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

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

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

Transcript

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Cody Beck:

Good to see you again, Malcolm.

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Cody Beck:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

But we can have plenty of gendered female services.

Cody Beck:

Yeah. Yep. That’s all fine.

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Cody Beck:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Cody Beck:

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

Cody Beck:

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

Cody Beck:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Cody Beck:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

Good on you.

Cody Beck:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Cody Beck:

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

Cody Beck:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Cody Beck:

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

Cody Beck:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Cody Beck:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Cody Beck:

All right. Thanks for having me. Cheers.

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Lisa Young:

Hi, Malcolm. Good to see you.

Rick Young:

Hi, Malcolm. Thanks for having us.

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Lisa Young:

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

Rick Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Lisa Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Lisa Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Lisa Young:

Oh, you can jump in here.

Malcolm Roberts:

Follow instructions now.

Rick Young:

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

Lisa Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

Absolutely ashamed.

Malcolm Roberts:

… brings tears-

Rick Young:

The stigma.

Malcolm Roberts:

… to my eyes. Yeah. The stigma.

Rick Young:

The stigma that goes with it.

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

And a lot of cash.

Rick Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

Yeah. Just muscle cars.

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

Yeah, absolutely.

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

Endangering others.

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

Yeah.

Lisa Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

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

Rick Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

Yep.

Rick Young:

So it’s-

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Lisa Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

That sounds like what women’s shelters do.

Lisa Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

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

Lisa Young:

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

Rick Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

Absolutely.

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Lisa Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Lisa Young:

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

Rick Young:

Short leash.

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

What?

Lisa Young:

Yeah, or it’d be used against them.

Rick Young:

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

Rick Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

My pleasure.

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Lisa Young:

We sure do.

Malcolm Roberts:

It’s wonderful.

Lisa Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

The stigma of PTSD?

Rick Young:

Being a veteran with PTSD.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah.

Lisa Young:

Yeah.

Rick Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

Two days ago was Long Tan day.

Rick Young:

Yeah, it was.

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

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

Rick Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

So most people would be saying, Stanley who?

Rick Young:

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

Lisa Young:

ScoMo wasn’t at his funeral.

Rick Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

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

Lisa Young:

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

Rick Young:

Might not go away.

Lisa Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Lisa Young:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covid-19 Injectables                                      Adverse Event Reports                                  Deaths

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

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

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

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

                                                Total                      3,270,859                                                             62,450  

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

                                                                                Adverse Event Reports                                  Deaths

                                                                                EU, US, AU, UK

                                                Total                      32,708,590                                                           624,500

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opinion

Legal Ramifications for Registered Health Practitioners

And AHPRA Public Officers

Re

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

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

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

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

In short, the Legal Opinion establishes the following:

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

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

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

Full Opinion view/download


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome Video and Introduction

Transcript

CONTEXT AND DATA

Brook Jackson

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

Dr Peter Parry

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

Dr Pierre Kory

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

Suzie Pollock

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

Dr Philip Altman

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

Mary-Jane Stevens

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

Alan Dana

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

PFIZER AND THE VACCINES

Christine Dolan

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

Warner Mendenhall

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

Dr James Rowe

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

Senator Gerard Rennick

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

Dr Robert Brennan

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

THE DOCTOR PATIENT RELATIONSHIP

Dr Chris Neil

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

Julian Gillespie

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

Dr Duncan Syme

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

Dr Gary Fettke

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

Peter Fam

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

Julian Gillespie

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

Dr Robert Brennan

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

CONDITIONING AND ETHICS

Dr Peter Parry

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

Professor Iain Benson

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

Carla Mardell

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

SUMMARY AND SOLUTIONS

Dr Gary Fettke

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

Dr Philip Altman

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

Senator Malcolm Roberts met with Julian’s father, Mr John Shipton, and his brother, Mr Gabriel Shipton in Parliament at the last sitting.

They met in Parliament at a meeting attended by Members of the House and Senators with their staff and members of Julian’s supportive campaign team.

Those attending were brought up to date with Julian’s situation. Julian Assange is an Australian citizen.  He is currently in Belmarsh Prison in England, a High Security Prison. He has not been convicted of any offence.

He is currently set to be deported to the United States to face espionage charges related to the release of documents through Wikileaks.

His legal team are appealing the most recent British decision to deport him.

His family have implored the Albanese government to intervene on his behalf and have the deportation decision rescinded. His family want to Bring Julian Assange home.

Senator Roberts supports bringing Julian Assange home.

The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) has recommended the Moderna jab for children aged 6 months to 5 years.[1] The vaccine only holds provisional approval. Provisional approval is given to drugs where research is still being conducted, research that might uncover adverse effects not initially apparent.[2]

The risk of death to 5 year olds from the more fatal, early variants of COVID was as low as 0.0024% or roughly 1 in 40,000.[3] This does not reflect the risk of Omicron, the dominant strain across the world right now, which is estimated to be 78% less fatal.[4] This would imply a risk of around 1 in 180,000 to 5 year olds from Omicron. On the other hand, the risk of vaccine caused myocarditis is around 1 in every 10,000 for 12-17 year old boys.[5]

There is simply not enough information on the long-term effects to decide on the risk benefit calculation like ATAGI claims to have. ATAGI has abandoned the precautionary principle in provisionally approving Moderna for use in toddlers and children when it has no longitudinal, years long research.


[1] https://www.health.gov.au/news/atagi-recommendations-on-covid-19-vaccine-use-in-children-aged-6-months-to

[2] https://www.tga.gov.au/covid-19-vaccine-information-consumers-and-health-professionals#:~:text=Sponsors%20may%20apply%20for%20full%20registration%20when%20there%20is%20more%20clinical%20data%20to%20confirm%20the%20safety%20of%20the%20vaccine

[3] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02867-1/fulltext#:~:text=0018%E2%80%930%C2%B70043)-,5%20years,-0%C2%B70024%25%20(0

[4] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971222002284#:~:text=We%20found%20that%20the%20high%20relative%20transmissibility%20of%20the%20Omicron%20variant%20was%20mainly%20due%20to%20its%20immune%20evasion%20ability%2C%20whereas%20its%20infection%20fatality%20rate%20substantially%20decreased%20by%20approximately%2078.7%25

[5] https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/vaccine-myocarditis-risk-reaches-1-in-10-000-for-a

Last night the major parties teamed up to vote down my amendment to the Royal Commission Response Bill which would have ensured at least one registered nurse is on duty at an aged care facility 24/7 by February instead of July.

The entire crossbench voted for my amendment including the Greens, the Jacquie Lambie network and David Pocock. Why the major parties would team up to vote down good legislation, caring for our aged should be a concern for Australians. My amendment is available here and the record of who voted for and against is available here.

The Hon. Murray Watt

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

MG 61

Australian Parliament House

Dear Minister

Minister I am writing to ask you to reconsider answers given during question time on Wednesday July 27th and ask you to consider how your answers were not misleading the Senate.

Last Wednesday July 27th in questions without notice, my first question was in respect of the Foot and Mouth Disease vaccine being held in the UK and read in part “If foot and mouth disease arrives in Australia the short-term response would be to start vaccination”.

Your reply included the statement “the reason you don’t vaccinate is that you are then deemed by the rest of the world as having foot and mouth disease”.

I did not say vaccinate livestock now, I said IF foot and mouth does arrive then start vaccinating.

As a result of your reply I have had to contend with suggestions on social media I was advocating for a measure that would destroy our export industry. I said no such thing.

  1. Please correct the record.

Minister my first supplemental question went to the adequacy of the vaccine stockpile. Your reply included the statement “what we are actually prioritising in relation to the supply of vaccines at the moment is providing them to Indonesia, to keep the disease out and that is why we want to support the vaccine rollout in Indonesia.”

I of course support assisting Indonesia with their Foot and Mouth disease response. However I might make the observation this response presupposes we now know the strain in Indonesia and can access a vaccine that is suitable.

  1. If we know the Bali strain then why are we not placing the same vaccine we are giving Indonesia here in Australia in case one of the travellers returning from Bali has brought FMD with them?

If we ultimately do not need those vaccines I am sure Indonesia will be appreciative of receiving our stockpile to assist with their outbreak. One Nation are happy to be good neighbours.

Minister your reply to my second supplemental, which asked why the FMD vaccines could not be stored in Australia ready for an outbreak, included the statement “we don’t necessarily know what strain of the disease we would have in Australia and (paraphrasing), we need to know the strain before we order the vaccine”.

  1. If as you said, we do need to know the strain before making the vaccine what are the million doses we already have in the UK?

I acknowledge the call from your office on Thursday advising we would receive an answer to the question you took on notice regarding how many vaccines we have in the UK – to which you gave an indicative answer of one million.

  1. This response has not been received yet and I would ask that it contains details of strains for which we have completed vaccines stored in the UK together with respective quantities.

On page 18 of the FMD AUSVETPLAN Edition 3 it states that vaccination is recommended to start within 48 hours of the first detected case, and this may include protective vaccination of livestock in the area surrounding the infection;

  1. Minister why did you suggest the vaccines could be here from the UK in 7 days and this was sufficient, when your own manual indicates vaccination would be an appropriate option after just 48 hours?
  2. Australia is currently holding tens of millions of vaccines for COVID in complete safety. If we are unable to hold FMD vaccines in a similar manner please provide an explanation as to why.

Minister, I make the observation that it is proving easier to get a human vaccinated in this country than a cow.

I thank you for your attention to this matter and would request a response by COB Monday 1st August 2022.

Yours Sincerely

Malcolm Roberts

Senator for Queensland

Great to chat to Turning Point Australia about the return to Parliament, with the Government already up to dirty tricks.

🏛 Parliament Resumes: LABOR already playing games

  • LABOR defund staff to Freedom Senators
  • Building Union Shenanigans
  • Climate policy on the horizon

An interview with Andrew McColl from Family Voice and Robbie Katter, Queensland State MP. Gender dysphoria is affecting our teenage girls in huge numbers. Adolescence is a tough time, and some teens experience distress with their biological identity and then claim they are transgender. This has become a quick path to puberty blockers, hormone injections and surgical interventions.

This is not the miracle solution for this distress. State legislation has been introduced that alienates parents from supporting their children, and medical profession have been intimidated into abandoning our kids and sending them on this destructive medical pathway. There is hope as the tide is turning in many of the gender clinics around the world, with hormonal and surgical interventions no longer automatically available to children presenting with gender dysphoria.

A shout out for some common sense prevailing on this issue of gender neutral language. Bill Shorten has reversed the use of the dehumanising term “birthing parent” and will re-replace it with “mother”. Interestingly the term “father” is still used and there is no talk of it being changed to “sperm donor”.

Transcript

Andrew:

Welcome to the Family Voice zoom session this morning. My name is Andrew McColl. I’m the Queensland Director of Family Voice Australia. Our subject today is the transgender controversy and I’m joined today by the Queensland Senator, Malcolm Roberts and I hope at any minute to have Robbie Katter, the Queensland State MP from North Queensland, joining us as well. That will be good. Good morning, Malcolm.

Malcolm:

Good morning, Andrew. How are you?

Andrew:

I’m well, thank you. In the absence of Robbie being with us, I’ll direct some questions straight to you.

Malcolm:

Sure.

Andrew:

That will be good. We’re talking about the transgender controversy. I happened to note Malcolm that you’d interviewed Dr Andrew Orr recently who made reference to the term, gender dysphoria. Is this how this whole matter began?

Malcolm:

I don’t know if it began there, but I think it really owes its roots to some people who are pushing this hard to disrupt our kids. Gender dysphoria is real. It’s a sense of discomfort or distress or incongruence with their own biology. I make the point that sex is not assigned at birth. It’s assigned at conception and historically children are feeling very confused over gender and that was primarily in young boys around three to five years of age. We’ve all seen boys and girls playing as the opposite sex, but in the last 10 years, there’s been a… Before getting onto the last 10 years, I think it’s also important to recognise that the brain in adolescence, both boys and girls go through enormous changes, huge changes, radical rewiring of the brain and this is a very important time for the development of the human brain.

Malcolm:

It’s also a time when hormones are flushing throughout the whole body and so it’s a very complicated time for many people and adolescence is not easy for most people. It’s a time of stress. What we’ve seen in the last 10 years, Andrew, is an exponential growth explosion in teenage girls experiencing gender dysphoria, discomfort with their own bodies, their own gender. Most of them with no history of gender dysphoria at all. Adolescence is challenging, but this is not a problem to be fixed. Instead, we’ve got people jumping on the bandwagon to create a problem, so what we’ve seen now is hormonal and surgical interventions are not a miracle solution to the challenge of adolescents. They in fact make things worse and then if they go wrong, they’ll make things worse for that person’s life for the rest of their lives.

Malcolm:

You’ve got to recognise the normal discomfort, unease, stressors of adolescents and separate that out because it is a real issue, but most people at the end of adolescence, are happy with who they are. They realise, okay, I’m a boy, and I’m enjoying being a boy. If I’m a girl, I’m enjoying being a girl. That’s what we’ve got to be very careful of and gender dysphoria has been jumped on by a few people to take advantage of it.

Andrew:

Thank you. Good morning, Robbie. How are you getting on today?

Robbie:

Yeah. Good morning. Sorry I was running late.

Andrew:

That’s all right. Thanks for joining with us and we’re getting into this matter of the transgender as you would’ve figured out by now. You spoke fairly recently, Robbie, in the Queensland Parliament, and I congratulate you for your speech regarding the fact that you have daughters who will be teenagers soon. Why was that important in the context of the transgender controversy?

Robbie:

I think the challenge for us as politicians interested in this subject is inserting it into the consciousness of a switched off public who are mostly buying the idea that people’s choice is people’s choice. What impact is this going to have and even when they start entertaining the thought of transgender, they think that’s a tricky debate. “I’m going to have to get my head across this and that’s going to probably put me in arguments amongst my friends.” That to me is the real enemy for people on our side of the argument. That’s the challenge, I think. We want to find areas where we can break that debate back down to something that’s meaningful and we’ll cut straight through to them.

Robbie:

That was what was put to me was, I think parents will care about the welfare of their kids and I think that sport is a really good manifestation of that conflict. Whilst I think the issue is a lot bigger than just women’s sport, my girls could be playing sport against these people and I’m worried about their health being made to compete against them. I wouldn’t be real happy if my girls were playing rugby league, but speaking hypothetically, if they do they’ll be up against some big bloody Pacific Islander girl that could belt the bejesus out of them. I thought that was good imagery to put [inaudible 00:05:30]

Andrew:

Yeah. Malcolm, just getting back to Dr Orr again, he mentioned that as children moved through puberty, as you were indicating somewhat earlier, many were incongruent or confused about their gender, but that will probably desist. Does that make sense to you?

Malcolm:

Yes, it does. It certainly does. I think everyone on the planet knows that children going through adolescence are under stress just because there are so many hormonal changes, so many new things in our brains going on. There is stress, but there are also children who suffer from physiologic, psychological comorbidities, including anxiety, ASD, ADHD, depression, trauma, eating disorders, and many more. What we need to do is to get to the core of those issues. I don’t dismiss this as an issue. I’m not saying it’s a non-event. It is an issue for some people. For the majority of children, they will just grow through it and we just have to be with them and love them, but for some, there is a serious issue there, but it’s not to do with their gender.

Malcolm:

It’s other underlying comorbidities, so we need to understand the diagnoses and appropriate therapeutic support and what we really need is family based therapeutic care. Much like Robbie’s doing. He’s caring for his daughters. That’s what’s driving him, but what we see are some blockages to parents getting involved and I noticed that you’ve got a question for Robbie coming up along those lines. We’ve got to be very careful because… I’ll maybe comment more after Robbie’s answered that question, but basically with parents being shoved to the side, unlike Robbie, for fear of being criticised, parents are letting go their kids and that’s not right. Kids need their parents at this critical time in their life, even if it’s just adolescence they’re facing. If they’re facing other issues, they need even more support from their parents so we cannot afford to abandon our kids at this time, just like Robbie’s not abandoning his daughters, all parents should not abandon their children. They should stay with them and care for them.

Andrew:

Yeah. Robbie, just thinking in terms of this term that people use. Some people say that it’s very important that we affirm the choices that children make. If the parents feel that their choices that their children are making are plainly ridiculous, doesn’t that mean that it’s time to say something to the child.

Robbie:

Yeah. I’ll shoot straight from the hip on that. I believe true compassion comes in trying to guide people in what you think, based on your experiences. I think it’s such a common practise in life that we rely on the past experience of others to give us some help on what’s the best outcomes for us on whether it’s on diet, staying away from McDonald’s food or whether it’s mental guidance or spiritual guidance and why would you allow parents to be giving kids advice on what’s good to put into their stomach and help them in nutrition, but you can’t help them in what’s going to guide them in the best way for the outcomes later in life.

Robbie:

If the kids are running around acting like a fool and playing up and punching kids, you pull them into line, or if they’re starting to trying to indulge in multiple personalities or something, you might try to stop it, but you at least try and put some guidance around that to help for the best outcome. If the kid is indecisive about something, I think it’s negligent as a parent to hands off approach and let the kid work it out without saying, “Crikey, that could lead them down this path and let’s just try and put them down here, because it’ll be the best outcome for them as best we can tell.” I think that’s part and parcel of true compassion and nurturing and granted, not everyone always gets it right.

Robbie:

How could you deny doing that? Me? I can’t see how you separate that because it seems to me that in this transgender debate, I think what we’re talking about is if the kid says, “I’m starting to feel like a girl,” I would say as a parent, “Crikey, maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t, but let’s not just entertain that too much yet,” and see if this is just a bit of a passing phase or it’s a popular thing at school and get him through it. Of course, you should be allowed to do that and I think that’s one of the big problems now is there’s no capital in that and it’s just let the kid make all the decisions for themselves. We don’t do it with their diet or any other parts of life, but why would you allow them to do it on this?

Malcolm:

If I could jump in there.

Andrew:

Yeah, sure.

Malcolm:

Thank you. I agree with Robbie. It is a time when children need compassion from their parents. They also need genuine care, which I think Robbie ties care in with compassion. They also need understanding and you can’t have compassion without understanding. These are the things that are important, especially when children are going through adolescence and they’ll come out of it believing that they belong in the body in which they were conceived. There will be others who are suffering genuine distress and they need to have support and counselling. As a parent myself, but knowing other parents, we want parents to be with their children and to support them through it, not just say, “Yes, little Johnny, you’re correct,” or “Yes, little Mary, you’re correct.”

Malcolm:

That’s rubbish. That’s abandonment. I would line up there with Robbie, very strongly. Robbie, in my experience is a very practical down to earth person. This is a very difficult topic for all of us, but I agree with Robbie, it is the parents’ responsibility to be the guardian of that child, from all kinds of things that are going to come into that child’s life up until about the age of 18 or 21. It’s our responsibility as parents to protect, to support, to have compassion and care as Robbie said, but we are responsible for that young person and we are responsible for how they mature. I agree with Robbie. We don’t just stand by and affirm. We actually support, but we stand ground and look after our responsibility.

Andrew:

Yeah. This is the issue that this whole thing hangs upon because there’s this group in society who get some power over children who think that we must affirm children come what may, whether we agree with what they’re thinking or not. It seems to me, we’ve got to ask ourselves a question in the whole transgender debate. Do we feel obligated to affirm a child’s decisions or their views or their feelings, even if that affirmation flies in the face of biology. That to me is where it’s going to get interesting, isn’t it, Malcolm?

Malcolm:

That’s exactly the point that we don’t automatically affirm what a child comes up with. A child is a child is a child. They don’t have the life experience. They don’t have the intellectual capacity at times, especially when they’re confused, going through adolescence when their brains are literally being rewired. This is a time of enormous confusion. Sure. We listen to them, we respect them, be with them, support them, have compassion for them, care for them, but we don’t just simply agree. That’s abandonment, that’s abdication. That’s not affirmation, that’s abdication. Andrew, I noticed you’ve got a question coming up later about international organisations. A lot of this is driven by international organisations that are trying deliberately to smash the family, because when you smash family, people turn to the government and that’s what they want. They want to use control. They are happy to smash up the family and this is one of their many ways of trying to smash the family, but they’re crippling children and some of these children who have interventions, hormonal or…

Andrew:

Surgical.

Malcolm:

…surgical, thank you. They are crippled for life and then when they realise later on they’ve made a mistake as has been happening, then there are very serious mental health problems and leading to suicide. We have got to protect these children. Affirmation is rubbish in this sense.

Andrew:

Robbie, would we say that in this whole controversy, what’s really needed is good old fashioned common sense.

Robbie:

Yeah. I’ve had the belief that common sense is there latent. It exists in the majority of people there, but I think a growing number of people and still probably not the majority, but a growing number of people are unwilling to voice that intuition where they know it’s common sense, but they won’t say it because they don’t want to be unpopular in their peer group. That’s a growing number and the challenge is to find those, like the women’s sport issues, find those and put it right back in people’s face so there’s a very clear delineation of the pathway. We can head down the two pathways. We can head down in society with these things and what the sort of outcomes they can expect because it’s that slow, incremental creep of all these things that is the biggest enemy, I think.

Robbie:

That’s where it’s successful. This transgender stuff is just where it slowly incrementally comes in. That’s the biggest challenge is to keep bringing it to a head where it’s… I think as a politician, from my point of view, it’s not being too confrontational in general because a lot of people just don’t give it a second thought. It’s trying to invite them into the conversation rather trying to force it down their throat, which I think requires a fair bit of finesse and often more than I’m capable of. It’s pulling what I think is a really big issue and making it seem, in a way, not as big because people don’t want to take on a big issue, but they need to recognise just in common sense terms, what it means and the implications on their life and their future and draw that into their consciousness and apply it to their everyday life and make it relevant to them.

Andrew:

Yeah. I’ve heard the statement made by some of the latest people in this and this is not so much in Australia, but certainly overseas that says, “The child has this sex, but their gender is something different, and just because a baby is born with a penis, doesn’t make him a boy.” I look at it and think, I can’t believe people are going to say something as stupid as that, because this is a radical rethinking of how we do just about anything in our society where a child is born with the body of one sex, but it is alleged that it’s actually something different. This is why I’m simply saying we just need some common sense here. The child is either a boy or a girl. They can’t be swapping over every Thursday afternoon to the other one, because I just feel like it today.

Andrew:

It seems as if, whether it’s peer group, whether it’s social media, whether it’s just a trend or a fad, but when people go down these roads and as Malcolm was alluding earlier, and we go and do hormonal treatment or surgery that actually removes the organs, part of the difficulty is that what we don’t always understand is that males and females are diametrically different. They have to be so that we can reproduce. Obviously I’m a male, but there are components with my wife that I share lots of things. We have a human body. We have a heart and kidneys and legs and feet and brains, but compared to my wife, I’m diametrically different. That’s not something that we should be ashamed of or think that’s something wrong. That’s not wrong. That’s actually right, otherwise we can’t have children.

Andrew:

It seems as if we’ve lost track of a few things here and Malcolm, you were alluding earlier, or you made comments about these international organisations that have got some kind of agenda that they’re pushing. That’s not something that lots of people really are aware of. Maybe you could tell us some more about that.

Malcolm:

I will. Can I just jump in and make some comments on the topic you just finished discussing first?

Andrew:

Yeah, sure.

Malcolm:

Okay. Warren Entsch, the member for Leichhardt in Northern Queensland, I don’t agree with much of what he says, but he got my respect when he talked about a friend that he grew up with who was a boy and later on changed his gender. He became a woman. What I’m saying with that is, there is a very, very small minority. It’s tiny, tiny, tiny. It’s a minuscule minority of people who have that. When we look at the human being, Andrew, we pop out about this big from our mother. We’re completely helpless. Male and female. We’ve got enormous differences at birth, between male and female.

Malcolm:

Then we go through planes of development every three years, six years, three years, six years, those planes of development and physical as well as mental, emotional, spiritual maturation and then we get to about 90 and we maybe have some adequacy when it comes to maturity. Along that way, there are so many chemical things that happen with a person’s development and some people are born with lesser skills physically. Some people are born with lesser skills mentally. What I’m saying is it’s a very complex transition to go from a process to go from birth to the age of 90 or a hundred. Along that time, many influences. We’re expecting the human being to be perfect and the human being is perfect, but it’s not perfect in the sense that everything physically is fine. Everything chemically is the same. Hormonally is the same. Mentally is the same. Emotionally is the same.

Malcolm:

There are some people who actually genuinely need to change their sex. I get that, so I’m not putting them down. There are other people who are confused through adolescence. There are other people who are confused through adolescence and need support because they’ve got other things going on in their development. The majority of people go through that within a wide range and they’re fine. I agree with you that while we have compassion for the people who are genuinely confused about what their gender is, and while we have compassion for those people who go through adolescence with that confusion and emerge from that, which is the majority of people are fine, we do have to celebrate the fact that men and women are different.

Malcolm:

What the feminist movement has done at times is tried to say we’re equal and that is complete rubbish. What we do, instead of saying, “We need to have women in positions, because it’s only fair, it’s only equal.” No, we need to say, “We need women in positions because they’re different, because they bring a different perspective, a different view.” Then we’re all richer for it. You are not as rich as you and your wife together. Same with my wife and me together. We are far richer in terms of our outlook, our abilities, our perspectives, because we are different. We need to celebrate that difference. We do need to recognise the diversity of humans though, along that sphere. What you’ll find amongst these people in international organisations, to an answer your questions, Andrew, is that they’re not interested in human beings.

Malcolm:

They’re not interested in individuals. What they want is machines that do what they’re told and they’re wanting to corporatize us, they’re wanting to indoctrinate us, they’re wanting to control us, suppress us because we are just cannon fodder to them. These international organisations want to remove individual thinking. They want to remove individual responsibility. They want to remove individual initiative. They want us to be dumbed down and all be the same and just conform and that’s not the way the human is meant to be. God didn’t mean us to be like that. He made us so that we are diverse and compliment each other and we belong with each other.

Malcolm:

These international organisations want to strip us down of our individuality and make us robots, but at the same time, Andrew, what they do is they make us conform and then they put pressure on us to conform and they split us. You either conform or you’re one of the nonconformists and if you’re a nonconformist, then they get stuck into you because they want us all to conform or they put so much peer pressure on parents. They say to parents, “You must affirm your child, otherwise you’re not caring for your child.” Complete rubbish. They want us to abandon our responsibilities and that’s the biggest threat that I see of all of these people. They want us to abandon our responsibilities.

Andrew:

Yeah. Robbie, we know that what’s happened in Victoria, they’ll use this term, the anti conversion therapy whereby there is now power in government to prosecute people who fall foul of government. That is they’re trying to not go along with these attempts to somehow convert a child from one sex to another. Do you think this is contributing to our problems today?

Robbie:

Yeah. It’s not the first time I’ve heard that and it’s a really scary thought. It’s one of those signposts on the road that control from government that you don’t want to see. That to me is a sign post saying you’re going to fall off a cliff shortly. I’d even wind it back to saying that the mental trauma that puts back on parents and the pressure it puts back on parents, it’s hard enough holding a family together under normal circumstances. Now you’ve got a bit of a troubled kid and you are trying to do your bit as a parent to pull them back in line or give them advice that you think will help them through life and here’s yet another signal, even if it doesn’t affect all parents, it’s a signal to them to say you don’t really have control. We’re assuming the rights of some of this critical decision making for your kids. What an absolutely scary thought. If that’s not a red flag for politicians or people to stand up against, I don’t know what is.

Andrew:

Yeah. It does seem to be a totalitarian move, doesn’t it, where the task of raising a child is actually being taken away from the parent and taken over by some third party. You were going to say something there, Malcolm.

Malcolm:

Yes. I just wanted to compliment Robbie because I’d never realised that and this complex situation can be boiled down to really simple, basic things. Robbie just pointed out that these people who are pushing this anti conversion legislation, they’re actually putting a lot of stress on parents and that’s hurting the children again. At a time when the parents are vulnerable, the child is vulnerable, they’re trying to increase the stress on parents by saying to parents, “You shouldn’t get involved or you should affirm.” Everything in the parents’ heart, in their gut is saying, “No, I’ve got to get involved,” and that’s completely wrong.

Andrew:

Absolutely.

Malcolm:

A lot of these international organisations, I’ll name them, United Nations, the World Economic Forum, Green Peace now. Sadly, it started off very, very well in the hands of Patrick Moore, but it was completely hijacked by Maurice Strong for the UN. WWF. These are hideous anti-human organisations, and they’re deliberately putting pressure on people and trying to use peer pressure to try and get parents to shut down. Imagine a parent who wants to get involved, wants to have the compassion and care and doesn’t do so because of peer pressure from these people. At the end, their daughter has bits of her body chopped off as hormonal treatment. What would that parent feel then? What would society pick? The price society pays picking up the pieces from this mess. This is deliberate anti-human practises and it needs to be confronted and I agree with Robbie. These people are putting enormous pressure on parents at a time when they can least handle it. It’s disgusting. It’s inhuman.

Andrew:

Yeah. Robbie, when you…Go on, Robbie.

Robbie:

Sorry. It just triggered another thought. There’s also a heavy dose of contradiction, I think, in the philosophical approach of, let’s say in this case the Victorian Government, the proponents of all this transgender stuff. If you looked at the abortion debate in Queensland, they expanded it to 22 weeks which was a period that you could then start detecting defects in the child. If you could make a presumption then, as Malcolm said before, that kid’s imperfect and I have a niece who has a condition and she’s perfect to me. She’s perfect to her parents, but those people would find that acceptable that you terminated the pregnancy because you see there are imperfections here, but I think there’s a fairly heavy dose of contradiction here where it’s like, no, these imperfections are good. You’ve got to nurture that and celebrate it and quickly, we’ve got a child that’s different here so let’s give them the opportunity to change their sex because we’re celebrating the fact that they’re imperfect. I just think there’s a bit of contradiction in the approaches there of the other side.

Andrew:

Yeah. Yeah. Malcolm. What we find evident here is that doctors used to sign up to the Hippocratic Oath and one part of that says to do the patient no harm. Being fairly blunt with my listeners today, if a 13 year old girl is perfectly healthy and well and decides she wants her breasts removed by a surgeon, is that surgeon ever justified in doing such a thing and isn’t that an uncaring and an unloving and a foolish and utterly unprofessional thing to do?

Malcolm:

Yes, it is. Doctors are no different from parents. Many doctors are parents. Politicians are no different from everyday people in Australia. Many of us want to belong, so we belong to a family, we belong to a sports club, we belong to a workplace, we belong to a political party, we belong to social clubs. Belonging is extremely important and it’s part of our makeup because those who didn’t belong among our ancestors let the tribe down and were booted because you just didn’t have anything. Humans are very vulnerable individually because we are very weak as compared to some of the more aggressive animals on the planet. We have a superior intellect, we have a superior caring system and we have a superior social system and so very important to belong. What I’m saying is that doctors are no different from politicians, no different from the people at large, that there’s so much pressure to belong.

Malcolm:

Doctors will go against their better judgement and just do that operation, but also some doctors just don’t care. We’re entrusting our children to professionals who don’t care enough to make a stand on behalf of the children with gender dysphoria. A child is troubled, gender dysphoria. The child needs a therapeutic approach, psychological therapy, psychotherapy approach, not a knife, not some hormones and adults are too scared to safeguard the children from harm and that’s cowardly behaviour, but there’s so much pressure on parents as Robbie just mentioned. A much more cautious approach would be watchful waiting, getting therapeutic advice and assistance. What we need is doctors who are using the scalpel or the hormones to back off and to really look at what the child needs, because paramount in this is what the child needs and children and adolescents, especially those who are under stress and other mental health issues, that’s not the time to let them loose. That’s the time to give them compassion and care, as Robbie mentioned.

Malcolm:

The Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne, their gender clinic, in 2012, they had 18 new referrals. In 2021, eight hundred and twenty one new referrals. That’s largely because of peer pressure amongst girls. In 2021, they had 1120 patients. In 2020, the year before, they had 538 so there literally is an explosion of gender dysphoria, or people presenting with that. What we need is the doctors to be educated and the doctors to really be strong and honest and as Robbie said, compassionate. To look after these children with the right therapy, rather than a scalpel and a hormone, because there’s growing evidence of regret amongst people later on. There’s a 2021 transitioner study by, let me just check the name here, Dr Lisa Littman and showed only 24 percent of her 100 sample reported their regret back to the clinic. In other words, there’s an explosion of people later who regret what’s happened and we’re not considering them.

Andrew:

That’s a serious matter and I happened to come across a Jordan Peterson YouTube just last month called, “Arrest them,” and Peterson says, and I quote, “We are sacrificing our children on the alter of far left wing ideologies. This is worthy of a prison sentence. The Hippocratic oath has been replaced with a delusion.” That’s a very serious statement to make, but it does seem as though there has been some kind of an attempt to hijack, even the term, what is therapeutic? Is it therapeutic for a 13 year old girl to have her breasts cut off? How can that be? If we are talking about a woman with breast cancer, I can understand of course, but we don’t go to a healthy well child with a knife simply because the child thinks it might be a good idea today. It’s utterly unprofessional. Robbie, you made your speech quite recently in the Queensland Parliament and there were one or two labour MPs who criticised your speech that day. Do you regret any part of that?

Robbie:

Yeah. I regret not bringing up something because my colleague, Nick Dametto put a question in parliament earlier that morning about why the inquiry on domestic violence hadn’t consulted any of the men’s groups in Queensland and the Attorney-General’s response in question time that same morning was that unfortunately with domestic violence, we have to apply gender lens and was very explicit on that point. That afternoon, we were debating that you can’t refer to gender, that it didn’t exist and I forgot to cover that point. I was disappointed I didn’t. I don’t think anything the opposition said upset me because there was just no substance to it. As usual, every counter argument seems to be emotive.

Robbie:

They use the word hate speech. This is hate, this creates conflict and it’s hate speech and it’s disgusting that we’re even, and they always say, why are we even talking about this, and which is what I was referring to my initial comment is that they try and pretend it’s not relevant and it’s nothing. The challenge is to say it is, it does have implications and beyond that, they’re supposed to put up six speakers for the debate. I think they put up two speakers and the Greens contributions were just ridiculous. Again, all emotive, no substance. I actually think I did a bloody terrible job with my contribution, because I kept looking at the facts that I had to put forward and part of the speech was dedicated to going through the Olympic records in different events between men and women to provide evidence or demonstrate that there’s a built in advantage to the males versus the females.

Robbie:

I started looking at my notes and thought, I can’t even say that. It’s so self-evident, it’s ridiculous that I even have to go through it, but I kept catching myself on all the material parts of the argument. You think, this is all self-evident. I don’t even think that’s being agnostic on the issue of transgender. It’s just going through facts. The entire other side of the argument was almost completely absent of any facts at all. I think the only half reason was Sterling Hinchliffe, Member for Sandgate mentioned something about women’s sport that you thought, okay, that’s sort of a point to make, but the rest of it was purely emotive.

Malcolm:

That’s the same in the Federal Parliament, Robbie. It’s exactly the same. What happens is they can’t resort to a logical argument. They can’t resort to data, so what they resort to is name calling and smearing. When they use that on us, we just turn around and say, “Thank you for confirming my point, because if you had any data, you would’ve presented it. Instead, you’re calling me names, so that just vindicates the fact that you haven’t got any data.”

Robbie:

Yep. Andrew, if I can put some context on what Malcolm just said, put some further context around that. Bearing in mind, the same as State Parliament, the labour government has 220 parliamentary staff operating for them because the LNP gets exactly 10 percent of that, so we know they’ve got 22 staff, so you must assume labor’s got at least 220 staff or more assisting them with their parliamentary debates. We’ve got one staff, three total for KP and so it’ll be similar numbers for Malcolm in Federal Parliament. You think about this, there’s only Malcolm there and maybe one other with you in the Senate trying to back you up on these debates and same with us in Parliament. We only had Steve Andrews from One Nation backing us up so there’s only four of us versus the other 90.

Robbie:

They’ve got all that wealth of resources and all those people working for them. They’ve got an opportunity to make an absolute fool out of us and smash us with data and evidence. That’s their opportunity to put us to the sword and all they could come up with is a few lazy emotive arguments. What does that tell you? There is nothing there. Time and time again, they come up with nothing.

Malcolm:

They just call you names and I just laugh at that because it means they have lost the debate, but Andrew, the significance, not only for children in this issue, it mirrors the significance for parents, the significance for families, the significance for the energy debate, cost of living, climate change, family law, all of these things are being driven by the same people and they have been driven by the same people since the UN was formed in 1944. They are all on an anti-family agenda, an anti-human agenda and an anti-national agenda. They want to smash the national borders. They want to create just a one world global governance, and you don’t have to take my word for that. It’s in their own statements. What they have to do is smash two things, smash national sovereignty, and that’s what they’re trying to do through smashing the borders and putting in place a one world global governance.

Malcolm:

If you look at the things I’ve talked about, COVID, climate change, energy policy, these are echoed around the world. The second thing that they’re trying to do is to smash the family because when you smash the family, people turn to government and they become dependent on government. At the moment, these people who are pushing these agendas, global agendas are pretending they’re doing things to help people, but they’re just making people dependent. What they’re also doing is they’re creating victims and when you have a victim, you have someone who loses responsibility for themselves. That’s exactly what these people want. They want us to be family-less. They want us to be victims. They want us to lack responsibility. That means we lack personal accountability, lack personal authority.

Malcolm:

Victor Frankel said in his book, Man’s Search For Meaning, “You can strip everything from a man in a concentration camp in Holocaust, Germany, except for one thing, the ability to choose his attitude.” That’s what these people are trying to do to intimidate humans and smash us everywhere. They want to smash religion. They want to smash families. They want some smash nation’s states. It’s just hideous what they’re doing. They’re inhuman and they’re anti-human.

Andrew:

Thank you, Malcolm. Thank you, Robbie. Perhaps I could ask Robbie to begin with a concluding statement and Malcolm, you can follow him if you would.

Peter:

Robbie’s muted.

Andrew:

Okay. Perhaps, Malcolm, you’d like to step up to that?

Malcolm:

I’m very, very pro-human and what these people are doing is anti-human. I’m pro-human because humans have a very strong sense of care. Humans have a very strong sense of belonging to the human race. There is only one race and that’s the human race. We have a very, very powerful intellect that’s capable of creative thought and capable of independent thought. These are the reasons why I’m very pro-human. What we have to do is to be very careful about following these agendas. We have to pick them apart and recognise the tactics they use both propaganda and also social tactics, social engineering, to try and divide us and to separate us and make us powerless. Every human being, male and female has enormous power within themselves so long as we hang onto that and that’s what I’m asking people to do.

Malcolm:

The other thing I’m asking people to do is to truly forgive in the sense that Christ and Buddha and many sages throughout history have taught us. True forgiveness, the absence of value judgement . Don’t hate these people, actually truly forgive them because when we forgive, we clear our heart, we clear our mind. That’s a better way for us to think and to respond using our intuition and our common sense, as Robbie said a little while ago. That common sense we’re blessed with, just use it and help our kids and above all love our children, because that’s what they need to get through these challenging times that we all face in adolescence.

Andrew:

That’s true, Malcolm. Thank you. Robbie, do you have any conclusion to make for us this morning?

Robbie:

Yeah, I guess the conclusion from this discussion for me, and it’s probably solidified a bit more in my head as well, and it sort of taps into that sentiment that Malcolm just expressed is that I have strong views on this. I have personal strong views on where I think the morality sits on the list, but even to dial back from that to try and communicate with others and make them aware of where this road can lead us. It’s important to find those touch points and invite people into this space, not trying to jam it into them, because I think there’s a fair bit of resistance. I think there’s a huge enemy. People are disengaging from critical thinking on anything and questioning and challenging, so I think the pathway forward from my perspective is trying to hit those people on the margins that I think they’re intuitive.

Robbie:

They have buy in on this issue in their heart, but they’re not willing to so openly engage and trying to just bring them in softly but it’s also being relentless in doing that as well. You can’t be too passive to the point of being ineffectual. I think the consequences couldn’t be more important to our future as a society but the challenge right now is to make it relevant to people and bring it into their consciousness. I think that’s where the real challenge exists right now.

Andrew:

Sure. Thank you, Malcolm and thank you, Robbie. Did you want to say something else?

Malcolm:

Yes, if I could just add something. If you look at what happened. Rugby union was against transgender males playing sport against female rugby union players. Back in 2020, they ruled that out. It wasn’t taken up. FINA, the world’s swimming body did it just recently as you know, and that larger body did it very professionally. They had three separate experts. They had psychological, health and also athletes and they went right through it and they came away with a somewhat sensible policy and have you’ve seen what’s happened since? Many other organisations have followed them. Once you stand up, as Robbie is, and we are in the Federal Parliament, once you stand up once and then it slowly builds, people say it’s okay to be different. It’s okay to speak out against these people and so then the whole thing starts crumbling, so thank you very much for speaking out in State Parliament, Robbie, and I’m pleased Steve Andrews, I knew would back you. We’ve just got to keep doing this.

Andrew:

Yes. That’s the thing and it doesn’t really matter. I can put my Toyota up on a hoist and take off the wheels and put on Ford wheels and if I spray paint my Toyota badge and put a Ford badge on there, it hasn’t really changed the car, all it’s done is changed some externals. That’s the thing we have to contend with here. You simply can’t change people by changing certain parts of their body. They’re just not made that way. As I said earlier, we are diametrically opposed, males and females, and us men are not the same as women and we will never be like women in many, many things. We’re much better off being content with those differences and actually being thankful for them so we can do the things that we do as men and that women can do the things that women can do successfully.

Andrew:

Thank you once again, gentlemen, for your contributions today, and I trust you engage in further success in your careers on this subject. Thanks again to all those who have been watching us today and we trust you have an enjoyable weekend. Thank you. Bye bye.

Update 3/8/22: ATAGI has now approved the Moderna vaccine for under 5 year olds, meaning the vaccine rollout will proceed to toddlers.

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has provisionally approved the Moderna jab for children aged 6 months to 5 years.[1] Provisional approval is given to drugs where research is still being conducted, research that might uncover adverse effects not initially apparent.[2]

The risk to 5 year olds from the more fatal, early variants of COVID was as low as 0.0024% or roughly 1 in 40,000.[3] This does not reflect the risk of Omicron, the dominant strain across the world right now, which is estimated to be 78% less fatal.[4] On the other hand, the risk of vaccine caused myocarditis is around 1 in every 10,000 for 12-17 year old boys.[5]

There is simply not enough information on the long-term effects to decide on the risk benefit calculation like the TGA claims to have. The TGA has abandoned the precautionary principle in provisionally approving Moderna for use in toddlers and children when it has no longitudinal, years long research.


[1] https://www.tga.gov.au/covid-19-vaccine-spikevax-elasomeran

[2] https://www.tga.gov.au/covid-19-vaccine-information-consumers-and-health-professionals#:~:text=Sponsors%20may%20apply%20for%20full%20registration%20when%20there%20is%20more%20clinical%20data%20to%20confirm%20the%20safety%20of%20the%20vaccine

[3] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02867-1/fulltext#:~:text=0018%E2%80%930%C2%B70043)-,5%20years,-0%C2%B70024%25%20(0

[4] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971222002284#:~:text=We%20found%20that%20the%20high%20relative%20transmissibility%20of%20the%20Omicron%20variant%20was%20mainly%20due%20to%20its%20immune%20evasion%20ability%2C%20whereas%20its%20infection%20fatality%20rate%20substantially%20decreased%20by%20approximately%2078.7%25

[5] https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/vaccine-myocarditis-risk-reaches-1-in-10-000-for-a