If your employer has made a direction that you must be vaccinated to work, this template letter may help extract important information.
Download the below word document, delete the first page and insert the details of your employer and your details in the highlighted section.
This letter is not legal advice, it does not guarantee you protection from having to receive a vaccination for your work. Further details are provided in the document below.
The youngest child in Australia to undergo transition surgery was 15 years old. If you’re over 18 you can call yourself whatever you like, but telling teenagers gender isn’t real while they battle with all the changes of puberty is a recipe for tragedy.
The Morrison-Joyce government has yet again dragged Australia into the misguided and dangerous United Nations parallel universe. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has signed Australia up to a communique from the UN Human Rights Council that endorses radical intersectional gender theory. This is the theory that gender is a social construct and that one’s decision about gender is based not on biology but on feelings. There is no agreement in Australia that gender is a social construct. There is no agreement that minors should be able to nominate their gender based on self-identification alone. Worldwide, the momentum is shifting back the other way, towards greater caution, especially on the use of experimental treatments and irreversible surgeries. The youngest child in Australia to undergo transition surgery—in this case a double mastectomy—was 15 years old. How can a child of 15 know their mind? The vast majority of minors sort out their gender identity by adolescence. Gender fluidity is easily dispensed as nonsense. If gender is fluid, then no-one can be trapped in the wrong body, because fluidity dictates that person’s views of their gender could change with their next mood.
One Nation agrees that pink and blue do not define gender and that biology need not confine us to traditional gender norms. Nonetheless, children growing up must have certainties to hang onto. Telling children there is a plethora of genders they can pick from exacerbates confusion and anxiety and weakens their sense of self. I was surprised to learn that Australia has an international ambassador for gender equality, who is employed to advance these agendas. The decision by Minister Payne was not an aberration. It was deliberate government policy. Our supposedly Christian Prime Minister and this entire parliament are out of touch with everyday Australians. We have one flag, we are one community, we are one nation and we want our children protected from UN lunatics.
Suspicion about the results of our elections is an existential threat to our country. Confidence comes from having strict auditing and checking procedures. We’ve seen that these auditing, checks and system are not fit for purpose. One Nation is asking for those deficiencies to be rectified.
Senate Estimates Questioning:
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, here we go again. Yet again the Labor Party are about to sit comfortably in the laps of the Liberals and Nationals to vote through measures that are in both of their own interests. Just yesterday I spoke of this parliament being dysfunctional to the point of being a crime scene. The very next day here we are watching the proof unfold again before our very eyes.
For those watching at home and wondering why One Nation did not use these electoral bills to introduce actual electoral reform, the answer is simple: the way these bills were written. There is one bill per topic and they include a long description that prevents One Nation from introducing amendments that move outside of that very narrow, restrictive scope.
If the government and Labor wanted to join three bills together and vote in one line, they should have produced the three bills as an omnibus bill that One Nation and the crossbench could have amended—and the legislation badly needs amendment. Senators Wong and Birmingham are once again making a mockery of the democratic process—dodgy siblings doing another dirty deal behind closed doors. When are we going to start writing numbers on the perspex screens so we can distinguish between the Liberal-Nationals and Labor! The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters made 27 recommendations towards more fair and effective elections. The ‘Lib-Lab duopoly’ has again rushed legislation before the Senate to implement a grand total of three of those recommendations, none of which does anything to ensure the integrity of our electoral process.
The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Offences and Preventing Multiple Voting) Bill 2021 pretends to do something about multiple voting. In the last three elections, the Australian Electoral Commission reviewed thousands of case of multiple voting and referred a few hundred of those to the Australian Federal Police for prosecution, who made the decision to prosecute none of them. Not one person has been prosecuted as a result of the ordinary operations of the Electoral Act despite recommendations to do so and despite that law being on the books for a very long time. That may be why the government has chosen to abandon the legal system and refer multiple voting to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Yesterday we saw cybercrime warrants being moved from the criminal court system to the administrative court system; today we have multiple voting moving over as well. One Nation is uncomfortable with the growing power of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and with the whole concept of having two court systems. Criminal courts are founded in biblical and common law; administrative courts have no such higher purpose to be called on for guidance.
The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Party Registration Integrity) Bill 2021 is clearly an attempt by Lib-Lab to knock out smaller parties and entrench the power of the status quo. I hear the anger on social media over this measure, yet I have some questions in return. Should a multimillionaire be allowed to use his wealth to buy political influence through the United Australia Party? The requirement to have 500 supporters is not going to slow down a very wealthy individual, yet a requirement to have 1,500 supporters will—unless that party actually has grassroots support. This legislation is saying to Clive Palmer, ‘Put your supporters where your mouth is, not where your money is.’ There is criticism from some new parties who should be more worried about themselves. If you start fact-checking the memes you are spreading, and start offering voters evidence based policy, perhaps 1,500 may be more achievable. I understand that Senator Lambie too is in opposition to this bill. This raises a good question for the government—oops, the Lib-Labs—to answer: why is it 1,500 voters for registration in a populous state and 1,500 in Tasmania? Shouldn’t it be some percentage of registered voters in that state?
The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Counting, Scrutiny and Operational Efficiencies) Bill 2021 makes a number of small changes to voting. These have been mentioned by other speakers and I will not review those here. How will all these changes affect the integrity of our elections? Well, we don’t know. We don’t know now and we won’t know afterwards because our elections are not audited. My interest in election integrity started in January 2021, following the US presidential election. My office was inundated with people asking about whether election fraud, such as it was in the United States, could be happening in Australia. The problem is not whether election fraud is happening; the problem is that people think it is happening. Confidence in election outcomes is central to democracy.
The restrictions around COVID have people at boiling point. Small business closures, job losses, high-handed bureaucrats and politics have reduced many people to desperation. The next election will be a powder keg. It is essential to ensure that, whatever the result, the public can accept it and move on. Suspicion of the outcome can be easily fuelled and turned into violence by those who seek to manipulate the result for their own ends. We cannot let this happen. It is for this reason that New South Wales and Western Australia have provisions in their electoral acts to audit state elections.
New South Wales conducts an audit before each election to ensure systems are fit for purpose and then audits again after each election to ensure integrity and to see what can be improved for next time. Western Australia audits after every election.
The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 does not have audit provisions. In February, I started asking questions of the Australian Electoral Commission, the AEC. To be honest, I expected to hear that auditing was under control given the reputation the Australian Electoral Commission claims it has. That’s not what I found. The Australian Electoral Commission told me in Senate estimates that the Australian Signals Directorate had conducted an audit of the Australian Electoral Commission’s software. The next day in Senate estimates I asked the Australian Signals Directorate if they had done that audit and the answer was a clear no. The Australian Electoral Commission tried to conflate the security audit conducted by the Australian Signals Directorate with an audit of software and systems to pretend our software was being audited and, by extension, was fit for purpose. It has not been audited. The election software is not fit for purpose.
So why did the Australian Electoral Commission make a false statement or imply a false statement? The Australian Signals Directorate looked at potential intrusions into the system, both electronic and physical. Following the audit, the Australian Signals Directorate proceeded with an uplift program designed to harden the AEC network. I call that a fail. If your systems were audited for cybersecurity and the outcome was a comprehensive uplift program to improve your security then clearly the system failed the audit. What else would fail an audit at the Australian Electoral Commission?
In the May Senate estimates I asked the Australian Electoral Commission simple questions. When did the Australian Signals Directorate audit happen? The Australian Electoral Commission declined to answer. What was actually audited? The Australian Electoral Commission gave no useful response. What was the result of the audit? The Australian Electoral Commission declined to answer. What changes to the Australian Electoral Commission’s systems have been made in the uplift program? The Australian Electoral Commission declined to answer. Could the Australian Electoral Commission guarantee that the uplift program would render the Australian Electoral Commission computer system fit for purpose? The Australian Electoral Commission responded that nobody could ever guarantee their systems are fit for purpose. Let that sink in. Nobody could ever guarantee their systems are fit for purpose—the Australian Electoral Commission admitted it.
It is disturbing that such an audit could happen behind closed doors without direction or without structure. It is more disturbing still that this program has no legal basis in the Australian Commonwealth Electoral Act. We should not have to rely on the admirable conscientiousness of the Australian Signals Directorate. We should be able to rely on the completeness of our legislation. We need it fixed. It must be fixed.
Then I looked at other issues around election integrity. First up was a simple question: is the electronic data file containing each vote ever compared back to the paper ballot after the vote has been adjudicated? That answer is no. At no time is the electronic record of a vote checked back against the paper ballot. Senator Birmingham and the Australian Electoral Commission have assured us that there is a check, yet when we peer through the veil of language deliberately calculated to obfuscate no such check is happening, contrary to the minister’s response. The only time this happens is when a ballot is disputed and a paper ballot is pulled out for scrutiny. After the ballot is adjudicated, there is no further check.
These votes are sitting for up to a month in a system that failed an Australian Signals Directorate security test. Data integrity requires that a final audit be conducted immediately before declaration of the poll by pulling paper ballots out at random and comparing them back to the electronic record and vice versa. It’s one day’s work for all the counting staff as they finish their regular counting. It will not delay the result. It will guarantee that the system has not been compromised accidentally or by a malicious party.
My second question was on the accuracy of the voter rolls. The Australian Electoral Commission used to check the accuracy of their rolls by conducting residency checks.
Before this system was discontinued in 1995, those checks revealed a significant number of false registrations: people who had left the country, people who had died and people who had moved. Most of the incidences of multiple voting stem from voting in their old location and their new location: double voting. This legislation does not address that problem. How can anyone say that the voter roll is accurate if they never check it?
My third question is on the software algorithm at the Senate scanning centre that allocates preferences. The Australian Electoral Commission publishes what is basically a data dump of the raw vote count. Leading cryptographers, led by Dr Vanessa Teague, from the Australian National University, have written a check routine to test the preference flow against the published result. Their finding was that the Senate preference flow was correct, so we know this this aspect of the Australian Electoral Commission software works. Why it is up to the university academics to write complicated software at their own expense and on their own time to audit our elections? Since when did the government decide to crowdsource its job? So, what next? A GoFundMe page to pay for it?
This is why next week I will introduce into the Senate the Commonwealth electoral amendment (integrity of elections) bill 2021. This bill requires a preaudit of the Australian Electoral Commission systems prior to each election to ensure the systems are fit for purpose. It requires an audit after the election, as New South Wales and Western Australia require and as the ACT proposes. We propose an audit of the electoral roll and voter ID: voter identification. In short, this bill will audit the elections and the voter. Then we will all have confidence in the next election result.
After decades of this Lib-Lab parliament, people are starting to see how parliament is failing our country. The Lib-Lab duopoly, though, is desperate to continue its hold on a parliament that has a record of decades of not serving the people of Australia. We, though, are keen to restore parliamentary democracy. We have one flag, we are one community, we are one nation.
Sports rorts, carpark scandals, corrupt water trading, crooked disaster funding projects, AusPost CEOs being forced out for not pleasing government party hacks. This government disrespects the people of Australia so they can look after their corporate mates.
Earlier this month in my flag speech I spoke of parliament’s duty to serve the people. Today I’m asking: who does this parliament really serve? I’ll review the Morrison government’s actions and this parliament’s actions that carry the stench of cronyism and corruption.
I’ll start with changes to water policy that Malcolm Turnbull and John Howard introduced in 2007. Those changes turned ownership and the trading of water rights into a $20 billion industry. Large corporate interests, trade union bosses controlling industry super funds and National Party powerbrokers have rushed to take advantage of this new wealth. And by taking advantage, I really mean make out like bandits at the expense of family farms that can no longer afford water for their crops. I’m raising this issue first up because it illustrates how things are done in federal parliament.
The Water Act requires a transparent water-trading register. The government tried to introduce one in 2012, stuffed it up and then gave up. I thought asking the government to take another run at it—to reveal who was lining their pockets with the proceeds of water speculation—would be straightforward. How naive was that! My amendment was opposed. The same parties, the Liberals and Nationals, that passed the legislation in the first place requiring a water-trading register, opposed my amendment that sought to ensure compliance with the parliament’s legislation. The Senate, with Labor’s support, passed my amendment. It proceeded to the lower house, where Labor rejected it. What happened in the 100 metres between the Senate and the House of Representatives? The fix happened—the fix to protect corporate water traders. Labor agreed to cover for its Liberal and Nationals mates and they returned the favour. That’s how this parliament works. Cronyism is an art form.
The same pattern of immoral behaviour occurred with the legislation One Nation introduced to stop banks bailing-in depositors’ funds to save banks in a crisis, stealing customers’ hard earned deposits. In 2018, parliament passed legislation to allow a bail-in as part of emergency financial measures. The Labor, Liberal, and National parties teamed up to oppose my bill and justified that action with a complete lie: that the emergency provisions did not give APRA the power to order a bail-in. My legislation to protect the one trillion dollars in bank deposits of everyday Australians was defeated, despite the Treasury admitting, in a briefing to my face, that those emergency provisions do allow a bail-in. The Liberal-National and Labor duopoly lied so their donors in the major banks can keep the right to steal your money to save themselves.
The same cronyism was in place over the Christine Holgate watch scandal at Australia Post. As we now know, those watches were given to management as a reward for completing a very profitable deal for Australia Post. Australia Post executives accepted the watches and agreed to forgo much larger bonuses. Why would the Prime Minister and the parliament misrepresent a measure that saved Australia Post money? It’s because Christine Holgate had negotiated a fee with the banks of $20 million a year for the provision of banking services through licensed post offices, but the banks wanted a bigger share of those profits. Christine Holgate made the mistake of costing the big four banks money, and an example had to be made of her. What a show Scott Morrison put on! After Ms Holgate was sacked, and Australia Post was placed back into the hands of friendlies, the deal was renegotiated. The banks are now only paying half that, $10 million per year, and 4,000 licensed post office franchisees got screwed. How much did it cost the banks to get the outcome they wanted from this parliament?
In the last election cycle Australian banks donated $500,000 to the Liberal and National parties and $400,000 to the Labor Party.
There’s more. The Australian people can see that cronyism extends to pharmaceuticals. Most people don’t know who funds the body that approves pharmaceuticals in Australia—the Therapeutic Goods Administration, known as the TGA. The big pharmaceutical companies applying for approvals themselves fund the TGA. The expert committees that advise the TGA on what to approve are comprised largely of university academics, whose departments receive funding from pharmaceutical companies. That doesn’t pass the pub test, nor does this. In the last election cycle the pharmaceutical industry donated $276,000 to Labor and $400,000 to the Liberals and Nationals.
Earlier this year One Nation combined with the Greens to extend the licences of community TV stations C31 in Melbourne and Channel 44 in Adelaide, after Malcolm Turnbull in 2012 confiscated those free-to-air transmission rights to force viewers back to commercial TV owned by his mates. C31 and Channel 44 survived on the back of large public campaigns. Why was it so hard to get an extension for community TV to use a spectrum that’s not needed until 2024? Could it be because the commercial stations, through Free TV Australia, donated $17,000 to Labor and $13,000 to the Liberals? That, of course, is the problem.
Yesterday in the Senate the Liberals-Nationals and Labor duopoly teamed up to stop the measures that One Nation and Senator Rex Patrick jointly proposed to make Woodside Petroleum pay for the $2 billion cost of cleaning up their environmental damage in the Timor Sea. Woodside easily evaded its responsibilities to the people of Australia. It simply sold the little bit of extraction left in the gas field, including its clean-up liability, to a small company for a few million dollars. That company was then wound up. Taxpayers are now on the hook for the clean-up. One Nation’s amendment would have restored the liability on Woodside. The crossbench supported that. Labor and the Liberals and Nationals opposed it. Then I discovered that Woodside donated $135,000 to Labor and $148,000 to the Liberals and Nationals. What a surprise!
Then there’s the Beetaloo basin. It’s in the news this week because the government passed legislation to allow cash payments to its mining mates to frack the Beetaloo basin. Guess who funds the cost of the exploration—some $7 million per well? Taxpayers via a grant, yet the gas extraction company owns the well and keeps the profits from the extraction. This little earner is called socialising the risk and the costs while privatising the profits. The first recipient of this cronyism was Empire Energy, a Liberal Party donor. But you didn’t hear this from the opposition, because Empire Energy donated $25,000 to the Labor Party. In echoing Senator Hanson’s repeated calls, Senator Patrick rightly pointed out that the oil and gas industry exported $62 billion in 2018-19 and paid taxpayers just $1 billion in royalties. The taxpayers are getting royally screwed by this crony capitalist approach to government.
One Nation support free enterprise; we do not support cronyism. Earlier this year One Nation introduced a motion to refer to a Senate inquiry the misuse of federal government disaster relief funds. Millions, possibly billions, of dollars are being misappropriated, with no suitable work being conducted. The Liberals-Nationals and Labor duopoly rode to the rescue of their mates and voted down our motion—no inquiry.
The car park scandal has seen the Morrison government give $420 million of taxpayer money for commuter car parks in areas that don’t need commuter car parks, including three in the Treasurer’s electorate and one for a train station that’s closing. I assume that even this government is not stupid enough to build a car park at a train station that is not there anymore, so I wait to see which of the government’s mates just got free car parks. The sports rorts scandal, the Inland Rail infrastructure grants, the Kimba radioactive waste dump, the Murray-Darling Basin’s upwater program and ‘watergate’ are all corruption scandals that a federal corruption commission, if we had one, would have dealt with. Parliament rubberstamps decisions and policies, costing the people trillions of dollars so mates can feed off taxpayers, bludge off taxpayers and transfer wealth from taxpayers. The people are rightly angry.
Decisions taken in the parliament must not only be honest, they must be seen to be honest and be justified with hard, solid data.
Australian voters will shortly be asked to pass judgement on this sorry parliament. Make no mistake, voting for the Liberal Party with their sellout sidekicks, the Nationals, or voting for Labor and their ticket to power, the Greens, will represent business as usual for the Liberal-Labor duopoly that has ruled this parliament for decades. It’s now time, at the next election, to break this cycle of abuse. Stop repeatedly alternating Liberal-Nationals with Labor and expecting anything to change. It’s now time to change the parliament.
There are many third parties putting their hands up in this election, and none have a track record of achievement greater than One Nation. I’m very proud of the contribution Senator Hanson, Mark Latham, Steve Andrew, Rob Roberts and I have made and are making to restore governance to Australia. Despite the Liberal, Labor and Nationals parties’ many dishonest attempts to destroy her, for 25 years Senator Pauline Hanson and One Nation have remained true to the Australian people, and we will continue to be so. In conclusion, I make an observation regarding the perspex security screen that now protects the Leader of the Government in the Senate from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and vice versa. This screen sends a powerful message to the Australian people: the Senate chamber now resembles a visitation centre at one of Her Majesty’s prisons. How very appropriate! This is not a parliament; it’s a crime scene.
Earlier in the pandemic, State Premiers let Black Lives Matter protests happen without a whisper of criticism. Now that protests criticise their attempts at tyranny, they crack down on them. Banning protests has been a hallmark of dictators for all of history. Let’s not follow them down that path.
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, my remarks will be on the most basic of human rights: freedom to protest. State premiers have declared a war on peaceful protests against their policies, including the ‘freedom day’ rallies, yet they allow protests they agree with such as Black Lives Matter.
An ethical nightmare over human rights is brewing between the parliaments and the people. It’s the fault of blind political ambition, leveraged off a virus that has turned out to be, according to government health experts’ own data, no more harmful than a bad flu. It’s time we cancelled the COVID apocalypse. It’s time to end the use of COVID as an excuse to implement all-powerful legislation that exempts itself from proper scrutiny. Both the Biosecurity Act 2015 and the National Emergency Declaration Act 2020 make a mockery of 120 years of legislation and 800 years of common law. Both pieces of legislation are being used in ways never put to the people. Together, these acts trespass unreasonably on the rights and liberties of everyday Australians.
No parliament that wishes to call itself a democracy can grant indefinite, absolute and unscrutinised power. State premiers have entered into a COVID arms race with each other, leaving Australians trapped in the middle of the crossfire—huge increases in suicide attempts, children phoning helplines in unprecedented numbers and small businesses in ruins. And what created this? Federal parliament’s failure to hold the line against fear and misuse of power.
‘Emergency’ should not mean a dissolution of rights, especially when a state of emergency can be stretched out for months, years or even indefinitely. COVID policy has turned into a parallel legal system, embraced by a Prime Minister that has encouraged health orders that permanently alter the landscape of work and travel. Death has become a matter of politics and mismanagement, used to prevent the sacred freedom to assemble and protest peacefully. If Australians cannot protest, parliaments will never be held accountable for errors in judgement.
One of parliament’s many mistakes is in the presentation of COVID data. Given without context, they tower over us. Viewed in context, COVID harm barely deviates from normal. Parliaments cannot promise safety. Safety is an outcome of parliaments following policies that protect our freedoms and our rights. Instead of handling COVID with a view to these important guiding principles, politicians have suffocated Australia under the weight of biosecurity powers, resulting in displays of cruelty that have shocked the whole world.
The fact is we are not safe. We are not safe from our own parliaments. Freedom protests are a criticism of COVID policies and parliaments’ atrocious governance. Like the manufacturers of vaccines, parliaments do not want to hear any complaints about the quality of their work. Despite this parliament’s best attempts to control people, we are blessed with a nation full of people who refuse to live under the coercion of fear. This may be considered civil disobedience—I call it commonsense.
The Prime Minister’s role is to perform his duty with pragmatism and calm. Instead, Scott Morrison has rattled the cage of fear and enticed state politicians to do the same. Instead of focusing on trust, this parliament endorses spending tens of millions of dollars advertising COVID fear. Operation COVID Shield is now an attempt to use military to force the behaviour associated with trust without any attempt to create the meeting of the minds necessary for trust. Abused people may well may obey their captors, but they do not trust them. The more rights parliaments steal from Australians, the less likely people are to trust.
Australians asked for choice in COVID treatments, and the government suppressed peer reviewed and internationally accepted alternatives like Ivermectin. Australians asked for vaccine manufacturers to accept liability for their products, and instead were denied any recourse in the event of personal harm. Australians tried to report fatal side effects, and for months the parliament, the legacy media and social media silenced them. Australians took to the streets to tell this parliament and state premiers that the health orders were destroying millions of lives, and the states hunted them down like criminals. To enforce compliance, parliaments will need more policies like Operation COVID Shield, more police and more Defence Force members in our streets. Force will still fail, because fear and intimidation are a terrible plan. The damage done to the sacred trust between the people and parliaments is catastrophic. Parliamentary policy has destroyed trust in vaccines, creating two classes of people in Australia—those who profit from the pandemic and those who suffer from it. Policy, not COVID, has destroyed trust in vaccines. COVID Shield seeks to repair it with the rhetoric of war. Everyday Australians are not buying this nonsense. Australians know what the parliaments, the military and the health bureaucrats do not know—we will not be divided, we have one flag, we are one community and we are One Nation.
Respect people’s rights and restore informed consent—a basic human right. Is it any wonder millions of people now question everything state and federal parliaments say and have reached breaking point?
The safety of everyday Australians should never be a race on a political scoreboard. Instead, it must be about health and accountability. Yet this government and most people in parliament hastily rammed COVID injections on people. The vaccines are not fully tested and are only provisionally approved. These are vaccines with serious side-effects—they’re even killing people—and with plummeting efficacy. The injections are already losing their effect. We’ve been told that we do not need 100 per cent vaccination to protect. Why, then, do governments, parliaments and big businesses continue to persecute people rightly concerned about this injection? A constituent, Ben, asked a simple question that many are asking: if your vaccine works, why does he need one, and, if it doesn’t work, why should he get one?
Secondly, Australians have a right to sit this race out. Instead we’re hearing democracy choking—the death of our right to say, ‘No, this is not for me.’ Without blush or hesitation, Qantas CEO Alan Joyce threatens the jobs of people who are concerned about COVID injections. Yet the same man signalled the need for IR reform now, supposedly to protect workers from abuses of power. Respect people’s rights and restore informed consent—a basic human right. Is it any wonder millions of people now question everything state and federal parliaments say and have reached breaking point? No, it’s expected. The ongoing protests must be heard. Australians have legitimate concerns for health and safety, jobs and livelihoods, and rights and freedoms. The unions and Queensland Labor—old Labor—used to defend the right to protest. They’re now a symptom of the problem of taking away people’s freedoms, jobs and livelihoods. In turn, state and federal governments must get back to basics and focus on the virus, not the symptoms. Whether we came here before Captain Cook or came from Europe or from Afghanistan, we Australians have one flag, we are one community and we are one nation.
Our country has been ruined by governments trying to pick and choose winners instead of letting people be free to invent new and innovative solutions. We used to lead the world, inventing the refrigerator, electric drill, tanks, pacemakers, ultrasounds and wifi. Not anymore.
The right to raise ourselves up through hard work and enterprise is a freedom that must not be compromised. It must be protected.
Later this year we will pass an amazing milestone when an Australian designed and made satellite will be launched into space using an Australian designed and made rocket and launch facility. We now have a domestic end-to-end space capability, creating jobs and injecting new wealth into our economy. Government has not achieved this, private enterprise has, proving once again that governments do not create wealth; free personal enterprise creates wealth. For many years, we led the world in innovation, inventing the refrigerator in 1856, electric drill in 1889, military tanks in 1912, pacemakers in 1928, ultrasounds in 1961 and wifi in 1992. But that’s where the list ends, 30 years ago.
Australia once led the world in patents; now China registers four times the patents per capita that Australia does. This is partly the fault of the big banks, whose tight hold on the capital sector funding for business development is throttling investment, suffocating beneath our banks greedy obsession with real estate. The government, through its future growth fund, has taken upon itself the role of picking winners and losers amongst start-ups, making private sector growth beholden to government bureaucrats. Lockdowns have decimated small business and forced medium and large businesses to shelve research and development plans.
Australia is going backwards and is losing the ability for citizens to support themselves through their own hard work and enterprise. Reliance on government handouts appears to be a design feature of Prime Minister Morrison’s socialist version of Australia. Instead, One Nation will shrink the government to fit the Constitution, we will get government out of the way of free enterprise, we will let the Australian spirit out of [inaudible] to then invent and create to carry this nation forward, even to space. We have one flag, we have one community, we are one nation. The right to raise ourselves up through hard work and enterprise is a freedom that must not be compromised. It must remain.
“Since the start of the pandemic, countries have heavily invested in the development of control strategies that aim to contain the spread of COVID-19. Australian citizens have sporadically faced lockdowns. Senator Malcolm Roberts from the One Nation Party talks to us about the approach towards the COVID-19 situation taken by governments. Watch this video for exclusive insights.”
From Kalkine TV: https://kalkinemedia.com/au Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/kalkineau/ Twitter – https://twitter.com/kalkineau LinkedIn – https://www.linkedin.com/company/4829818
James Preston:
Well, hello and welcome to another edition of Executive Corner Expert Talks, I’m James Preston. And Australia has reached a boiling point with citizens of Greater Sydney having now been locked down for over two months. More protests likely on the way and hollow promises constantly being made by not only the New South Wales state government, but that of Prime Minister, Scott Morrison. It’s fair to say that the people have had enough. The gap between the everyday Australian and the likes of Gladys Berejiklian, or Dan Andrews in Victoria continues to grow each and every day. But one politician who has been particularly outspoken about the approach towards the lockdowns, and of course the COVID situation in a larger aspect by our various governments is Senator Malcolm Roberts from the One Nation Party. And he now joins me live on Kalkine TV. Malcolm, a very good afternoon to you.
Malcolm Roberts:
Thank you, James, for the welcome, it’s a pleasure to be here with you.
James Preston:
Malcolm, great to have you on. Let’s start with the obvious one here. Now, we’ve been witnessing a lot of tampering with freedoms. There’s been lockdowns for a long period of time. Now, 18 months, we’ve been dealing with ons and offs in this regard. What’s your approach to the entire thing?
Malcolm Roberts:
My approach is really simple. First of all, well, I mentioned this back, in the first single day session of parliament dealing with this coronavirus back on Monday, March 23rd. I said to the government, we will wave everything through because we’re looking at tens of thousands of deaths overseas. We realised it’s probably serious, so we don’t know much about it. Let’s get on with it, but we want you to get the data. We want you to build a comprehensive plan for managing this and we will hold you accountable. And what I’ve been driven by is, you said it a moment ago, hollow statements from members of parliament and premiers and the Prime Minister, hollow statements. People have had a gut full of this, James. This has been mismanaged, COVID exposed the mismanagement of our country. We started COVID with no masks, with no capacity to really manufacture solid material.
Malcolm Roberts:
We’ve still got that, but we also now have 18 months confirmed mismanagement of this. So my approach is very simple. I’ve confirmed it with Senate Estimates, with the Chief Medical Officer and the Department of Health Secretary. And they both confirmed my list of seven strategies for managing this virus. I asked them specifically, have I missed anything? No. Is there anything in my list of seven that shouldn’t be there? No. So the first one is lockdowns, but even that should be used only initially and then put aside. I’m happy to expand on that in a minute. The second one is testing, tracing and quarantining like Taiwan, highly successful, but we are failing at it.
Malcolm Roberts:
Third one, some basic restrictions like social distancing, maybe masks, but from what I understand masks, we can discuss that more, masks are not the go. Vaccines, if they’re tested, if they’re properly proved and if they’re thoroughly tested, and these vaccines are not. Fifth one, Ivermectin or any other approved antiviral. Now the Chief Medical Officer and the Secretary of the Health Department, both confirm that that’s a valid strategy. We’re not using that. We could end this nonsense immediately. Sixth is personal hygiene, personal behaviours. And the seventh is health and fitness. That’s a comprehensive approach. And we’re seeing the federal and state governments do only one each and they’re making a mess of it.
James Preston:
Now look, it’s a pretty comprehensive list. Let’s just touch on the first point there, in terms of lockdowns being, I suppose, a final measure to approach with. When Scott Morrison, of course, our Prime Minister, he released a series of different phases. And part of that was supposed to be lockdowns as of course, a final decision here. It was supposed to be the stop gap solution if all else failed. But what we’ve seen in the last two months or so is that, that seems to be pretty much the first approach. So how we ended up in a position where that’s now the desire, I suppose, from our politicians, even though it was about a month before that, that we had this new line of messaging.
Malcolm Roberts:
Well, we haven’t got the data from the government and I don’t believe the government is following the data. None of the states, not the federal government, their plans are shooting each other, blaming each other, avoiding, dodging, ducking, weaving. They’re not being accountable and they are not presented the data. I asked the Chief Medical Officer for the data. He gave it to me. This virus is highly transmissible, but it has low severity to moderate severity. We also know within that group of people, that within the population, there are distinct segments, the old, for example, and those with comorbidities needs special precautions. So what we need to have is a comprehensive plan, a detailed plan. Now the World Health Organisation itself has said, and it’s a corrupt, dishonest, incompetent body. Nonetheless, even it has said openly, that lockdowns are for use initially and not thereafter.
Malcolm Roberts:
Lockdowns are used to get control of the virus. The very fact that the Prime Minister is bankrolling the states on one policy, and that is lockdowns, shows that we have not got control of the virus. We are not managing the virus, James. The virus is managing the states. The federal government is pouring money in the largest transfer of wealth from taxpayers to multinational companies that we have ever seen. It’s bankrolling the vaccine manufacturers, and they’re now having plummeting efficacy. So we are on a mess. This will continue and continue and continue until we wake up to ourselves.
James Preston:
Well, Malcolm, as part of the lockdowns, one thing that we’ve all been enduring, I suppose, is Gladys Berejiklian and Brad Hazzard addressing New South Wales each day with quite repetitive reports really. Now, I personally have quite a huge issue with how they are run. There never seems to be a message of hope. And for me, the language that’s used is just as important as the overall message. Why do you think the information is being conveyed in the way that it is, where we’re focusing on case numbers or positive results, as opposed to, for example, doing 115,000 tests. And then only 150 come back as positive, surely that should equate to some sort of goodwill for the community.
Malcolm Roberts:
Well, I don’t think they know what they’re doing. And quite clearly they don’t. Governor DeSantis in Florida enacted one lockdown upfront in Florida last year. He then subsequently very quickly apologised to the people of Florida. Now remember, Florida has a very high proportion of elderly people. Governor DeSantis promised his people that he would never do another lockdown because it failed. In the United States, we have 50 states and you can compare their performance. Those on lockdowns are doing not as well as those without lockdowns. California is a basket case and has been on virtually continual lockdown for months. It’s a mess. States that are freeing things up are far better performed when it comes to health.
Malcolm Roberts:
There are three aspects to this virus. The first is health, that’s got to be the first priority. The second one is freedom, basic freedom. Now freedom is essential for getting people’s minds and hearts into gear to solve the problems with regard to our health. The third one is governance and accountability. We are seeing an absolutely failed system at work here with the state and federal governments. We do need hope, the data gives us hope. This vaccine can be managed quite effectively as some countries overseas are showing, as states without lockdowns in America are showing, and without a vaccine. We have some countries, some states overseas that are highly effective in managing this virus by using Ivermectin, which the government has turned away from in this country without the due proper analysis.
James Preston:
Well, Malcolm, we’ll get to vaccines itself in a moment because obviously that is tied in with Ivermectin. And also we obviously have to tread quite carefully there because we know what has been happening previously with YouTube, for example, if we try and discuss such a topic. But I want to ask you this question, it might be a bit of a loaded one given your role as a Senator, but is there any merit in trying to, I suppose, tie politician salaries to lockdowns. If we, for example, go into a lockdown or stay in a lockdown for a prolonged period, would parliamentarians such as Berejiklian, Dan Andrews or Annastacia Palaszczuk, those who are in charge of making the decision, should they have their pay slashed to that of the disaster payment that they’re offering people who have had their livelihoods destroyed? Do you think that would create some sort of a different outcome?
Malcolm Roberts:
Yes, it would. But, and I agree with that sentiment and that idea. I don’t know the practicalities and the legalities of doing that. However, it would put responsibility back, but there’s an even better way. And that’s to vote some of these people out, that would really cut their pay. We need scrutiny. This lockdown nonsense will continue in our country until the people wake up and hold the governments accountable. That’s what’s happened in this country. We’ve had 80 years of atrocious governments that has let the people down. We’ve destroyed our manufacturing capability, our productive capacity. We have become dependent on overseas countries. We have the world’s best people. We have abundant resources, energy resources, metals resources, minerals resources. We have a fabulous agricultural sector. We have water that needs to just be moved around properly and efficiently. We are in shortage of many of the things that we should be abundant.
Malcolm Roberts:
We’re exporting our coal, our iron ore to other countries to turn into steel. And then we import the steel back. This is crazy. The people in this country have to wake up and have to make sure that they understand it’s not just a Morrison liberal national government. It’s not just a potential Albanese government. My goodness, I don’t know which would be worse. But the problem is parliamentary system in this country has stopped holding governments accountable. And that’s the key thing. And the way to hold parliaments accountable and to change the focus and drive of their parliament is to change the parliament. I’m not talking about changing the constitution. I’m talking about the changing the composition through the ballot box. That’s the way a democracy works. We’ve had 80 years of failed governance, and now we need to change that and start voting for a different parliament, an independent parliament to make sure that we hold governments accountable.
James Preston:
Malcolm, take your point there, but let’s now move on to vaccines. You’ve been a rather outspoken critic about the approach that both federal and state governments across Australia have been taking to date. For example, we’re seeing in your home of Queensland, the concept now of no jab no entry being proposed. Now that is of course, despite the fact that people who’ve been vaccinated can still contract it. They can get breakthrough infections and then obviously transmit them onto other people. So what’s your position on the concept of mandatory vaccinations?
Malcolm Roberts:
Totally opposed to it. I want to make it very clear, James. I wholeheartedly support medicines that have been tested thoroughly and proven to be safe, effective, and preferably affordable. I’m opposed completely to using untested medicines, untested drugs, and completely opposed and strongly opposed to forcing those drugs, untested drugs on people at the threat of losing their livelihood, which is what’s happening. Now, we have a range of people with a different views on vaccine. Some are vaccine compliant. Some are vaccine reluctant, some are vaccine hesitant, some are vaccine resistant and some are vaccine opponents. Generally speaking, I’m hesitant. Give me the data and then I’ll make my mind. It must be an informed choice from everyone, an informed choice. So I have a right as a Senator to listen to my constituents, to share the data I have. And I know that YouTube and Facebook are banning people for saying certain things.
Malcolm Roberts:
So, but that shows that we haven’t got a democracy anymore. What we need to do is to recognise that there’s this whole, there’s a broad spectrum of views towards vaccines. When people start calling people vaccine deniers, or anti-vaxxers, that’s a way of suppressing debate. That’s all it is. It’s a smear. There’s no data that goes with it. Anyone is allowed to have their own view about vaccines. That’s a free country. Everyone should have the free right to have an informed consent before they give their consent. To have an informed choice. It’s my body, my choice. It’s your body, your choice. And if you’re different from me, so be it. I don’t care. Now, vaccines, I’ve asked the Chief Medical Officer, the Head of the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the Secretary of the Department of Health in federal parliament, federal Senate Estimates about vaccines.
Malcolm Roberts:
I asked them, are they 100% safe? No, they’re not. What is the dosage required? We don’t know. How often will we have to get vaccine injections? We don’t know. Will there be booster shots? We don’t know. Will we be able to remove masks and restrictions and lockdowns? We don’t know. We all do know a few things, James, and that is these vaccines, as Pfizer has admitted, its own vaccine, the efficacy has plummeted very shortly after the vaccines have been administered. Israel is now finding an 11 fold increase in COVID cases in Israel. We know that they’re very concerned about the plummeting of vaccine efficacy. We know that Pfizer has admitted that they have made an application to the federal, the Food and Drug Administration in the United States to administer a third booster shot.
Malcolm Roberts:
How many booster shots do we need? How many booster shots will there be? And what we do know is that there have been massive adverse effects in America. There’ve been over 10,000 deaths recorded. There’ve been a thousand miscarriages. There’ve been people with heart problems, lung problems, other diseases. That we know also that Pfizer’s vaccine causes, the European Health Organisation has recognised that Pfizer’s vaccine can cause myocarditis of the heart and yet Pfizer now makes a drug to treat myocarditis. Pfizer made $18.9 billion in revenue in the last three months, the last quarter. It made a profit around $4 billion. And yet it is making people sick and getting money for that, and then selling more drugs to cure them from the disease that it’s caused and making more money from that. So what we’ve got here is a really tight circle where we do know the facts show that these vaccines haven’t got the efficacy they expected and even their own drug manufacturers are admitting that
James Preston:
Well, Malcolm, I think two points I’ll jump on from there is obviously, it’s quite important here to point out as well, just for our due diligence that no vaccine is 100% safe. We know that for a fact, there can always be adverse reactions. But certainly take your point that we don’t have long-term data for these either. We know that these are being pushed out. In general, the large percentage of people who are taking them aren’t having adverse reactions, but they do still exist. And that is something that does need to be discussed moving forward. I think that’s a very important issue.
James Preston:
One thing I want to ask as well is just for yourself, are you, I mean, you mentioned that you’re vaccine hesitant. Do you believe you will get the vaccine at some point? Or are you completely steering away from it until more data arrives?
Malcolm Roberts:
No, I won’t be getting the vaccine.
James Preston:
Okay. All right, well, let’s move on now to the concept of vaccine passports. [crosstalk 00:16:20].
Malcolm Roberts:
There are just too many risks there. [crosstalk 00:16:20]
James Preston:
Now we’ve seen some huge protests in France where they’ve obviously implemented that policy. It’s obviously a very loaded issue. What is your take with vaccine passport? I’d imagine it’s quite similar to the concept towards mandatory vaccinations.
Malcolm Roberts:
Correct. Mandatory vaccinations are murky for a start, because there is some people who say that they’re possible through employers. But I’d urge employees to put the question back on the employer and to indemnify the employee against death or against any serious injuries or illnesses. Now, vaccine passport, mandating vaccines may or may not be legal. That’s very vague and very fuzzy right now. Regardless, it’s unethical. So even if it is legal and the federal government cannot make it legal, it’s in the constitution that prevents that. The state government can in certain states and state governments have, others could change the law to make it legal. But in this case, James, what we’ve already seen is the federal government going through the state governments. So it’s really a federal initiative, which means it’s illegal. But it’s certainly unethical to force anyone and certainly unethical to force someone at the threat of losing their livelihood.
Malcolm Roberts:
That means a person has a choice between eating or not getting the vaccine. That’s it. If you want to eat, then you’ve got to get the vaccine. That’s totally wrong. And so vaccine prisons, I call them, not vaccine passport, it’s a vaccine prison because they’re designed to exclude people who are not vaccinated, who choose to not be vaccinated. That means we’re denying people their basic rights, their basic rights to move around, Facebook and YouTube even denying their basic rights to freedom of speech. Denying people livelihoods, denying people travel, denying people to exchange, denying people social activities, denying people to mix with their families.
Malcolm Roberts:
We have seen the real issue in this vaccine. And, sorry, in this virus, is not just health, it’s freedom and it’s government accountability. Governments have quickly moved into control and always throughout human history, we have control versus freedom. And at the moment, freedom is losing out. These vaccine prisons as I call them, they’re not vaccine passports, they’re vaccine prisons to restrict people, to force them to be vaccinated. That is immoral, unethical and totally wrong. Leave it up to each person to choose, but above all, give them the information so that they can make an informed choice.
James Preston:
Well, Malcolm, I think that’s a pretty good note to finish on the entire concept behind what you’re talking about here is basically freedom. Freedom of movement, freedom of choice, freedom of decision-making. So I want to just thank you so much for your time and getting across your insights today.
Malcolm Roberts:
You’re welcome, James. Health, freedom and government accountability. And your pleasure to be on the interview with you.
James Preston:
Brilliant, thank you very much, Malcolm. That is One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts. And for all of our sake, hopefully we can find a way out of this mess very soon. And of course, manage to keep as many of our freedoms as Malcolm has been alluding to intact as possible. Well, that’s all for this edition of Expert Talks. If you missed any part of this conversation or you’d like to browse our complete catalogue of expert talks, simply head across to the website, kalkinemedia.com. And also our YouTube channel, Kalkine Media. I’m James Preston, signing off for now.
Our education standards have been slipping for years, yet ACARA’s draft curriculum was more focused on erasing facts about our judeo-christian heritage and implementing Critical Race Theory.
Curriculum should be focused on ensuring our kids are skilled in reading, writing and numeracy first, not political ideas.
The ditching of the draft curriculum follows two successful One Nation motions on heritage and critical race theory drawing attention to the draft’s shortcomings.
With the steady downward trend of education all standards for reading, mathematics and science for Australia’s children over the last 20 years, ACARA needed to deliver a curriculum review that reflected proven teaching methods. Rather than provide a robust review that would turn the tide, ideology got the better of ACARA and their efforts have been binned, as it deserves to be.
One Nation put forward two successful motions which highlighted significant fundamental flaws in ACARA’s reviewed curriculum. Instead of focussing on proven methods for teaching mathematics and reading, ACARA thought it more important to demolish out our Judeo-Christian heritage and the role of Western civilisation in Australian society, laws and customs.
Australia is proudly a liberal democratic society and these values should be at the very basis of our national curriculum.
I acknowledge that Minister Tudge has ditched the reviewed curriculum. He has recognised that ACARA has tried to turn our curriculum into a tool for indoctrination for left-wing ideologies that denounce Western civilisation as something to be ashamed of, by promoting notions of imperialism and re-packaging significant and defining Australian historical events.
There is an urgent need to lift the educational outcomes for our children and One Nation will continue to monitor the efforts of ACARA to ensure that our cherished western liberal democracy is enshrined in the national curriculum.
It is not by accident that Australia is one of the most sought after places to live. Safeguarding our way of life comes from the teachings we give our children, either at home or through the curriculum, which reminds them of what Australian men and women have defended in past decades – our right to a free society with laws and customs of Judaeo-Christian origins, and only when our children know that can they defend and uphold those values.
From Asia Pacific Today:
Just like The US Federal Government, The UK Government, The New Zealand Government, the Canadian Government and Federal and State Australian Governments, no longer serve the interests of Australians. Australian Prime Minister Morrison thinks he’s being clever by using despotic Premiers and Businesses to do his dirty work to force almost every Australian to be vaccinated. But he will be destroyed by his own actions.
As with other Western pseudo democracies, Australia is now a divided nation, with Australians pitted against each other. Good Governments would not stoop to this during a real health emergency. Nor would they deny to the sick, inexpensive, safe and effective treatment.
Australia is an international disgrace with daily examples of police overreach and arrests. Dumb politicians lie through their teeth come out with ridiculous statements – because they are fighting a phony war.
Australians have good reason to refuse an experimental vaccine – making Government or Private sector coercion even more abhorrent. Business leaders are the useful idiots believing vaccines are the only way out of their Government imposed nightmare. This is twisted logic – with growing evidence that the new vaccines have dangerous side effects and lose their effectiveness in a short time. Little is known about these so called vaccines and less is known about the efficacy or dangers of the imminent round of booster shots.
So Corporations are legitimising ongoing and arbitrary restrictions on economic activity and the destruction of the business class. Really?
Some 18 months on, Government actions against the virus would be laughable if they weren’t so destructive. Record levels of fake positive testing, CCP style restrictions on the majority of the healthy, Internal and external travel restrictions, destruction of public health, risking the health of the most vulnerable and lives of the young with their vaccine mandates and risking front line health services.
All this madness has to stop now because the benefits more than outweigh the cost of the virus itself and these shocking Government interventions.
Senator Malcolm Roberts said the other day “As more and more people become understandably vaccine hesitant, the government is becoming more and more authoritarian. If we don’t want to end up in a dictatorship all vaccine choices, whether compliant or hesitant, must be accepted.
Casual Coal Wage TheftFebruary 21, 2024 - 2:09 pmOver $30,000 a year being stolen, and it’s been signed off by the union and the government. Find out about the largest wage theft from casuals in Australia.
My Other IssuesFebruary 16, 2021 - 12:08 pm
Murray Darling BasinMarch 23, 2020 - 3:05 am
Foreign OwnershipOctober 16, 2019 - 4:58 am
Property rightsOctober 16, 2019 - 4:39 am
United Nations #AUSEXITOctober 16, 2019 - 2:31 am