is weakening the West, and it’s seriously weakening countries like the U.S., and the UK, and Germany.  
 And we can see now the disaster that has occurred in Germany. This is one of the G20 countries, yet we have people getting cut off from their power source because they can’t afford to pay the exorbitant prices. They are now going foraging in the forests to get wood, to keep themselves warm, and to cook. That’s in Germany.  
 In England, you have a choice, do I have a hot shower, or do I heat the house, or do I have a warm meal? I can’t have all three, I can only have one of them. That is a G20 country that’s committed suicide on this green murder path they’ve chosen.  
 And if you, as a wonderful Green, if you think, oh, I want to save the environment and drive an electric vehicle, well, start to look at the resources you use. We haven’t found them yet. And I’ve spent a lot of my time in exploration in a lot of countries, and we have not found the resources we need to put all of the U.S. hydrocarbon-driven vehicles off the road and have them as EVs. We haven’t found the resources. We haven’t got the copper, we haven’t got the lithium, we haven’t got the nickel, we haven’t got the cobalt.  
 But assume you are living in Los Angeles, and you want to be a moral virtue signaler, and get yourself an electric vehicle, well, you’re only constrained to the city, you can’t drive any further. You couldn’t drive to Nevada in an EV. You just couldn’t charge it up. And if you did, for a 500 mile trip, you’d have to stop 3 or 4 times to charge up the vehicle. It’s just totally ineffective.  
 But if you are going to moralise about driving electric vehicle, you have to ask a few questions. Where does the cobalt for your electric vehicle come from? About 80% of the world’s cobalt comes from the Congo, and it’s mined by Black slave children underground, in conditions that are extraordinary dangerous, and where there are toxins everywhere.  
 And if you want to claim that you are moral in driving electric vehicle, you also have to be aware that you are supporting Black child slave labour in the Congo. You can’t have it both ways.  
 So I argue that there is no science behind The Greens position on climate, and I argue that there’s no morality behind The Greens position on climate. You can’t have it both ways. And so, we have to, I think, be fairly blunt, and fairly robust when we argue with people who claim that they want to save the planet. What are they saving it from? Who are they saving it from? Follow the money and follow the morality causes.  
Malcolm Roberts:Ian, the fundamental thing, as I understand it, for driving human progress, there are eight of them. First of all, is freedom. That is determined by science because science gives us objectivity. The second one is rule of law. Third one is constitutional succession, so that we have a smooth ongoing form of government and elected democracy. The fourth one is secure property rights. The fifth one is cheap, abundant, affordable, electricity, or energy, both forms, hydrocarbon and electricity. The next one is family. A strong family network. The next one is honest money. And the last is, of the eight, that I carry around in my head, is, a fair, efficient, honest taxation system.  
 This climate scam, as you have talked about it so accurately, is an assault on every one of those eight fundamentals of human progress. In particular, what we’ve seen in the last 200 years, last 170 years, in particular, is a relentless reduction in electricity prices and energy prices, to the point where each reduction in real terms leads to an increase in productivity.  
 That was until about three decades ago, when the lunatics in the West fared by China, pumping wind and solar generators at us, have destroyed our electricity sector. Australia has gone from being the cheapest electricity in the world, to the most expensive. That means that we export our jobs to China, our future to China, our independence to China. We become dependent on China. Isn’t it a fundamental travesty against generations not yet born, to destroy our country’s manufacturing capability, to destroy our country’s economy, when the Chinese themselves are pumping out almost 10 times as much coal as we produce in total each year? This is insane.  
Ian Plimer:Well, there’s a couple of points here. We have a coal-rich country called India. And, yes, they have some rather shabby transport systems, but they have a lot of coal. And there has been a huge amount of pressure on India and on Africa not to have coal-fired power generation. And so, people live in huts, they burn dung, and twigs, and leaves for heating and for cooking. And, as a result, there’re millions of women and children, every year, die because of that form of energy. So the cheap electricity that people in Africa and India deserve is denied by moralising greens, who are actually killing people by their policies.  
 The second thing is that, I’m very pleased that countries like China have had the industrial revolution. The UK, the Europe, and the U.S. have had their industrial revolutions that brought people out of poverty, that enabled people to live longer, that gave a lot of meaningful work. It actually created all sorts of new jobs. China is undergoing that industrial revolution, and undergoing it very, very quickly. And, in China, we’ve probably had the greatest movement of people, and the greatest economic rise that the world has ever seen. And I think that’s fabulous for the average Chinese person.  
 But the greens tell us the downside is the pumping out of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Well, have I got news for you? We have had a slight increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 30 years. And satellite information is showing us that the planet has greened up. Our crops have become more prolific. Now, that’s partly due to more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere because carbon dioxide is plant food, but it’s partly due to better fertilisers, and better farming techniques. So we have very good evidence that carbon dioxide is good for you.  
 We have evidence from the Second World War, from the global financial crisis, and from the COVID crisis, when we’ve had a backwardation of economic activity, that we’ve had carbon dioxide continue to increase. So there’s been less carbon dioxide coming out of industry, yet we’ve had a global increase in carbon dioxide. And that’s telling us that the dominant source of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is from degassing of the oceans, it’s not from industry, it’s not from human activities.  
 And, thirdly, in the geological past, we’ve had times when the atmospheric carbon dioxide was up to 100 times higher than now. And what did we have then? We didn’t have runaway global warming, we actually had ice ages. And six of the six ice ages, this planet has enjoyed, was started when we had more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now. So you cannot ignore that huge body of evidence from the past telling us that in geological times, carbon dioxide was much, much higher, and we yet we had ice ages during these periods of high carbon dioxide.  
 And the fourth point is, ice core drilling, it’s shown on one scale that is a correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature. But when you look on a much closer scale, we see something that we all know from chemistry, but it tends to get ignored, and that is, that, when we have a natural warming event, anything from 650 to 1600 years later, we then have an increase in carbon dioxide. So it’s not that carbon dioxide drives the temperature increase, it’s the exact inverse, the temperature is actually driving a carbon dioxide increase.  
 And this is why I argue, that those who call themselves climate scientists are milking the taxpayer to keep themselves in a job because they’re in effect unemployable. And we are being frightened as humans to accept this concept that we are going to fry and die, yet we’ve had periods of time when it’s been much warmer, yet we’ve had periods of time we’ve had much higher carbon dioxide.  
 And just during the time when we humans, Homo sapiens, have been on the planet, we have experienced many periods of cooling in glaciation and warming in interglacial. And in the last 20,000 years, we have gone from the zenith of a glaciation, where most of the U.S., most of all of Canada, most of Northern Europe, and England were covered by ice. A lot of the southern hemisphere was covered by ice.  
 Those areas that weren’t covered by ice were deserts with howling winds, bring salt-laden air, and shifting sand dunes. And these are the great Loess plains of Asia. There’s a great sand dune country of inland Australia.  
 And we humans have endured that. And we came out of that great glaciation event about 12,000 years ago. And temperature increased, it then suddenly plummeted, and then went up again by about 15 degrees in about 10 years. Now that’s real global warming. Then it stayed static for a while, then it dropped again, then it went up again.  
 And then we had, what was called the Holocene optimum, from about 7,000 to 4,000 years ago. And it was a couple of degrees up to 5 degrees warmer then than now. Sea level was higher than now. And over the last 5,000 years, global temperature has been decreasing. We are coming out of the interglacial into the next inevitable glaciation. We’ve actually been cooling. But during that cooling period, we had warm spikes like the Roman Warming in the dark ages when it was cool. Then another warm spike in the mediaeval warming, then a cool period in the little ice age, and then the modern warming. And we’re coming out of that modern warming into another cool period.  
 So if you ignore the past, and if you ignore all the sciences that deal with the past, you can come up with an unvalidated idea that human emissions drive global warming. I say that is false. I say that the promotion of that is done by people who are modellers, who do not look at the science of the past. And we know, that from 30 years of models, not one of these models is in accord with what we measured over the last 30 years.  
 And if I have the choice as a scientist, between a model and a measurement, I will take a measurement any day because a model is a garbage in, garbage out process. And a model, basically doesn’t deal with the unknown unknowns, whereas measurement can be replicated measurement. We argue about the order of accuracy, but it’s still measurement. So, that’s the answer to your question. God knows what the question was.  
Malcolm Roberts:That was fabulous. I want to remind you of two recent episodes in human history. The first occurred in 2008, the global financial crisis. It led to a downturn around the world. Australia wasn’t hit because we were living off the Chinese minerals boom, but most of the world was hit. And it’s certainly a global recession, very severe recession.  
 So the actual use of hydrocarbon fuels, coal, oil, gas decreased in 2009 compared with 2008 in the recession. That meant there was less carbon dioxide produced in 2009 than in 2008. And yet, Professor Plimer, as you have so accurately stated, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued to increase.  
 Then we marched forward to 2020 when we had a global, almost a depression due to the COVID restrictions, the government imposed COVID restrictions, not due to COVID, due to government-imposed COVID restrictions. We saw, again, a reduction in the use of coal, oil, and gas compared with the previous year 2019, we saw a decrease in the human production of carbon dioxide, and yet the global levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide continue to increase, which just shows two things.  
 First of all, we have no say in what is the level of global carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. None at all. We can gut our economy and it will have no effect on it whatsoever. So we can gut the West and let China keep producing carbon dioxide, let India keep producing carbon dioxide because they have a duty to their citizens to lift them out of poverty, and to give them the trappings of modern civilization, there’ll be nothing we can do. And besides that, carbon dioxide, as you’ve said, is a plant fertiliser it’s plant food. It is essential to all life on this planet, is it not?  
Ian Plimer:Yeah. Just to add to that, these two examples you gave are examples of the scientific method. We’ve had two great unintentional global experiments, global financial crisis, and COVID, and these were great global experiments. So it’s not that we’ve done the experiment once, we’ve actually replicated it. And in both cases, we have shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide do not drive global temperature. And in fact, global temperature depends upon whether you measure it on the ground, and if it’s measured on the ground, then what a wonderful opportunity you have to cook the books and change results. And that’s what happens almost universally with cooling the past and warmingly the present.  
 But when you look at the satellite measurements, and there are three basic sets of satellite data, it shows a very different story. So I would much prefer to have a uniform measurement at all altitudes around the whole planet that tell me about the temperature rather than having selected people entrusted with looking after a surface measurement, and then changing it over time. And as you mentioned, the Bureau of Meteorology has done that three times over the last nine years, which creates all sorts of uncertainty about whether they’re worth a million dollars a day.  
 So we’ve had these two great global experiments, which in my mind prove that human emissions of carbon dioxide did not drive global warming. So, why bother? Why bother? Why don’t we, as Western countries, say, we are very happy to look after our environment. And the only countries with good environmental policies preserving the environment [inaudible] have become wealthy due to the industrial revolution.  
 And this thing you can do for our environment [inaudible] what you consider is worth preserving. We should be very pleased China [inaudible] ahead and becoming a wealthy country. As a result, they will [inaudible] pollution. And I think China and India should [inaudible] people.  
Malcolm Roberts:What you’re saying, Professor Plimer, is that, we need to restore scientific integrity to protect freedom, to protect our natural and environment, because scientific development and understanding has enabled us to protect our natural environment.  
 Science also then is vital for sound sustainable policy, which impacts people’s economies, and lives, and livelihoods, and security. And it’s also to protect the human spirit by ending the unfounded climate fear and guilt while restoring our connection with nature.  
 Something I think is really important to human progress is strength of character. You display it in spades. Whenever you speak, you’re fearless, but you’re also passionate. Why are you so proud of being a human, and what traits in humanity, are of concern to you?  
Ian Plimer:You’ve asked me 17 questions there, so let me just comment on a couple of things. You spoke about protecting the environment. I’m a great supporter of that, because I’ve bought a considerable acreage of land to protect it. But I’m not conserving it, because how can you conserve the environment on a planet that’s dynamic and it’s always changing? So we can protect what we have and let nature do its bit.  
 In terms of fear, we, humans, are hardwired to fear that grizzly bear that’s behind you and is going to come and get you. We are hardwired to have an adrenaline rush to save ourselves. This is a fundamental trait of humans and of many, many other animals. So fear is still hardwired into our system. And the fear that has been induced in populations, by governments on matters such as COVID or climate, they have been exploiting that fundamental human characteristic of fear.  
 And in many cases, you fear because you do not understand. Science gives you a method of being able to understand. And if you can understand, then you are not nearly as fearful.  
 Now, I am very passionate because my early life I started being interested in the planet and geology, when I was about four. And I had some very good mentors, and I’ve been guided well through life. And I’m mentoring, I think 8 or 10 people now, giving back the same way it was given to me.  
 But if you can understand how the planet works, if you can understand the past, then this is far more exciting than-  
Malcolm Roberts:We’re going to have to call it off, Professor Plimer. This is Professor Ian Plimer, guest of Senator Malcolm Roberts.  
 

Part 2
 

Speaker 1:You’re with Senator Malcolm Roberts on today’s News Talk Radio TNT.  
Malcolm Roberts:Today’s News Talk Radio, TNT radio.live. This is Senator Malcolm Roberts from the Gold Coast broadcasting globally. Fresh from my COVID bed a week ago, I had COVID, now I have the world’s most powerful immunity, all natural. I want to call out to the people marching around our country today. And in fact, around the world for protesting or reinforcing freedom. I’ll see you in Maryborough tomorrow for the protest at Maryborough. And I look forward very much to being up in Maryborough. I want to express my condolences to the family of Meatloaf who died last night. He brings back very fond memories. I love his music, that the way he can go from something, belting something out to just something so soft and tender.  
 We have Australia Day coming up this Wednesday in our country, celebrating our national day. On the Mornington Peninsula, friends send me this: on the Mornington Peninsula this year, they have cancelled Australia Day celebrations, yet not cancelled Invasion Day celebrations. Invasion Day events are free for indigenous and $39 for a non-indigenous. See what people are doing? They’re setting up division. That’s quite often what’s happening around our planet. The globalists are pushing division.  
 Last hour, I had the honour of having professor Ian Plimer as my guest, a highly intelligent, very practical man. I, now introduce another highly intelligent, very practical man. John McRae, his voice is known all over Sydney, all over New South Wales, all over Australia. He’s even tied up Alan Jones in arguments at times. This man has got the knowledge about our country and about our potential and our history. I have enormous respect for John, his knowledge, his passion for Australia. His memory; it’s like an iron trap. I can remember meeting John for the first time around about 2011 and what a character.  
 He opened up to me Australia’s successful past in so many fields. His memory would just showered me in facts. He gave me an introduction to books from people like Anthony Sutton, who wrote three books about Wall Street and the damage that Wall Street does. Above all though, his diverse stories, his practical knowledge of factories in Sydney, banking, his knowledge of farming, his knowledge of our history, his knowledge and introduction to people like Graham Strachan, who has done so much to publicise what the globalists are trying to do to our country to destroy it. He’s made public presentations informing residents across New South Wales. He’s worked in so many diverse industries. He shares with me a time and working as an underground coal miner. John, welcome to the show.  
John McRae:Thank you very much, Malcolm.  
Malcolm Roberts:Mate, first simple question. [crosstalk] First simple question for you, John, what do you appreciate?  
John McRae:I appreciate what you’ve just done. One thing, what you’ve just done a moment ago, having that brilliant man on radio, expanding the truth, the fact and the science, as opposed to the lies and the deceit that we are being fed from parliament and from so-called academics that are on the gravy train payroll. And he exploded all their theories and I enjoyed it immensely. I should have been brushing up with my own memory, but I enjoyed it. You’ve got to get him back on. You’ve got to advertise it, that he’s on there, so people can get the truth.  
Malcolm Roberts:John, you’ve always been pushing the truth. You just like professor Ian Plimer. You never run away from an argument. You know how to deal with people because you apply same basic strategy that Ian does. You use facts and data. Could you tell us something about past accomplishments? I’m thinking particularly about the Kalgoorlie pipeline and look, mate, we know that sometimes Sydney Radio tries to shut you down because you’re just too good for them. I want you to talk. I want you to spill the goods on this country. So, just do what you’re doing. Just tell it as it is. Away you go, mate.  
John McRae:You want to know about the pipeline from Perth to Kalgoorlie?  
Malcolm Roberts:Yes.  
John McRae:Firstly, I’ll say this. Australia is the richest country in the world with 75 of the 77 minerals our world requires we’ve got them in abundance, but we’ve a crazy wombats running the joint. The Perth to Kalgoorlie pipeline exemplified that. 1896 to 1903, it is still regarded as the greatest hydraulic achievement ever in the world. They pump water from Perth to Coolgardie originally, because a bloke, they found gold at Coolgardie, but then Patty Henon found it in 1892 at Kalgoorlie. And that started the gold rush. And people came from everywhere to get money out of the gold rush and people were dying because they had no water and things like that. So, they were condensing water and it’s replication of what’s happening in Australia today, the money people started condensing water to supply the people at the goldfield, but it was wasn’t enough because it needs a thousand gallons of water to refine one tonne of ore.  
 So, they were opposing the pipeline, the men that come up with this idea , John Forest. So John Forest was the premier and he borrowed money from England, 2,500 Pound… 2,500,000 Pound. Now remember that figure because I’m going to give you a figure later on as we go, that’ll shock you. And they got Alberton O’Connor to do it. He was an Irish engineer and they brought him over to do the railway lines. And they said, “We need water.” Now you’ve got to get over the Flinders Ranges into Barron land desert, but it’s not desert. It’s rich, red basalt soil. Let’s say you’re up in Queensland, you’ve got black basalt soil, that’s the indication of the volcanic reaction and the formation of Australia.  
 He then put together some smart people. This is 1896. It’s got to go 500 kilometres and the first pump up was 390 metres. In actual fact, Kalgoorlie is about four or 500 feet higher than Perth. So it’s going to be pumped all the way over the Flinders Ranges. 3000 people worked on it. Population of Australia was about four and a half, 5 million. So they had 70,000 plates of steel was imported from England and Germany, but what he had to do was build the harbour first to get the ships, in the sailing ships and the steam ships with all the supplies, then he had to design and build the dam, then they had to manufacture the pipes. Then they had to get the pipes from Perth all the way to Coolgardie. But then they found out that they can go to Kalgoorlie, and this whole pipeline was built on budget and on time. So away they go. It all has to be done by man, pick and shovel, horse and cart and camel train.  
 Now, the dam has to be built first and completed first before the rest of the pipeline is completed and the pumping stations and everything. 5,000 boxes of pump parts came out in containers and had to be built along the way. The pipe were built in two halves, 180 degrees, you know a full pipe and cut in the middle, you’ve got two pipes. They had to be sealed. And that’s where the Australian inventor started.  
 They invented the ceiling sleeve that goes along it. Then you’ve got to seal it. There’s no welding back then, only rivets. But this is what people got and said, “No rivets, no welding, no dynamite, only black powder. And you’ve got to build a dam, extract rocks out and everything else.” So they’ve got to make these ceiling machines, make this sleeve.  
 Three Australian… Me and Ferguson, Hodson, and a fellow from Sydney called John Hoskins, the start of the steel mills in Australia. The first steel plates of steel were built down in Murgon, there’s a park built there, Fitzroy Park. That’s where Fitzroy Steel started. He made the first plate steels in Australia and the first piece of plate of stainless steel. They got together and invented how to bend the steel by making the pipes. They had this steel bending machine and they redesigned it. They were making the pipes in the finish in 11 minutes, put the ceiling sleeve on it, it was sealed by lint and rope. And blacksmiths had to make the ceiling rings. They tested them between 320 and 400 pound PSI. The pipes were 23 foot long and 3 feet in diameter. Now that’s the pipe bit going.  
Malcolm Roberts:Excuse me, John. Excuse me, excuse me, John. What you’re really saying there, and I want you to get back to your story as quickly as possible, but what you’re really saying is that they started this project with a vision and with no understanding of how to do some of the details? They relied upon their intuition to come up with solutions and dammit, they did.  
John McRae:They did. They did. Hey, hey, listen, in the overall scheme of things, what I’m about to tell you about doing the dam, that they’d nearly pile into insignificance. So, they’re going to build the dam, they’ve got to build the dam. In the meantime, everyone’s against him because of the sale of the water. Now, there was two senators in the government, on the 26th of the 6th, 1898, G. T. Simpson said, “It is the height of madness to mortgage the future of our state with two and a half million Pound for just one silly project. The gold will run out and we’ve wasted all the money.” And Alberton O’Connor said, “This is rich fertile soil. So who’d want to go there?” The next bloke Wilson said the same thing. No government can justify pledging so much money to plunges into debt, for this.  
 So, they’re going to build the dam. So this is all done with pick and shovel. So they’re building the dam, and when they’re building the dam, they run into what they call a floater. Now, when you get the sandstone bedrock, that’s where you start your foundations. You can’t be on slippery, shifty ground or shifty… They’ve got to get this grounded boulder out. They had to dig down 90 feet further than the original depth. 90 feet hand, pick and shovel, hand drills, and everything else. Out they came again, stopped the project. “This bloke’s an imbecile. You can’t have this going on. It’s going to be further behind time. We’ll never get the job done, or anything else.”  
 What did he come up with? He’d come up with a carbon arc light. That’s the same as what you do with the search light, carbon arc. He rigged it all up. They worked 24-7. I’ve got photos of the vicarious stuff out, how they did it. They dug that granite out. I’ve sent you a photo of them down in the hole. You can hardly see the blokes down in the hole.  
Malcolm Roberts:Yeah.  
John McRae:Nd there’s no shoring up between the granite sandstone that they dug down. They extracted the granite boulder out, crushed it all up, reintroduced it back as the foundation with the carbon arc. How’s that for ingenious? How is that?  
Malcolm Roberts:Mm.  
John McRae:There’s no electricity over there, no Boeings to get an extension cable and a generator. None of them existed. And they got it back on time. They worked 24-7, and that’s what they did. If he hadn’t done that, they raised a dam wall, remind me to tell you about how they raise a dam wall. So, that dam had to be built, that pumping station had to be built because where the dam is, is 24 kilometres away from Perth, where they’ve got to pump the first pump over the Flinders Ranges. So there’s two pumps there at the dam to go to the pump at Perth, the reservoir in Perth to pump it.  
 Then they’ve got to get all the pipeline going. Then the first lot of pipes that were delivered, were delivered by horse and cart and camel trains. Then he built the railway line and then they could go on the railway. Now they had to… There’s an invention, how he got the rock out. He built a ramp for a steam shovel. You wouldn’t pass his test today because they’d say it would fall in, but they did it. No dynamite, no dynamite. I know they had black powder then, but I don’t know how they would… There would’ve been hand drill, one bloke held the drill and wriggle it, another bloke banged with the sledgehammer, they dug it out.  
Malcolm Roberts:So let me just reframe this for people who’ve just joined us, this is in the days of horses and carts, camels, predated the railway to some extent in some areas. And it was the man who proposed it was vilified for his 2,500 Pound investment. Are you going to tell us about the success of this investment?  
John McRae:Well, the 2,500,000 Pound, it was built in… This only took six years with no machinery. What do you think we could do today? What do you think we could do? We could do it overnight with the will of Australians, because they had the will do, can do and want to. The 2,500 million Pound they borrowed, three years after it was finished, the goldfields, the water, they made 25 million Pound.  
Malcolm Roberts:So that’s 10 times as much. So not only that, John and I’m talking with John McRae here from, used to be Sydney, now it’s central New South Wales Coast. They opened up the gold mining, which continues to this day in one of the richest gold mining areas in the world-  
John McRae:Recognised the biggest goldfield in the world, and it opened up the whole mining industry of this country that we’ve benefited by for all those years. And we still are, but we’re not getting the value that we should have, as Ian Plimer has just told you, we’re not getting the value, we just kept holding our arms up and let them rape us for our money.  
Malcolm Roberts:Didn’t they also open up a farming area?  
John McRae:Oh, there’s 8,000 kilometres now a pipe, 8 million acres of cropping land, sheep and wheat and everything else. And when the English migrants came out here, they put it on the share market and there was a stampede to get shares in this joint and Kalgoorlie mine and everything else. The English migrants come in, they said, “You could grow anything here.” They’ve grown vegetables, everything, everything there.  
Malcolm Roberts:So, so let’s-  
John McRae:You only need heat and water. That’s all Australia needs, water and electricity as we were supplying the whole world commodities, the whole world.  
Malcolm Roberts:Thank you. Thank you, because energy is the key to productivity, which is the key to prosperity, which is the key to wealth generation for everyone in the country. And what we are doing, we’re destroying our energy. But listen to some of these figures, I’ll go through them again. I noted them as you were talking. John McRae, the initial cost was 2,500,000 Pounds.  
John McRae:Yes.  
Malcolm Roberts:Within two years, it was 10 times that much paid back.  
John McRae:Yeah. Because you have just identified the component that we need was energy and water is energy because their whole body is 82% of water.  
Malcolm Roberts:Yeah.  
John McRae:So don’t worry about the water out in the grass. The water in your own body is 82% to give you the energy. So all these wombats that are running around, talking about climate and everything else that the climates just destroyed, they better go back and read this. It’s not very hard to read. I’ve never been to university, but I can read. And most people can read. Don’t listen to the crap they’re telling you. And when they start telling you all this say, “Don’t tell me, show me.” And they can’t.  
Malcolm Roberts:No, they can’t. And we’ve had that repeatedly. Now in addition, they had to lift that water 390 metres to get it over the range. [crosstalk] They then had to continue pumping it uphill for 500 kilometres to Kalgoorlie. I mean, this is in 1896 with no machinery. No machinery. And we can’t even do that now. This would be, with the technology we’ve got these days, John, that would be so easy. Why can’t we do it?  
John McRae:Oh, oh, look, look, Malcolm. It is equivalent to you driving around T Model Ford as opposed to a Mercedes-Benz. That’s the advancement. But what Malcolm, I failed to tell you one thing, there was eight pumping stations and it relied on the push-and-pull system. The same as the sewage does. So sewage is not done with pumping, it’s done with suction. So to get to the first reservoir and they held about a hundred thousand gallons, I think. And then it might go downhill to the next bit, now it’s got to be pumped up to the next reservoir. It’s got to go over the Flinders Ranges. If you see the Flinders, it’s more up and downhills than what the Luna park Ferris Wheel is.  
 And they had to do that. They pumped it. There was pumping stations all along, they had to build pumping stations. They had to build schools. They had to build hospitals. They had to have nurses and everything else going along there. And all the people in the town that were getting money out of this water condensers, they were jumping up and down because they’ve lost their gold mine. Their gold mine was water. They were more interested in water than gold.  
Malcolm Roberts:They wanted to preserve their monopoly rather and open up the country for Australians.  
John McRae:Of course.  
Malcolm Roberts:Yes.  
John McRae:Same thing. What do you think they do with the Murray–Darling water now? Same thing. It’s superannuation for the fire brigade, superannuation fund in New York and a massive amount of water rise. Who did they get the water off in the first place to sell to?  
Malcolm Roberts:John Howard and Malcolm Turnbull and John Anderson.  
John McRae:Yeah but they’re about as helpful as ashtray on a camel.  
Malcolm Roberts:Yeah. Water Act of 2007, thanks to Malcolm Turnbull, John Howard and John Anderson. And we’re still crippling.  
John McRae:And under our constitution, no one is to be denied water. And that’s what the thing should be taught in the school, our constitution and our rights, our civil rights and what you’ve just been speaking about, it’s music to my ears.  
Malcolm Roberts:John, John, you’ve always impressed me with your knowledge, your depth and your passion for this country. You’ve also struck me, I mean, you’re not a technically educated man. You’ve got a trade certificate. There’s no doubt about that. But you’ve read widely. Where did this love of humanity, this inquisitiveness, where did it come from? Was it your mother? Was it something happen in Kids?  
John McRae:It was my mother. Malcolm, what happened to me when I was little, I got polio and I was crippled. And you are ostracised by society back then, this was in 1948, 49. People didn’t want know you, even my own cousins were not told I had polio because people think you could catch it. You can’t catch it. You can breathe on, you do what you like. You’ve got to ingest it. And it comes from poor hygiene, exactly what Ian Plimer was talking about, poor hygiene. You got to lift people out, give them water and lack of water and end and lift them out of their hygiene standard and their living standard. Look, they are saying, pulling hands and juices a lot of times teach. Give a man to feed of fish today, he eats it. Teach him how to fish and he’ll feed himself for life. Now that’s what you’ve got to do.  
 We’ve got to get the hygiene and everything. Anyway, what happened after that? I crippled up and they operated on me, but I had the most beautiful mother that anyone could ever have. She was talented and not only talented, she was a good looker. Fair Dingham, she looked like, it’s either Susan Hayward or Vivien Lee, one of them, she looked like a one of them. She was a concert pianist, dress maker and milliner, and then become a psychologist. And I went to a lot of her, I was in lucky, I went there. But anyway, one of my grandfather’s best friends was Sir William McKell, the Governor-General. The man that got us-  
Malcolm Roberts:Tell me about that because you have a lot of respect for McKell, why?  
John McRae:Oh, it’s unbelievable, man. Unbelievable. He started off as a five and six fiddly a week boiler maker because his dad, they come from down the South Coast and he was a butcher and his dad died. They lived at Redfin and he detested people calling Redfin congested areas-  
Malcolm Roberts:John, I just want to point out, we’re going to an ad break fairly soon. So I might have to cut you off suddenly, but we’ll come back if I do, so please continue.  
John McRae:That’s okay. That’s okay.  
Malcolm Roberts:Please continue.  
John McRae:Anyway, he started off as a five and six fiddly boilermaker of Maud Stock. That was the place where they first shipped the fresh meat, the over frozen meat to England. Then he went to Eveleigh Workshops. He educated himself. Then he went and become a lawyer. Then he got into local government, then a pilot, and he became the premier of New South Wales. And he was the instigator through with Chifley and Kurton to get the Snowy Mountain Scheme going. But that person they think was a great bloke, Menzies was verdantly against it because he wanted to, I don’t know what he wanted to do, but he just didn’t want to do that because he said, “You’re going to deny people of water in Victoria, South Australia.” He said, “No, they’ll get more water.” He said, “Well, I’m going to stop you with The Constitution.” And McKell said, “Well, you do your best because I’m going to invoke the Emergency Powers Act and see how you travel with that.” He’s a fellow that explained a lot to me, and he explained the Taxation Act to me and things like that. But he-  
Malcolm Roberts:So, McKell did this for you?  
John McRae:Yes.  
Malcolm Roberts:Wow, wow.  
John McRae:Just after I left school-  
Malcolm Roberts:What a blessing.  
John McRae:In 1953, that Tax Act that was after Robert Menzies introduced that, and I asked him about the Snowy Mountain Scheme, and he was good enough… He got me an introduction to Sir William Hudson, the engineer. What a genius, what a genius. We had Alberton O’Connor, but what people have got to understand, all that project over in Western Australia, all the knowledge and empirical knowledge and-  
Malcolm Roberts:Okay, John, we’re going to go to an ad break. We’ll be back straight after to hear this continuation of your story. Thank you.  
Speaker 4:If it feels like it’s hot enough to fry an egg on a sidewalk, it probably is. When it’s 86 degrees outside, asphalt can reach a sizzling 135 degrees. Hot enough to cook an egg and your dog’s feet. Be safe. Test the sidewalk with your hand. Avoid midday walks and walk in the grass. Bring along water and rest in the shade at the first signs of heat exhaustion, including heavy panting and stumbling. Go to peta.org for help and information on how to keep your dog safe in hot weather.  
Speaker 5:Good day. Fast Ed here. As a chef, you know what I hear a lot? Wow. That smells really good. Is it done yet? For certain foods it’s important to cook properly rather than how they look or smell. Those foods include hamburgers, sausages, chicken, and leftovers. The rule of thumb is pretty simple: cook those foods to 75 degrees Celsius. Listen, I’m no Einstein, so I use a food thermometer and I reckon you should too. That way you’ll know it’s done without guessing. And no one will get sick.  
Speaker 6:A message from the Food Safety Information Council.  
Speaker 7:The bush fire was so unpredictable. It was important to have a plan.  
Speaker 8:[crosstalk] We stayed up to today with our phones and the radio. We knew it was coming.  
Speaker 9:I never thought it would actually happen. I’m glad we had a plan.  
Speaker 10:You have to prepare your property and your family.  
Speaker 11:And there was nothing we could do. [crosstalk]  
Speaker 13:Hence, why I always had a plan.  
Speaker 14:We can all be bushfire ready. Do a five minute Bush fire plan today.  
Speaker 15:Unlike other health concerns, mental illness is not always easy to see. Depression won’t show up on an eye chart and you won’t find PTSD by looking at a thermometer. Sorting out a mental health concern takes professional diagnosis and treatment. Anxiety won’t just go away under a bandage. If you or a loved one has a mental health concern, call 1-8-0-0-6-6-2 HELP for free and confidential information and treatment referral. Learn more samhsa.gov/support.  
Speaker 1:Today’s News Talk Radio TNT.  
Malcolm Roberts:Today’s News Talk Radio, TNT radio.live. And I’ve got a special guest with me, John McRae. John, continue please with McKell.  
John McRae:Okay. I’ll finish that brief thing with McKell because I’ve got to give you some more information on that pipeline. And I was, speak to McKell about politics and everything else and different things had happened. And he explained to me how we were the supplier for the world, which I knew, after the war because I was aware of it, and the great farmers and the great things we’ve done. Then I learned a little bit about the pipeline. He invigorated that in me. Now, and I spoke politics to him. He gave me forecasts of politics. Malcolm, in this pipeline, there was 60,000 joints they had to seal. 60,000, and there was 63,000 pipes and they had to be done, it had to be sealed with cork, with lead and rope, and they invented a corking machine and that invention, this sleeve situation and they couldn’t be done without blacksmiths because blacksmiths used to make this shrink seal that pulled the pipes together onto these two ceiling sleeves.  
 Remember the pipes are 23 feet long anda metre in diameter, three feet. And they had to be all man handled. And they made this with pipe, this steel bending machine, they got one and modified it. They made the sleeve machine. Then they tested them. It’s between 320 and 400 pound PSI. I don’t know how they did that. I’ve lost that documentation. Off they went. Then what was happening, they started the belly ache because when they started to do them by hand, by 1901 they’d only done 90 miles. And oh, it’s going to fail. It’s going to fail. It’s going to fail. Then the three engineers that I told you about, me and Ferguson, Hodson, and another fellow, can’t remember his name, Stuart Sternum, some name like that. And Hoskins, they come up with this ceiling machine. Well, they could do 30 joints a day then. Why, it went like a rocket. Off they went.  
Malcolm Roberts:So John, this remarkable pipeline from Perth to Kalgoorlie basically opened up the west, developed so much for the country as well in terms of our steel industry, the technology we use. But ultimately, there was another dam project, the Snowy Mountain Scheme, which was more than one dam, wasn’t it?  
John McRae:Oh, yes.  
Malcolm Roberts:And McKell saved that from being cancelled by Menzies. Is that what you were saying?  
John McRae:Yes. Yes. What happened, Menzies was against it. Chifley was the prime minister and he gave, well, New South Wales has got snowy mountains in New South Wales, but the Murray, the Snowy river and that filters into Victoria and into South Australia. And they thought it was going to cripple their water supply. And he guaranteed they wouldn’t. And Menzies said, “Fight him on the constitution,” I think section 101 or 190, how no one is to be denied water. He said, “Well, I’ll take you on and I’ll invoke the Emergency Powers Act and you won’t beat me.” And McKell is there, you can see photos of when they first started, he pushes the detonator to do the first blast.  
 He was Governor-General then. He was so brilliant as a Governor-General, he was a labour appointee. When he was appointed Governor-General, by the Labour Party, when Menzies won the election 49, it was a stitch up job that. He still retained him. Then he was going to retire and Menzies said, “You can’t retire. I need you.” This is a bloke that’s fought him in the first place, then he admires him in the second place, because he could see at the end of the section, I’m going to get the brownie points for finishing this job.  
Malcolm Roberts:So, Menzies could take credit?  
John McRae:So Menzies could take credit, but initially he’s against it. There was a big strike there once. I’ll also tell you about Sir William Hudson and what a visionary, he was like that Ian Plimer, like that, and they shut the joint down. So William Hudson went to where the strike was and said, “What’s going on here?” And it’s all up, all hell has broke loose. They said, “The moots blown,” and everything else. And he said, “This place should have fly screens and they’re contesting. Why hasn’t that been done?” That was an interference from parliament. We won’t go into that. You can work out where it had come from.  
 He said, “Get the carpenters wherever they are, the air conditioner. I want it all done immediately, right now. Get them all.” Wherever he was, he went there. “You won’t be docked for your day off. You’ll still be paid. Go back to work.” Menzies told him and he said, “I never want you to do that again.” He said, “Otherwise, I’ll take your commission off you,” because he said, “I’ve got to beat the unions. I’ll get too strong. And I’ll lose the election.” See? Money again.  
Malcolm Roberts:Whereas Hudson, what he wanted to do was fix the workers problems so they just get back to work productively.  
John McRae:Yes, and they did. And by the way, all the big mob come out from America, Utah Mining, and all that. And the other mob and from England and everything else. And they thought we rode kangaroos and all this business here, and we have no chance on doing tunnelling and all this has never been done in Australia before. Four blokes come down from Queensland, their name was Feis. They broke all the tunnelling records and they built 25% of the Snowy, they built the largest earth and rock fill dam ever.  
Malcolm Roberts:And they said it was impossible to build an earth and filled dam that big. And yet they did it.  
John McRae:They did it. It was all done. This is Australian initiative. Look, I could go on for hours with what Australia’s done with inventions and how it’s benefited the world.  
Malcolm Roberts:Tell us about a few.  
John McRae:That is the hardest concrete in the world down there, Malcolm. The hardest. And I said to William Hudson, I was fortunate enough to meet him. A lot of people can meet him, when they had tools, you could go and talk to him. He said, “It was pretty simple. We had the best people.” And I said, “But how did you work out the mixtures?” Because if they had to make their own sand. Now, that sounds funny, doesn’t it? They had to make their own sand. Now, I’ll tell you how they did it. They got sandstone and you grind it up. But in sandstone, there’s impurities like silica and mud and you can’t mix with it because it goes like jelly.  
 So that had to be extracted, which they did. I don’t know how they did it, but they did it. And then they’d have to be mixed. Now, when they were mixing it, they mixed it with hot ice and ice. And they put other additives in it. But the granite and stuff they used there, they worked out what aggregate would be the best. And that’s how they did the formula, working out the earth and rock fill dam and that concrete is the hardest concrete in the world and it made Australia world leaders in concrete and highway engineering and things we’ve done with highway engineering and concrete lead the world.  
 I ask people, “Where’s the largest concrete span bridge in the world?” Because they got all the information from the Snowy, how they mix concrete. 25 countries, they tell you. I said, “You don’t even might know what you’re talking about. It’s in Sydney, called the Gladesville Bridge.” At that time it was built, it was the largest concrete span bridge, reason being, they got empirical knowledge and statistic and science from the Snowy, which they got when they did the Perth to Kalgoorlie pipeline doing the… So, it keeps revolving along, Malcolm.  
Malcolm Roberts:Can I share a story with you, John? I’m reluctant to interrupt you because you’ve just got so much. But when I was in America, I travelled through all 50 states. I was fascinated by the country and I came across a story about the development of their early space exploration. And John Kennedy had just become the president in 1960. And he commissioned NASA to do a study on the chances of getting a man to the moon and back safely by the end of the decade. In other words, by 1969. And I’ll always remember this, I bought a poster of it. It’s in every office I’ve ever worked in. I carry it with me. The result from NASA’s assessment of the possibility of getting a man on the moon and back again within nine years, wasn’t yes, it wasn’t no, it was these words: We have a sporting chance. And with that, and I’m getting a little bit teary here, John F. Kennedy said, “We go to the moon.”  
 And then you think about the technology that’s come out of that from electronic ignitions, from medicine-  
John McRae:Everything.  
Malcolm Roberts:So many things, even Velcro. I mean, so many things.  
John McRae:Yeah.  
Malcolm Roberts:And what you are saying to me, John, is that we had people like John F. Kennedy in this country who had vision, people like McKell, people like Connor. And they said, “Get out of my way and let me get on with the job.” And as a result of that, they had so much technology developed in this country that then gave us our steel industry, our concrete industry, so many opportunities and what we’ve got now, we’ve got this whole thing smashed.  
John McRae:Well, the reason being is because people haven’t had the privilege that I’ve had or ignorant and don’t want to do it. See, when I wasn’t allowed to go to school or to go to the pictures.  
Malcolm Roberts:Oh, that’s right. You had polio with your mother. Yes.  
John McRae:I went to older people and I’d ask questions and that’s what I do all my life, ask questions.  
Malcolm Roberts:Can I just interrupt there for a minute? Just want to interrupt there. I want to just tell the listeners here while they’re sitting at home or in their cars or at the picnic, wherever they are, that John is not exaggerating a bit here. I’ve watched this man. He treats people with enormous respect. If he disagrees, he’ll let you know. But he walks up to people and he takes an engaging interest. Doesn’t sacrifice his principles, his morals. He just takes an imbibing interest and people share things with John. That’s why he’s become such a magnet for facts and data. Keep going, John. I just had to share that with you. You’re you’re so impressive, the way you deal with people.  
John McRae:So I would go and ask him things. And everyone used to say to me, “John, look after your pennies and the pounds will look after themselves.” And the director of one of joints, the directors at the glassworks in Sydney, it’s Sydney in Maude Park, largest glassworks in the Southern hemisphere. He said, “Never denounce anyone.” Even the bloke sweeping the street can give you information and tell you something that you don’t know. And I’ve lived by that. When I was growing up, I’d go into engineering, “Why do you do this? Why do you do that?” I was taught how to read a micrometre at the age of 11. By 13 or 14, I knew how to do dynamic balancing. My mate’s father was an engineer, I’ll tell you his name. And-  
Malcolm Roberts:Dynamic balancing of wheels?  
John McRae:I beg your pardon?  
Malcolm Roberts:Dynamic balancing of wheels, lathes?  
John McRae:That’s nothing. Wheels are nothing. No armatures in motors and things like that.  
Malcolm Roberts:Right, thank you. So complex stuff by the time. So complex stuff by the time you were 13?  
John McRae:Yeah, I could work lathes and everything. I helped the bloke build a speedway engine. At 14, I did all the rough turning and I used to, I asked questions, if I go somewhere… Look, this is off the track. I went down to Stéphanoise and I used to go to Shepherd a lot. And I went to visit, [inaudible] They lovely people, these Italians. And they’d telling me different things. They going over the machines, breaking down. I invented this machine that could extract eight types of oil out of the apricot kernel, eight types of oil and one oil can harness one type of cancer a bit.  
 Guess what happened? John Howard sold it to Pakistan. So, we invented this machine. You should have seen it. Unbelievable. So they’re the sort of things, and I’d say, Charlie Bennett taught us dynamic balancing, when you’re balancing an armature… See I’m going from subject to subject.  
 When you’re balancing armature, if you turn it over and balance one end and then balance the other, it’s out of balance again, because you’ve got to keep the harmonics in unison. No one was doing dynamic balancing this way. He invented a machine that could balance the armature at both ends at the one time. And he balanced thousands. And he did it for the army, the Navy, the Heart Research and everything. We learned all that.  
 The rolls in the paper mills, in the newspaper bill, they get out about… He rectified that for them. How does that work, Charlie? How does this work? I worked on overhead valve at T Model Ford Motors. How does this work? How does that work? How does something else work? And I that’s how I got knowledge, but I’ve been blessed with a memory and I’ve been told that come from polio, but I was blessed with the encouragement of my mother.  
 My father was a violent, alcoholic gambler, so that didn’t give me much of an opportunity in life. So, that’s how I’ve learned things. And I appreciate, and when I see someone like Ian Plimer, I pull him up and I’d ask him a heap of questions. And that had enhanced my knowledge. And that’s what people have got to, interaction. From interaction, you get reaction. From reaction, you get action. And that’s what we’ve got to get. And we’ve got all the knowledge in this country here. I could name a few of the great Australians, what they’ve done, that settled the world on their heels. They couldn’t believe it. And then the medical inventions that we’ve had here. Hugh Victor McKay invented the wheat stripper with Headlie Taylor, feed the world, everything. I could just rattle them all off for you. And I knew Jack Brabham and I’ve even got a photo of myself sitting in the car. And that was a handmade motor in his car.  
Malcolm Roberts:Tell us, tell us more about Brabham because the likes of him has never been seen before and probably will never be seen in motor sport.  
John McRae:Never, never, never. There’s been no one ever. No one ever won the World Driver’s Championship and the Manufacturer’s Championship. In the car they helped build, mate, designed himself and raced himself. Now you’ve got to take into consideration, Australia back then, we were only making the whole motor car. So we’ve got to go up against the world of finesse, Mercedes, Maserati, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Audi, Jaguar, Honda, Lago-Talbot, Elvis, Alfa Romeo, Fiat, Renault, Citroen, Peugeot, all European. And how do they get their success? On Grand Prix racing. And they built on that Ferrari win. Michael Schumacher and Pangio, driving the 250F Maserati that Pangio drove and everything like that.  
Malcolm Roberts:So, Brabham’s up against the world?  
John McRae:He’s up against it. And they said, “Where did this billy cart come from? From Australia? It’s got a V8 motor. Where does this the local yokel come from?” The same bloke went to American in Indianapolis with a car under powered and showed him a new trick over there with a rear engine car. They’ve never seen a rear engine car before. And it was underpowered and still finished ninth. Other blokes with their big Offenhausers and everything else. Going back to that motor, when he started in the Speedway, Offenhauser was built especially for… That was a racing engine, especially for the Indianapolis. And they built a smaller motor for Speedway. Now, the Americans come out here with the most beautiful looking cars you’d ever see because all our cars were made out of junkyards and bits and pieces.  
 And this car of his was a little, air cooled motor, a Harley Davidson crank case off a motor bike and you build the rest yourself and it beat the Offenhausers. With that technology and his driving ability, he then transferred that into his car racing thing and with the help of the two Australians, Ozzy and Ronnie [Toranecko] another bloke, Ronnie Ward and Repco of Australia. They designed the engine off the 308 Holden Motor aluminium, designed their own heads and everything else. What did he do? Blew them to pieces. And they said it could never be done. Same as Ken Warby. They said they’ll never, never-.  
Malcolm Roberts:So, who was Ken Warby? [crosstalk] Ken Warby’s World Water Speed Record.  
John McRae:Yeah, 1977. It hasn’t been broken ever since.  
Malcolm Roberts:So, so the World Water Speed Record still stands and it’s held by an Australian?  
John McRae:Yes. And he put the first wind curl on a boat. Then Ben Lexcen then copied it, but hang on, here’s the clincher. He had the Naval apprentices from the Naval College, and University of New South Wales, helping him with technology, science, exactly what you’re speaking about with Ian Plimer. And the science they relied on was the temperature of the water, the atmospheric pressure and everything else when they went for the world record. He still said his only chance his son’s going to have an attempt on it in May. Now, Brabham set a world record with a car, never been equaled, built in Australia. Anywhere else in the world, they had to build an industry around it. But what do we do here? Give it away. Same with what they’ve done with all our minerals.  
Malcolm Roberts:John, speaking of giving away industries, tell me about Sydney. I mean, we drove one night and you took me through an area where we had factories after factories, after factories. And we had seafood canneries and fish canneries in Sydney and all of that’s gone.  
John McRae:Well, look, I showed where the glassworks were, that was Georgian’s bit. That was the biggest glassworks in the Southern Hemisphere. There was Crown Crystal. In that area where I took you, there were seven companies making setda lathes, drill shapers and things, and couple of turret lathes.  
Malcolm Roberts:Hang on, hang on. For people to understand, their fundamental for metal working, which is fundamental to manufacturing machinery, fundamental to making any kind of machinery. And we had all of that technology. In fact, some of our technology was world leading, wasn’t it?  
John McRae:Of course, it was. Yeah. Malcolm, before we go any further. Nothing, you’ve got, you clothes, your car, your cooking, utensils, anything has got to be made… Jigs have got to be made by a tool maker. He’s the man, the upper echelon machine in engineering. And if we can’t make the jigs, you’ve got nothing. And we had all that here. There was seven, there was seven lathes. I can name them for you if you want. Seven lathe manufacturers and machinery manufacturers in that area where I showed you. After the war, all those machinery places were working 24-7, supplying Europe and everywhere else to rehabilitate them. When we could go out near Mascot, Botany, up that way, there was all the cotton mills, the tanneries, the woollen mills and working 24-7. We made milking machines. We made shearing machines. We made wall presses. We made everything.  
 Canneries making the tins, the stuff to go in for the canning fruit. We exported all that. We had all that, but that all went by the wayside when we started to lump ourself in with the United Nations. And we signed all these agreements, especially the Lima Declaration. But we still have, all we’ve got to do is get leadership of honesty and morals and with Botany the attitude, we have done it, can do it and will do it. And all we’ve got to do is get water, forget all of this global business, because there’s no country in the world that can produce rural produce 365 days of the year of every variety, every variation, and of every thing you need, no one. They built the Ord River, there’s more tonnes of rice coming out there than what Japan can do with their special rice for their religious ceremonies.  
 We’ve got mangoes growing up there. They get five or $6 a head, a piece of fruit. We get more tonnes per wheat off our ground than anyone else in the world. No one can grow the variation of Barley wheat, corn, that we can. No one, because the Northern hemisphere is constrained by weather constraints. And we are not here. All we need is the power. And the power is water. We’ve got the place, the farmer, we’ve got the greatest farmers in the world, they know that. Look, they brought the sheep in from the Marino. We get more yield per pound per sheep than what they get. Same as the Hereford cows, the Aberdeen Angus. We get more here. There’s a bloke up there in Queensland, Peter Hughes, he’s got 190,000 breeding Wagyu cows, Japan can’t get over how he’s succeeded. And that’s one of their breeds.  
 He’s worked out how to cross breed them. Australian ingenuity, Australian ability, we’ve got them here. We’ve got the scientists. We’ve got every… We’ve got the best machinists. We’ve got the best of everything. Look at the bloke that built our machine gun. Saved Australian up the Owen Stanley Ranges, 1,500 raw recruits went up with the eight and nine divvy and drove back 7,000 jungle hardened Japanese. Why? Because they had the will to win. They had the machine gun. They had what we built. We built aeroplanes  here during the war. Even in the fifties, we built Sabre jets for the Korean War. And they tell you, we can’t do things here.  
Malcolm Roberts:John, John, Australia has a history of punching well above our weight when it comes to war, comes to industry, comes to inventions, comes to sport, comes to arts, comes to science. We’re punching way above our weight. What the hell happened?  
John McRae:What the hell happened? Because follow the money. Follow the money. See, that’s what people have got to understand. Banks are credit creators and asset strippers. And boy, we’ve got to do this and we’ve got to get into the global economy. We don’t have to get into anything. We’re the only totally self-sufficient country in the world, put a moat round us. And we could trade with one another and live.  
Malcolm Roberts:That’s a really important point I want to jump all over for a minute there, John, because Australia was independent. We could stand on our own. We could make our own armaments. We could make our own ammunitions. We could make our own everything, everything. And yet what happens now, is we are dependent on other countries. [crosstalk] Our politicians have fallen for this crap that says we must be interdependent. That was the con job to get the UN agreement signed, which you can talk about, the Lima Declaration, the Rio Declaration, the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris agreement. All of these declarations and agreements have undermined us. We are no longer independent. We are now dependent because when you are interdependent, you depend on someone else which makes you dependent. We’ve lost our independence as sovereignty, our economic sovereignty, our manufacturing sovereignty, our economic security. Because politicians in this country have sold our soul.  
John McRae:They have, Malcolm. By the way, I should have included this. We built that pipeline for 1896 to 1903. After that, we achieved the greatest achievement, can’t be equaled. The longest railway line in the world from 1912 to 1917 from South Australia over to West Australia, Northam 2,500,000 railway slip, hand cut.  
Malcolm Roberts:2 million?  
John McRae:140,000 tonne of rail line, all hand laid. Start at one end, start at the other, and they said they won’t meet. It wasn’t even a half inch out. On the 17th of the 10th, 1917, the last secure inch spike on the place that held the dam was put in. Five days later, the train arrived in Western Australia. They never even put a test run on it. They tell you we can’t do it. We built all the trams in Sydney for the tram service in Sydney, it was the largest tram network in the world. We built 2,800 trams. We built the buses and everything else. We built the ferries. We’ve done everything.  
 Now we’ve got to buy more off China and they’re not worth three and six pence, they can’t ever be used. And they tell you we can’t do things. I’ve got a history of stuff. I wish I could get a chance to debate some of these wombats because I’d blow up the pieces, because we’ve got the greatest people with the greatest initiative. And we’ve got the greatest will to win and achieve. All we need is the opportunity to exhibit it.  
Malcolm Roberts:Well said, well said, John McRae. Well said. What we’ve got is we’ve got the people. We’ve got the resources. We’ve got the energy resources, the metal resources, the climate resources, the soil resources, the water resources. What we have is huge potential. We have huge opportunity. We have got the world’s biggest market on our doorstep to the north. And what we’ve got is parliaments that have abandoned the people in favour of UN agreements, seeded our sovereignty. The parliaments no longer work for this country. John, I’m convinced of that. The state and federal parliament have abandoned the people. How do we get them back to serving the country?  
John McRae:For a start, we’ve got to fix up our voting system and our taxation system and our voting system is rigged so that you can tell lies and fraudulent. The best, we could go into that another day. But here’s what we did with our industries. Now, not everyone signed this Lima Declaration. That was in 1975. Whitlam was the bloke that in inaugurated Malcolm Fraser. Malcolm Fraser ratified it in 76.  
Malcolm Roberts:Okay, John, we’ve got one minute to go.  
John McRae:Okay. This is Section 35, that Australia transfer technical and financial resources, as well as capital goods to accelerate industrialization of underdeveloped countries. As Ian Plimer said, “All they do is go into those other countries and rape and build, then walk off.”  
Malcolm Roberts:So basically, the UN’s Lima Declaration that Whitlam signed as Labour prime minister in 1975, and that the liberal national’s prime minister, Malcolm Fraser ratified the following year 76, basically said, “Take our technology, take our leadership, take our manufacturing prowess and set it up overseas and gut our country.”  
John McRae:Well, the bottom line of that is, Malcolm, liberal and labour, it’s either Tweedle Dumb or Tweedle Dumber.  
Malcolm Roberts:And we might just leave it on that because the core message, John, you’ve just told me the answer, and we’ll explore that. I’m going to have you back. We’re going to explore that is fix the taxation system that favours foreign countries’ companies at the moment and fix the voting system. So this is Senator Malcolm Roberts. I remind you how I opened the first show this morning. I am staunchly pro-human. I am proud to be of service to you. Remind you, be human, be proud, be loving, care, listen, and appreciate. Thank you very much, John. We’ll have you back anytime. Thank you very much. And thank you for having us as guests in your living room, car, factory, wherever you are today. Thank you so much for listening.  
John McRae:Thank you, Malcolm.  
/by

Conversations with Adrian Podcast

, ,

Transcript

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

Podcast: Senator Roberts and ‘Cathy’, a frontline Nurse, discuss the adverse reactions from vaccinations

, ,

Available on these platforms:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/13 Comments/by

Podcast: Stephen Andrew, One Nation’s state member for Mirani

,

Available on these platforms:

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

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

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

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

/by

Corona, Climate, China, & the Great Reset with Geopolitics and Empire

, ,

Transcript

Hrvoje Moric:

Geopolitics & Empire is joined by Queensland, Australia, Senator Malcolm Roberts, who is part of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation political party. I’ll be getting his thoughts on the tyranny that is coming at us from all angles in Australia and in the world. Good morning, Senator, and thank you for joining the podcast.

Malcolm Roberts:

Good morning, Hrvoje. It’s a pleasure to be here, and thank you very much for the invitation.

Hrvoje Moric:

I mean this as a great compliment, Senator. I’m a big fan of former Texas Congressman Ron Paul, whose views I think largely aligned with yours. I hope you don’t mind me calling you the Australian Ron Paul.

Malcolm Roberts:

I don’t think I’ve earned enough to deserve that, but I’m delighted that you call me that. Ron Paul is one of the best people in the world. He’s got courage, he’s got integrity, he’s got character, and he stays in touch with the people. He calls out the Federal Reserve Bank in America. He wants to have an audit of them. He fights for peace rather than defence. Wonderful man, wonderful, self-educated in economics, very, very bright man. I’m not even close to him, but thank you. I sincerely feel deeply honoured.

Hrvoje Moric:

I think it’s just easier for some of us who live outside of Australia to get an idea a bit more of Australian politics and the work that you do. There’s a lot going on, Senator, but I suppose we can begin with the public health emergency situation or pandemic in Australia and the world, but especially in Australia where the government is implementing many unbelievable restrictions on freedom. These include vaccine passports, the restriction of the right of movement, locking people in their homes, censorship, elimination of free speech, in some cases, perhaps rendition to quarantine facilities, the destruction of businesses, and so forth. Some of these issues you’ve commented on. How do you view the seemingly never-ending public health emergency that’s been going on now for two years and now these unprecedented permanent public health emergency measures being put into place? What’s going on?

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, how I view them? I view them very simply as immoral and inhuman, that they’re unlawful, unjustified. That’s how I view them. First of all, you mentioned a number of points and I’ll try to capture some of them. You talked about a pandemic. I never use the word pandemic because there is no pandemic of deaths, Hrvoje. None at all. If we look in Australia, then we have normal death rates as compared in past previous years. So then people in Australia might say, “Well, hang on, we’ve had lockdowns, that’s why we’ve not got a pandemic of deaths.” Okay, well, let’s look at other countries in the world. Nowhere is there a pandemic of deaths.

Malcolm Roberts:

For a pandemic, you must have a steep increase in deaths. That’s not happened anywhere. Now you could argue then Sweden, where there was no lockdowns, no quarantining, no real falling in line with the international globalist agenda, they did have an increase in deaths. Yes, they did, because some of the people who are falling victim to COVID have comorbidities. Obesity is one of them, for example, but they have comorbidities. Those deaths were probably brought forward. But now we see Sweden reverting to the mean. So even Sweden, there’s no pandemic of death. As I said, pandemics have to have a pandemic of death; there’s nothing here.

Malcolm Roberts:

The only thing with regard to the death data that’s unusual in Australia is since the injections have been introduced. Now we’re seeing that the number of deaths is above the upper range, and we believe that that is… Well, it’s not explained. So it raises serious questions about the injections, because we know that the number of deaths and that the adverse effects is far, far higher than people are telling us. We know that. We know that anecdotally. We also know that the Therapeutic Goods Administration in this country has supposedly investigated the 564 reported injection deaths that doctors have reported, but they have toned them down to just nine. So we have now asked the question of the Therapeutic Goods Administration in this country, “Show us the process by which you assess that.” That’s the first point I make: no pandemic of deaths.

Malcolm Roberts:

Now, the second point I make is that I’m not dismissing COVID at all. COVID does kill people, there’s no doubt about it. But I’ve asked for the data from our Chief Medical Officer for the federal government, and he has shown me that the data on transmissibility says that the transmissibility is high. You can catch it easily. But the transmissibility on… Sorry, the severity data shows that it’s low to moderate, much less than past severe flus. And so, what we are seeing is not something that’s severe, it can kill people, but we’re seeing that it has not been managed properly in this country. I’ll come back to that in a minute.

Malcolm Roberts:

The third point that I wish to discuss is you raised vaccine passports. I do not agree with the term vaccine passport. I do not agree with the concept. I go totally against the concept of the vaccine passport. But my opposition is more fundamental than that. These are not vaccine passports, they’re vaccine prisons. They’re injection prisons. They’re digital prisons. They keep a group of society away from society. I’ve not been injected, that’s my choice. But I pay my taxes, therefore, I’m entitled to the benefits of being in this society. I’m entitled to being treated as a human who is part of this society and wants the interaction. So digital prisons, vaccine prisons are not human. They’re immoral and inhuman. That’s the third point, I think.

Malcolm Roberts:

And the other point you mentioned was about quarantine. We don’t have quarantine in this country. We have lockdowns. Lockdowns are where you isolate everyone. You withdraw everyone from society, and that’s what we’ve had. It’s cruel, it’s barbaric, it’s inhuman. Quarantines are where you isolate the sick and the vulnerable. Now, I go back to the start of this in this country, Hrvoje. We had parliament basically shut down. And on the Monday, the 23rd of March 2020, we had our first single day session of parliament, where we met to sweep through the government’s bills. Now, what I said to them on that day was, “Look, we’re looking at the tens of thousands of deaths reportedly in overseas countries, like China, Italy, Spain, France, et cetera. So we know there may be something severe, so we have to treat this as serious. So, that’s the first thing. Secondly, we’re not going to stand in your way, we pass the legislation. Third thing, we expect you to get the data, you must get the data. And with that data, you must build a plan. And then we will hold your accountable.”

Malcolm Roberts:

We still have no data given to the public. The data I got from the Chief Medical Officer contradicts what the government is doing. There is no credible plan other than one plan for… It’s not even a plan, it doesn’t have responsibilities, it’s just inject, inject, inject. Everything in this federal government is based on one strategy, injection using something that has not been proven, not been approved. Even the government says it’s provisionally approved. So it’s not been fully tested. And on that basis, we’re destroying our country’s economy with withholding human basic human rights, withholding freedom. This is fundamental to our society.

Malcolm Roberts:

The next thing that I want to mention is that we have destroyed the notion of democracy in this country. We haven’t destroyed it, the government has destroyed it. At state level, we have Liberal, Labour, and National party governments, and at federal level, we have Liberal, National government with a Labour opposition. All of them have ignored the data. All of them have proceeded with just one strategy. In the states, it’s lockdowns. In the federal government, its injections. Now, on the 23rd of March 2020, on that fateful Monday, I pointed to two things. I pointed to the in vitro trials which were promising at Monash University in Melbourne on a drug called ivermectin. I also pointed to Taiwan and South Korea. Taiwan has been by far the best performing when it comes to managing COVID, by far the best, without a doubt. No one hears about them because the UN suppresses news of Taiwan. But Taiwan uses a proper system of testing, tracing, and quarantining. They lock briefly, partially, partially, after about 12 months after the virus arrived, because they had a breach in quarantine that they wanted to get control of quickly. They have demonstrated how lockdown should be used.

Malcolm Roberts:

Even the UN’s crooked, corrupt, incompetent, dishonest World Health Organisation now says that lockdowns are a weapon of last resort and should only be used initially to get control. Our state governments, Hrvoje, are continuing to use lockdowns, which means that after 19 months, they have not got control of this pandemic… This virus rather. It’s not a pandemic, this virus. So what we’re seeing is a complete breakdown in management, it’s mismanagement. We are seeing the people being lied to, we’re seeing the exaggerations in the media. We’re seeing censorship in the media. And censorship is a form of control. And wherever you see control, beneath control, there is fear. This government, our state governments are afraid of the people with the truth.

Malcolm Roberts:

We have also seen now injections of an unproven, not-fully-tested drug that’s been injected into healthy people and is killing healthy people. That’s the first time this has happened in our society, healthy people being injected with something forcibly, coerced into injections, and dying from it. The second thing is we have seen governments deliberately and consciously suppress the use of ivermectin, make it illegal. But ivermectin is a proven, safe, effective, affordable, and readily available treatment that is working in other countries overseas. We are being denied here. That is genocide in this country. So yes, I’m totally opposed to what the government is doing with mismanagement of this virus.

Hrvoje Moric:

Yeah. I would go back to what you said at the beginning about the mortality rate. I read this week from official mainstream sources in Germany that for the year 2020, there was no excess mortality. I did an interview 10 months ago with a Canadian scientist from Quebec who actually investigated the mortality rate, and again, there was no excess mortality. So by definition, we are not in a pandemic, but as we know, the World Health Organisation, they’re fudging, they’re changing all of the definitions of pandemic, they’re changing the definitions of vaccine, and so forth. I just wanted to dig a bit deeper on what you’ve mentioned about the economy and these vaccine passports as they’re called.

Hrvoje Moric:

The biggest fear that most of us have is what they’re calling now this great reset, this total digital transformation of our society’s economies. I’m getting emails every week from all over the world, from Canadians, from Australians, from Americans and British folks, looking to escape from their countries where it seems what you were describing in Australia, that this is happening right now in these countries. And some of us, I’m here in Mexico, we’re afraid that this is going to come to us. And so, could you perhaps tell us a bit more about how bad do you think this is going to get? And this vaccine passport, which is basically a digital ID, which is basically a social credit system, if this gets implemented and it continues, we won’t be able to live, to do anything without the express permission of the government and corporations. I saw a clip of you five months ago, you were interrogating the Australian Department of Health on this, and they were saying they were not working on this, but now we’re seeing these systems being deployed. So how bad do you think this can get?

Malcolm Roberts:

There’s a wonderful poster behind your left shoulder, “Liberty begins with you.” We need to remember that the people who will allow this most ultimately are the people themselves. In a democracy, the governed are governed only with their authority. So the government is given the authority by the governed to govern. That can be withdrawn at any time at an election. So liberty does indeed begin with you. Democracy begins with you, the individual voter. That is something we have forgotten about in this country. It’s not something I’ve forgotten about, but generally across the country, it has been forgotten and ignored.

Malcolm Roberts:

The problem here is governance, national governance, state governance. The overarching problem is the lack of parliamentary accountability, not holding the governments accountable. The parliaments, nowadays in this country, serve the political parties, the tired, old political parties, the major parties. They do not serve the people. The reason for that is because the people have lost sight of the fact that they control the government. They elect the government, they should hold the government accountable.

Malcolm Roberts:

Now, I blame the people for that, but at the same time, I also give the people some excuse for that. Because what’s happened is the political systems have been manipulated by both the tired, old parties, the Liberal, Nationals, and the Labour Party, so there’s only two parties opposing. The other parties have been suppressed. Both those parties alternating in government effectively have the same policies. They pretend they’re different, but they’re not. And so, the bureaucracy runs to the same tune over decades. And what we’re seeing now is a deliberate attempt to control the people. That’s the first thing. But the people ultimately are responsible, and they can rise up against this.

Malcolm Roberts:

Let’s go back to proper management. Our country has about 25 million people. Taiwan has 24 million. So we’re about the same size. Taiwan is a tiny island. It’s half the size of our smallest state in terms of area, which is Tasmania. It is 2% the size of the state I live in, Queensland, which is our second biggest state. So it’s a tiny fraction of the area of Australia. Taiwan also had a bigger risk with the virus coming in because they have exchange with China, mainland China, which is very close, but they have enormous numbers of people going in and out between the two countries.

Malcolm Roberts:

So the virus originated in China, in Wuhan, we know that. So Taiwan was much more susceptible to the virus at an earlier point. They also have a highly densely populated country, which means virus is much more easily transmitted across the country. But Taiwan, the leadership there is trusted, and I’ll come back to something else in a minute, the… What did they call it? I was introduced to it the other day. What are they? The catfish principle. I’ll come back to that in a minute. Taiwan has a much higher risk with the virus.

Malcolm Roberts:

In the first 12 months of the virus in Taiwan, they had seven deaths, seven. That’s it, not 700, seven. They never locked down their economy in the first 12 months at all. They just continued their economy as they went. They used proper testing, tracing, and quarantining. And when I say testing, not necessarily COVID testing. People were tested on their body temperature. And if they were above normal, they were set aside and given a COVID test. And if they were negative on the COVID test, they went to work as normal. So that’s how they managed it, vigorous tracing system. And if people were sick or if they were vulnerable, they were quarantined and protected, but the economy kept going. Now, Taiwan’s economy came down about 0.6 of a percent their GDP. When you consider that their main customers are North America, China, and Europe, their main customers were decimated because they were locked down, but Taiwan’s economy well hardly missed a beat.

Malcolm Roberts:

In Australia, though, we had a much lower risk with the virus, but our lockdowns, at the end of our first 12 months, we had almost 1,000 deaths, and we crippled our economy. We put people in misery. We withdrew human rights. Taiwan didn’t do anything of the sort. That’s the really important figure to understand. Now, I was talking with someone from Taiwan, knowledgeable person with Taiwan. Actually, I’ve talked with a few people. But this one on Saturday told me, in Canberra I met with him, and he told me of the catfish principle. I looked it up on Wikipedia, and the Norwegians actually raised this story first. The Japanese love eels, and Taiwan grows and produces eels. So they used to ship the eels to Japan live, and then not many would survive. And then someone came up the idea of putting a catfish in the container with the eels. That keeps the eels on their toes because catfish eat eels. Many more catfish survived because they were alert, they were active. The same thing happened with fishing in Norway.

Malcolm Roberts:

Now, the point is this, when I looked in the first 12 months at the country’s doing best with managing the virus, properly managing it, Israel, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore. Now, some of them are no longer at the best level. Israel has succumbed to the injections, they’re having massive outbreaks. Singapore has succumbed to the injections, massive outbreaks. Hong Kong, we know has had more control exerted over it by China. South Korea had a major outbreak due to a lapse in their management, but they got it under control again. Taiwan had a major breakdown in quarantine, but they got it in control again. So Taiwan is the stellar performer. Taiwan did not lock down, they used proper testing, tracing, quarantining.

Malcolm Roberts:

All of those five countries that did well initially are countries with an element of threat. They value their security. Israel, we know why they value their security and why they’re under constant threat. South Korea, similarly. Hong Kong, similarly. Singapore, now it’s not under military threat, but it doesn’t have any natural resources, so it is under threat economically. And Taiwan, the same, both militarily and economically. All of these countries have governments that manage them properly because they know that if they make a mistake, millions of people are at risk. Our countries, Australia, America, Canada, Britain have got fat and sloppy. We are no longer well-managed, and that’s the core. The people in these countries that I mentioned, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, Israel, Hong Kong, are on alert for threats. We’re not. We’re fat and sloppy, and that’s the problem. We have got a complacent population that lets the government do whatever it wants, and we have to stop that. I hope that summarises the answer.

Hrvoje Moric:

Yeah. I wanted to shift gears a bit to a different topic that… Well, it seems like it’s a different topic, but it’s really not if we listen to what the establishment and the elites are talking about, and that’s the climate issue, which you’ve been outspoken on. I’ve examined the issue of what once was called global cooling, I think, back in the 1970s, and then became global warming, which then became climate change. I find the thesis without merits. I find it to be nothing more than a ruse by an elite wishing to establish a technocratic control system, which also espouses their long-held philosophy of eugenics. I was shocked last week, we recently had Boris Johnson on television. I don’t recall when the clip was from, but people can find the clip where he jokingly says, “We should feed human beings to animals.”

Hrvoje Moric:

And his father, Stanley Johnson, on television said that a biological weapons mega event would be great because it would eliminate huge chunks of the human population. And so, as I mentioned before, now they’re trying to merge these two issues of pandemic and climate change, and now they’re talking about climate lockdowns. You’ve mentioned this in one of your speeches, they want to get rid of our meat, and they want us to get our protein from insects, which is pretty insane. And so, what are your thoughts on this climate agenda and climate lockdowns and so forth?

Malcolm Roberts:

Again, complete fabrication. And I’ll go into that in more… We might have to extend this to do this. But I didn’t address a couple of your points in your last comment about the virus mismanagement. You talked about the great reset, and you talked about digital identity and digital controls. The government in this country, which is supposedly democracy, but as I’ve said is not a functioning democracy… By the way, the definition of a… well, maybe not definition, but the characteristic of a true democracy is where the government fears the people. If the government misbehaves, the people toss them out. In a totalitarian dictatorship, the people fear the government. In this country, the people fear the government. Not in the sense of a Eastern European country behind the Iron Curtain when it existed, but certainly, the people fear the government here because of the draconian laws that we’ve had brought down on us.

Malcolm Roberts:

The government, we’ve seen legislation that they’re going to introduce next year. It’s called, get this, the Trusted Digital Identity Legislation. Trusted Digital Identity. Why would they call it trusted? Because it is not worthy of trust. What they want to do is control people with it. Now, I haven’t read that bill, but I’ve had an excellent staffer researching that bill, and she has come back with the report that another staffer who assigned her a job has said is horrific. That’s what they’re wanting to do here, they’re wanting to control people. The great reset is about controlling our whole life, controlling our economy, controlling our energy use, controlling our resources and access to resources, controlling water, controlling farming, controlling the food we eat. That is the great reset.

Malcolm Roberts:

We know that there’s a minister in this country who used to be the environment minister, his name is Greg Hunt. He worked in 2000 and 2001 on secondment to the World Economic Forum. He was Strategic Director. He developed some of the strategies that they’re using. He then became a representative in Australia’s parliament. He then became a minister. He became an minister for the environment, which oversaw climate. And this was under the Liberal-National Party government. As a minister for the environment, he was responsible for suppressing a review into the operation of the Bureau of Meteorology, which we know is corrupting the data. They have actually admitted changes in the data, have increased the warming rate. They’ve admitted that to me. What they haven’t acknowledged and what we’re chasing them on, is that that has been systematic.

Malcolm Roberts:

Now you’d think, Hrvoje, that errors in data, we know exist, and with better management and scrutiny, we can adjust the data, but you’d expect all the data errors to be random. Instead, what we see is from 1970, say this is 1970 in the graph, the data has been systematically increased in a linear fashion to exaggerate warming. The data prior to 1970 was decreased, so we have a much greater slope. So, that was fabricated. We see this as a ruse. You’ve mentioned that in 1976, the big call was for catastrophic global freezing due to hydrocarbon fuels, coal, oil, and natural gas. Now we see global warming, but now… Actually, we saw global warming, now we see climate change due to hydrocarbon fuels. These people are just fabricating whatever they want to get control of hydrocarbon fuels. Because whoever controls our energy, controls what we do.

Malcolm Roberts:

Now, it goes back. So it’s a complete fabrication. There is no evidence anywhere in the world. I have held NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies accountable. I’ve held our CSIRO accountable, Commonwealth Scientific Industry and Research Organisation, which provides the government with this data. Now, that minister that I told you about a minute ago, Greg Hunt, who was responsible for the environment and putting in some of these policies that protected these people who are adjusting the data and called upon the government to do something about climate based upon the CSIRO, that same man is now our health minister, putting in place a lot of these pandemic routines.

Malcolm Roberts:

We also see that I held for the last 12 years members of parliament, media, academics, government agencies accountable for their claims about climate. Not one of them has been able to provide me with the empirical scientific evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate. No one anywhere in the world, Hrvoje, has been able to quantify the specific effect of carbon dioxide from humans on climate, not even on temperature. So without that fundamental thing, quantifying the effect, you cannot make a policy. Without that, you cannot set targets. You cannot assess progress towards achieving those targets. You cannot do a cost benefit analysis. No one has got it anywhere.

Malcolm Roberts:

The leader of the government in the Senate, Mathias Cormann… formerly leader, sorry, he left and became head of the OECD, where he’s putting in place a lot of these globalist agenda. I asked him a number of times in the Senate for his empirical evidence proving the carbon dioxide from human activity effects climate, it needs to be cut. Never once did he provide it. He always resorted, ultimately, to saying, “We have to fulfil global responsibilities, our global duty. This is crap, Hrvoje. It is absolute crap. It’s run by a few companies, leaders, the globalists, the elites, to further their own nest to get control.

Malcolm Roberts:

I want to mention Maurice Strong. You’ve probably heard of him.

Hrvoje Moric:

Yeah.

Malcolm Roberts:

A criminal. Left the United States, a Canadian, left the United States where he was wanted for investigation into criminal activities by the American police and resided in China, in exile, voluntary exile. China is the main beneficiary of these policies. And Maurice Strong hid there. Maurice Strong, he died in 2015, was an exceptionally talented man, very, very gifted at networking, at manipulating people. He’s just one of these people who could do it. Now, he created the whole of this global warming scam, but it became climate change scam, back in the 1970s. He manipulated and formed the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the so-called scientists, that as a political organisation has never produced the science that proves that we need to cut carbon dioxide. And he has manipulated this throughout, and he’s done it by exerting control on the grassroots movements, people like Greenpeace, people like World Wildlife Fund, people like the other conservation organisations in this country that are pushing this crap. They’re just lies.

Malcolm Roberts:

We also have Prince Philip sometimes saying that he would like to come back as a virus and wipe out humans. I mean, what kind of person is this? I have a lot of respect for the Queen, but look at Prince Charles saying much the same kind of thing. Absolute insanity. And then we have the ultimate betrayal. When they can’t produce the evidence, they trot out an awkward 16-year-old who’s not very comfortable socially and put her on the stage and say, “We’ll do whatever Greta Thunberg says.” They parade her as the evidence. That is the complete logical betrayal of science. They’re putting up an awkward, unsociable 16-year-old, who’s now an 18-year-old, and portraying her as the reason we should do this. This is absolute crap. It’s blatant lies, blatant manipulation. I’ll say it again, they’re wanting control of our energy, control of our industry, control of our resources, control of our property, I didn’t mention that last time, but they’re controlling our property rights. They’re wanting control of water. These are fundamental, basic things about human existence. You control these, and you control everything humans do.

Malcolm Roberts:

They’re using what they call United Nation Sustainability, which is by definition reliant upon subsidies, which makes it unsustainable. Remove the subsidies and the account’s not sustainable. But with sustainability, they want to regulate everything we do, how we live, what we do. The second pillar of this United Nation’s control effort is biodiversity. “We’ve got to protect that fungus over there, those critters over there, the plants over there. We’ve got a toss you off your property because you’re less important than the fungus, the bugs, and the critters and the plants.” That’s rubbish.

Malcolm Roberts:

Then the third thing they want to do is to impose a globalist socialist governance, unelected. And that’s what Maurice Strong himself said many times, that that’s his two aims; to de-industrialise Western civilization, and to put in place an unelected, socialist, global governance. You don’t have to rely upon just Maurice Strong’s words because many senior people in the United Nations, the bureaucrats, Christina Figueres, for example, in charge of the United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, which oversees the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, she herself has said is to bring in a new world economic order. The Lima Declaration in 1975 was passed by a Labour prime minister in this country, the following year was ratified by the Liberal-National’s prime minister. And that is both sides have passed that.

Malcolm Roberts:

That is about transferring wealth, transferring knowledge, transferring manufacturing from our country to places like China. This has been orchestrated, it’s been deliberate. They’ve admitted that with their statements, their own policies. And our dopey government in this country, dishonestly, is incorporating those policies into smashing our country, and the people are falling for it. So more and more people are waking up though, around the world. So to answer your question, will it happen? It depends on the people, liberty begins with you.

Hrvoje Moric:

You mentioned Prince Charles, and I believe it was just this weekend he brazenly gave quite a startling speech where he called for a global military-style operation that would cost trillions of dollars to carry out basically what you described. So they’re openly telling us to our faces, and that’s frightening. You mentioned China as well, which was the last theme I wanted to touch on. We recently had this new security pack between Australia, UK, and the US form AUKUS, or however you want to pronounce it. This is a sign that tensions are escalating between the West and Beijing. And Australia, you guys are stuck between the US and China. I’ve read analysis of the formation of this pact is one step towards war and even nuclear war. They’re talking about nuclear submarines. And then, Australia would become a jumping-off point for an offensive on China. As well as it would become a prime target for China. So what can you tell us about the current East-West tensions as well as Australia’s role in this new cold war with China?

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, you opened up with a comment about Ron Paul. Ron Paul, he’s self-taught. He’s a doctor, but he’s self-taught on economics and very, very capable on economics and finance matters. He’s gone right into the financial system in the United States and globally. He wrote a book called End the FED, and I thoroughly recommend it, people. It’s a book I like. Like me, it’s short, it’s simple, and it’s easy to read, but it’s packed with information, and very well written. He said that since 1913 and the formation of the Federal Reserve Bank, the privately-owned Federal Reserve bank, it neither has reserves, nor is it federal. It’s not a government entity at all, it is privately owned, privately controlled. We know that many more Americans are waking up to that fact.

Malcolm Roberts:

But he said that since 1913 and the formation of the Federal Reserve Bank, every major war, every major recession is directly attributable to the Federal Reserve Bank and its policies. Australia blindly follows the United States into war. When we had 9/11… And I won’t discuss that in any detail because it’s not something that I’ve researched deeply. I do have two questions about 9/11 though. How did Building 7 collapse? It was raised to the ground, and yet it’s never been discussed. No one’s asked that question. And why hasn’t there been a formal investigation into 9/11? George Bush didn’t have a formal investigation. His successor from the opposition didn’t have any formal investigation. We don’t know what happened. So there are two serious questions haven’t been answered.

Malcolm Roberts:

I raise 9/11 because our prime minister, John Howard at the time, was in America when it happened. When he came back, this is not me telling you this, these are the words of Alexander Downer, who was the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time, the Foreign Secretary, if you like, when he retired a few years later, Hrvoje, he said that John Howard came back from America, marched into cabinet, and said, “We’re off to Iraq.” Just like that. That bypasses the checks and balances that are in place before we commit our men and young men and women to foreign a military action.

Malcolm Roberts:

If you remember the previous Gulf War, we had weapons of mass destruction. We had Colin Powell come out, I believe he was lied to, he came out later and said, “We haven’t got the evidence.” We had the president of America come out and say, “We don’t have the evidence.” We had the prime minister of Australia who told us, John Howard, that we went into that war in the Gulf War because of weapons of mass destruction admit that there were no weapons of mass destruction. We had people all over the military complexes and the governments of many Western countries, including Britain, said, “No, there are no weapons of mass destruction.” But they all relied upon that to start with.

Malcolm Roberts:

The reason I’m saying this, Hrvoje, is I question whether there really is any grounds for war. I question whose narrative we believe. Carbon dioxide, you are exhaling it right now. Everyone watching this is exhaling it. We inhale it in a concentration in the air of 0.04%, around four-one hundreds of 1%. It’s a trace gas because it is scientifically classified a trace gas. We exhale it at 100 times that level, 4%. So by definition of these lunatic running the show, you are a pollutant. You’re a polluter. I’m a polluter. This is complete crap. Carbon dioxide is essential for all life on this planet, but they’re telling us that is now a pollutant. It is not toxic. It is invisible. It is colourless. It is odourless. It’s not radioactive. It doesn’t give off light. It doesn’t give off any noise. It doesn’t pollute us. It doesn’t destroy the soil. It enhances the soil. It’s essential for a life on this planet. But they’re telling us it’s a pollutant.

Malcolm Roberts:

Now they’re telling us that this virus is a pandemic when clearly it’s not. And they’re using things to put in place controls. It’s the same with many of the things we’re being told, they’re blatant lies. They’re meant to coerce us, suppress us, and keep us under control and not question. Well, with people like me and with people like you and with an increasing number around the world, we’re saying, “Hang on, this doesn’t make sense.” It stimulates questions. And what I say to people is we have to remember, who controls the vote? We vote. We control who becomes government. Use your vote wisely. If you’re not happy with the candidates, become one. Stand up, talk to your families, talk to your workmates, talk to your social friends, talk to your relatives, get them to open their eyes, because as you’ve got on the poster behind you, liberty begins with you.

Hrvoje Moric:

I would just add if people can see… Where is it?

Malcolm Roberts:

Your head’s not that big. Now other side, other side.

Hrvoje Moric:

My thought on 9/11 right here. But yeah-

Malcolm Roberts:

It’s been [inaudible 00:38:37] out by reflection, I can’t see it.

Hrvoje Moric:

Okay. So, as you just mentioned, I get this question all the time. I said previously, but are you optimistic? I wonder why are there not more Ron Pauls, more Senator Malcolm Roberts in the world. There’s so few, and it seems like there’s actually a majority of us that agree with you. And many of the other politicians are for, whatever reason, towing the official government line. And so, why are there so few of you and are you optimistic? Are we going to stop this thing?

Malcolm Roberts:

We will stop it. It’s a matter of time, the time scale we talk about. If we look at nature, if we look at the universe, it’s inherently free. That doesn’t mean that you or I, or anyone can predict what will happen in the future, but it’s inherently free, and it’s moving towards increasing freedom. If you look at human society and human history, we’re increasingly going towards freedom. We have backwards steps at times that take us back into control. But ultimately, what emerges is freedom, and usually increased freedom. We’re in a pathway to higher freedom. So despite the setbacks, ultimately, this will all pass. Because we know that from history.

Malcolm Roberts:

President Harry Truman said, “The only thing new in the world is the history you haven’t read.” It’s all happened before, these attempts to control us. Now, in the past Hrvoje, and this is the really tricky point, in the past, if I held a gun to your head, everyone could see that Malcolm Roberts was controlling Hrvoje. Nowadays, we don’t do it that way. The control freaks use intimidation, coercive to shut down free speech. They call you, for example, a climate denier or they say you don’t respect nature, or you don’t respect the environment. You go against caring for the environment. We know of so many scientists who have been suppressed into silence because of that intimidation.

Malcolm Roberts:

We also know they use other things like, for example, they’ll call you a racist and that’ll silence you. They’ll call you a misogynist or a misandrist. They’ll call you a Nazi. They’ll give you labels. I love it when they come at me with labels, because I then turn around and say, “Well, thanks for your label, because it shows that you don’t have the data and the argument to mount a case against my argument. So I win. If you had the data and the argument, you would come at me with the data and the argument. But you don’t. Instead, you come at me with labels, neo-Nazi, racist, xenophobe, misandrist, misogynist, far-right extremist, far-left extremist, call me whatever you want. It just reinforces that you don’t have the data.”

Malcolm Roberts:

So that’s the way they try to control, and they try and suppress discerning voices by calling us climate deniers. Not evidence, climate deniers. What you see then is a very subtle coercion throughout our society that suppresses dissent, suppresses disagreement with the government. We also see the indoctrination of our school children starting from a very early age, starting from five years of age, talking to them about changing their gender. The whole agenda of the United Nations, and make no mistake, they’re the policies that are being implemented in our country often bypassing parliament, going through the bureaucracy, their policies are based upon destroying the two fundamental structures of human society. One is the nation state. That is the best form of structuring in human society on a global basis. Independent sovereign states that are not necessarily united, but they’re united within their borders.

Malcolm Roberts:

But then the second form of basic human organisation is the family structure. It is the most important of all. And they’re deliberately destroying the family structure by destroying the family itself. They’re saying to people, “Same sex marriage.” They’re saying to people, “You can change your gender anytime.” They’re doing so many things to corrupt the minds of our kids. The kids then don’t have an anchor to go to. They destroy the family so that they don’t have the family to go to for support. When people don’t have a family structure, they turn automatically to the government. That makes them dependent on the government.

Malcolm Roberts:

What they’re also doing is telling us that humans are evil, humans are greedy, humans are irresponsible, humans are uncaring. That is completely wrong. It is completely against the truth. We know that we’ve had humans throughout history who have tried to control us. We’ve had humans who have been bullies and brutal, but we know the vast majority of humans are wonderful, caring people. We’re the only species on this planet who when we realise we are destroying an area will actually stop ourselves and change it and protect that area and care for that area. We’re the only species that has got a neocortex and a caring nature from our heart that enables us to be both intelligent and used data and used logic, and at same time apply that in a very caring way. The only species.

Malcolm Roberts:

We are the most advanced species on this planet, and we should be respecting ourselves while at the same time recognising that the human condition causes some people, many of whom are in the United Nations and many of whom are in parliament, to want to control others. That’s a fundamental weakness in the human being, that some people want to control.

Hrvoje Moric:

I would just add on the ad hominem attacks. I don’t think it’s working anymore, these labels of conspiracy theorists, climate denier, and anti-vaxxers today. It’s not working. A lot of people don’t buy it anymore. I’ve been called the same as well. I’ve been mentioned and had pieces in the press. Funny you mentioned that, because just this morning, I received a message from a journalist from a national newspaper to ask permission to use one of my podcast interview stills of an interview I did with a past guest. They’re preparing a hit piece on this person, and I notified them, but that’s because we’re becoming a threat. We’re telling the truth. We’re honestly looking to uncover what the truth is. And so just like yourself, I don’t care what I’m called anymore. Finally, I guess, my last question for you-

Malcolm Roberts:

Can I just interrupt there, please, Hrvoje. Always beneath control there is fear. If someone is wanting to control you, control me, lie about me, smear me, ridicule me, it tells me they’re trying to control people’s opinions of me. They’re afraid of me. Why are they afraid of me? I’m only about 165 centimetres, probably shrinking, I’m tiny, I only weigh… What is it? 65 kilogrammes. 65. Yeah. So there’s not much of me. Why are they trying to do this to me? Why are they trying to do it to you? Because they want to control us. They fear us. They fear the people. They fear the people. They impose censorship, which in another form of control. They impose restrictions, which is another form of control. Because they’re afraid of the people waking up. Again, liberty begins with you, and what they try to do is to suppress, and wherever there is suppression, that is a form of control. It is no less effective than me holding a gun to your head. But, we need to stand up and make people aware of this. So that’s why I want to thank you for what you’re doing, because you’re helping people to wake up.

Hrvoje Moric:

Yeah. I’ve had a gun held to my head, and that wasn’t fun. Is there any other issue you want to mention that’s front and centre on your mind these days, or any final thought to leave us with?

Malcolm Roberts:

I’ll just reinforce what I just said. I used to say the third biggest scam was the climate scam, to give a few control over others. It may be now the fourth biggest scam. The third biggest scam is the exaggerations and the derailment over COVID, and the control that that have been brought in. The second biggest scam is the banking scam, the Federal Reserve Bank, the printing of money, [inaudible 00:47:06] currency to control people. The biggest scam of all is the anti-human scam. The scam perpetrated by the club of Rome, the United Nations, World Wildlife Fund, Prince Philip, Prince Charles, Boris Johnson. Many of these people who use the term build back better, many of these people who want to reset the great reset, many of these people who want unelected socialist, global governance, they’re perpetrating the biggest scam of all, the anti-human scam.

Malcolm Roberts:

We are infecting, polluting, destroying the hearts and minds of future leaders because the governments led by these people are going into primary schools, secondary schools, universities filling them with basically bullshit, and anti-human bullshit, and saying that humans are uncaring, greedy, rapacious, irresponsible, worthless. We are not. I implore people to realise, when you step back and you look at the Hitlers and the Stalins and the Boris Johnsons and the Joe Bidens, and you look at the Scott Morrisons wanting to impose control, stand back and say, “We need to stand up to that.” But also stand back, look through that, and say, “The rest of us, many, many, many billions of us, are wonderful humans and just need the opportunity to be freed.

Malcolm Roberts:

I’ve got eight traits that I won’t go through now, but I’ve got eight traits that are essential for human progress; improving lifestyle, improving longevity of life, improving health, improving safety, improving material comfort, improving material welfare, improving standard of living. The most important is the first, freedom. And it goes back again to what’s over your left shoulder, liberty begins with you.

Hrvoje Moric:

All right, the website is malcolmrobertsqld.com.au. And people can find you on all of the big tech platforms for now. Is there any other website or project we should know about?

Malcolm Roberts:

No, no, that’s it. Yeah, that’s it.

Hrvoje Moric:

All right. Senator, keep up the good fight out there in Australia. We need more of you. Again, thank you for being on Geopolitics & Empire.

Malcolm Roberts:

Thank you very much, it’s been a pleasure. And Hrvoje, thank you for what you’re doing because the legacy media is censored and is controlling. This social media is actually antisocial media. The independent media, the truth media, which is what you are, you are the only salvation for spreading the word now. Thank you very much for what you do.

Hrvoje Moric:

I hope you enjoyed this Geopolitics & Empire podcast interview. The website is geopoliticsandempire.com. I encourage you to sign up for the free email list through which you can receive an update of every new podcast, as well as a long list of key news headlines once a week. We’re being heavily censored. YouTube has deleted some of our videos, and we currently have one strike. Patreon has terminated our account. Facebook has restricted our page, and Reddit has been the deleting posts. Our favourite social media channels are Telegram and Twitter. The best places to watch the podcast, beyond YouTube, are on Odyssey, BitChute, and Brighton. The best places to listen to the podcast are on SoundCloud, Apple, Spotify, Google, or on any other podcast app. To help keep this podcast alive, leave a review on Apple Podcasts and wherever else, subscribe to all our platforms, and leave a donation, if possible, via SubscribeStar, PayPal, Bitcoin, or Ethereum. You can also find us on MeWe, Minds, Gab, Float, VK, LinkedIn, and Instagram. Thanks for listening.

/by