Deaths in January were a shocking 2,965 (22%) above the baseline for Australia. This increase coincided with a large increase in COVID-19 infections which is being blamed as the cause. However, if we dig down a bit on that claim it does not stack up.

ABS figures show that only 442 COVID deaths were recorded in January. What is the explanation for the remaining 2,443 deaths above baseline?

Source: ABS https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/causes-death/provisional-mortality-statistics/january-2022#australian-deaths-by-week-1-february-2021-to-30-january-2022
Source: ABS https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/covid-19-mortality-australia-deaths-registered-31-january-2022#deaths-due-to-covid-19-year-and-month-of-occurrence

Deputy Labor Leader Richard Marles has shown that his first allegiance lies with China, not Australia.

Marles has clearly shown that his true colour is red, like Labor, when he delivered a speech praising the Chinese Communist Party, delivered in China in Beijing in 2019.

He said in the speech that Chinese investment in the Pacific was a good thing and called for closer military ties between China and Australia.

He had even cleared the contents of the speech with the Chinese Embassy in Canberra before delivering it, but it was not shared with the Australian government.

Why would Mr Marles cowtow to the Chinese unless he is either totally misguided, stupidly dangerous or a Chinese government servant?

In 2017 Mr Marles had given a speech praising China’s considerable humanitarian achievements, describing them as a “force for good”.

Pity the poor Uighurs who have been forced to live in labour camps for re-education.

Marles argued that China did not seek to export its ideology or to influence other countries’ political systems, even though this was contrary to then existing ASIO warnings about foreign influence in Australia.

Richard Marles is the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party and if elected at this federal election, he could become one of the most influential voices in Australian government. Will we all need to learn to speak Cantonese?

This must not be allowed to happen.

Labor will be soft on China if it comes into government.

To stop this happening Mr Marles must step down or be made to do so and Labor must not be voted into power.

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation represents all Australians and supports Australia as a sovereign country.

“Richard Marles praised Xi Jinping, China’s human rights record, said Australia should stay out of South China Sea dispute:  https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/richard-marles-praised-xi-jinping-chinas-human-rights-record-and-said-australia-should-stay-out-of-south-china-sea-dispute/news-story/d3ae177ff5a51c702183abbebbd4f517

As the cost of living pinches Australian households, the Morrison-Joyce government favours foolish net zero targets, rather than investing in a new power station for Australia’s energy affordability and security.

Shine Energy’s coal-fired Collinsville power station in North Queensland is a community-led project dedicated to providing affordable energy using Australia’s clean coal reserves and can be a vital part of Australia’s national energy and industry security.

Senator Roberts said, “An election campaign brings out the duplicitous politicking from our politicians, when they choose their words of support so carefully that the back door is always open for reneging.

“Barnaby Joyce’s lame private statements of support for the business case of Collinsville power station is no green light for the power station to go ahead.”

The Morrison-Joyce government and Labor share and continue a deceitful and dishonest stance on coal. 

Senator Roberts added, “When spruiking to city voters, it’s all about net zero and “dirty” coal, then they clean up their act in the regional areas and spruik clean coal, jobs and energy security.

“Australian voters have listened to these politicians speak with forked tongues over coal for years now, while they continue to pander to globalist agendas and put our national energy security and people’s jobs and livelihoods at risk.”

One Nation alone provides voters with a consistent and strong message about the value of Australia’s coal-fired and technologically advanced power stations for energy security, jobs and reducing our cost of living.

One Nation is the only party of energy security. One Nation is the only party of energy affordability.

Remember the plan to restrict you to eating less than one bite of red meat per day? That’s only possible if the Government can track your every move with the Digital Identity Bill.

Transcript

The United Nations has a problem. How can they control the carbon footprint of the world’s citizens? Not the whole world of course, just the West, the United Nations Conference of Parties 26. Gave us an insight into the UN’s menu-plan, where Scott Morrison watched without criticising their demand to reduce the carbon footprint of our food supply, instead of counting calories,

Australians will soon have their culinary delights and choices dictated to us by an unelected socialist bureaucracy, very soon government will tell our farmers what they can grow and punish Australian consumers if they buy the wrong things. This has already started with frightening reform schedule for Australian agriculture. The dream of micromanaging individual carbon emissions hinges on the soon to be passed, so-called Trusted Digital Identity Bill.

If Scott Morrison and Barnaby Joyce want to achieve their Net Zero 2050 dream, freedoms must be slashed, removed, it is only through the relentless digital stalking of citizens that the Liberal National’s government can micromanage purchasing choices. Businesses are punished with tax, while consumers get their credit score docked. This already happens in China, where a person’s shopping list lowers their social credit score until they cannot travel.

In Australia, it may be as simple as denying banking services because you dare to drive a four wheel drive to work. Australian banks have already shown a keen interest in the Trusted Digital Identity Bill saying it will quote, “allow them to create a rich view of their customers”. These are the same banks that already list climate risk as a means to deny loans. When the Liberals tell you that digital identity will make your life easier, remember there is no such thing as a free lunch.

In my questioning at Senate Estimates the Bureau of Meteorology confirmed that we’ve had bigger floods before. Our recent weather has been severe and affected many people and my heart goes out to them. But greenies claiming that our recent weather is unprecedented are abusing these people’s grief for political gain.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to ask some questions about the distressing floods, but first of all I want to commend you for admitting that you don’t know everything. That’s so refreshing to hear. I don’t know everything, and someone who’s talking about weather certainly doesn’t know everything. Nature’s highly variable, and natural variation is enormous. Coming to the floods, they’re very distressing for people and it’s important to give them the right information. According to the Bureau of Meteorology’s graphs, in the last 100 years there have been two major floods and in the previous 90 years there were 11 major floods.

Dr Johnson : Sorry, just to be clear, where are you talking about? In Brisbane?

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, Brisbane, yes. In 1974, which is the highest recent flood in the last hundred years, the flood levels reached were much less than in 1893 and much, much less than in 1841.

Dr Johnson : Correct.

Senator ROBERTS: Has the government, state or federal, discussed anything about doing some research with regard to flood mitigation?

Dr Johnson : Maybe I can respond to the two parts of your question. You’re right, there have been bigger floods in Brisbane since records have been kept, and records have only been kept since the 1840s, so who knows how big the floods really get in Brisbane. When you look at the historical narratives, if you read George Somerset’s writings on where the traditional people of the Brisbane Valley used to have their summer camps, one could reasonably possibly reasonably draw a conclusion that flood levels have been even higher.

Senator ROBERTS: You’re familiar with where the university’s experimental mine is at Indooroopilly?

Dr Johnson : Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Apparently, geologists say that the floods were five metres higher than the 1841 floods. That’s unfathomable.

Dr Johnson : All of these things are possible. But to correct the record, there have been 12 major floods in Brisbane since 1840 and three since 1970, including the most recent ones. We had the 1974, the 2010-11 and the one the other day, so three major floods in Brisbane since 1970. Certainly, of the most recent ones, the 1974 flood was the biggest.

Senator ROBERTS: I was going off the bureau’s graphs and it had lines across the major—

Dr Johnson : We probably haven’t put the line on for the one the other day yet, but—

Senator ROBERTS: No, it was on there.

Dr Johnson : Was it? But there are three: 1974, 2010-11 and 2022. For the record, that is the flood history in Brisbane. The second part of your question is about flood mitigation. That’s not a responsibility of the bureau. That’s the responsibility of state governments and local governments, indeed. As you know, obviously Wivenhoe Dam being put in, although its primary purpose is not for flood mitigation—it’s for water security—it does perform a flood mitigation function. The Brisbane City Council also undertakes significant flood mitigation works. As you’re probably aware, since the 2010-11 flood they’ve installed extensively throughout Brisbane engineering works to try to reduce the backflow of water from the river up into the suburb. It was one of the experiences from the 2010-11 flood that people were getting flooded through water coming back up through the stormwater system. The flood mitigation work is their responsibility. Certainly the flood mitigation works draw heavily on bureau historical data.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I was getting at: it’s not your responsibility to—

Dr Johnson : It’s not our responsibility to do the mitigation.

Senator ROBERTS: But they do consult with you?

Dr Johnson : Correct. And the state and local governments also heavily utilise not only their own in-house capability but also significant capability in the private sector. So we make all that data available. People are welcome to use it—and we hope they use it—to keep our community safer in the future.

Senator ROBERTS: My question wasn’t going to any attempt to pin you down and blame you for the floods—that’s ridiculous.

Dr Johnson : No, I wasn’t reading it that way.

Se nator ROBERTS: Good. But I can’t imagine that the bureau has any responsibility to correct politicians or media that produce stories saying the floods in 2022 were due to climate change caused by humans or anything like that. That’s their responsibility, not yours.

Dr Johnson : We just report what we see happening in the environment. We try to do so to the best of our abilities and as factually as we can. So we don’t choose to speculate on what we’ve said. What we’ve said very clearly is that, with climate change, we can expect the frequency of high-intensity rainfall events to increase—

Senator ROBERTS: Based on models?

Dr Johnson : Based on models and also based on our recent experience. What we can also see, just as a basic law of physics, is that, for every one degree the temperature rises, the atmosphere holds about seven per cent more water. The Australian temperature record is around 1.47—plus or minus 0.2—since records have been kept. I’m not an engineer like you are, Senator, but the atmosphere is holding roughly 10 per cent more water than it might have had in pre-industrial times. That water has got to go somewhere. It circulates around the planet as part of a mass balance with the oceans and the rivers. I think it’s absolutely reasonable to expect that, as the climate continues to change, the likelihood of high-intensity events like those we have seen will increase. And, all other things being equal, there will be an increased risk of flooding for those communities live on active flood plains. A lot of people live really close to rivers that are still very active—

Senator ROBERTS: And some people say that Brisbane is a city built in a river.

Dr Johnson : Indeed. I think the title of the book is A River with a City Problem.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s right.

Dr Johnson : I know the book you’re referring to.

Senator ROBERTS: Some argue—and there is a lot of conjecture about this—that an increase in water vapour in the atmosphere leads to a cooling effect, for all kinds of reasons. So there are a lot of uncertainties in forecasting the weather and forecasting the climate. I want to quote from the transcript from the Senate estimates in February. I asked whether the State of the Climate reports scientifically prove that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut. You responded: ‘I’ve got the report in front of me. I don’t believe there’s a section in there’—that’s right, it’s not the purpose of the report. I happen to agree with you. I’ve been through many of your reports. Later on, you said: ‘I think we made it really clear what the purpose of the document is. It’s to provide a synthesis of our observations of Australia’s climate and oceans.’ Previously you said: ‘I think it’s important for the record to note that none of the State of the Climate reports in any way whatsoever make statements with respect to global emissions.’ I compliment you on your clarity and I appreciate your clarity. It’s not the Bureau of Meteorology’s responsibility to correct politicians when they say that the state of the climate contains evidence of cause and effect, is it?

Dr Johnson : Certainly the bureau is not in the habit of making public comment around statements that our elected officials make. As you know, our job is to advise. Elected representatives are free to say whatever they wish to say. You, of everybody, would probably know that best. We provide our best scientific advice to you and you’ll form your own conclusions on that advice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

I had a chance to sit down with Damien from Against the Grain Media to have a long chat about a lot of important things. The old mainstream media never gives people this kind of opportunity to fully spell out their ideas which is one of the reasons independent media is growing so quickly.

Transcript (click here to read)

Damien:

We’ve been joined by Senator Malcolm Roberts from One Nation. It’s a real pleasure to have you on the show.

Malcolm Roberts:

It’s a pleasure being here. Thank you for the invitation, Damien.

Damien:

No worries. It’s great to have you. And I hear there was a little bit of trouble. We were having lunch when you rolled up, and you were in the courier mail offices and you tried to get in. Is that right? And I wouldn’t let you in. Can you tell us about that?

Malcolm Roberts:

I answered yes to every question except the first one, am I injected? And so I answered no there and they said they couldn’t let me in. But I get the feeling that they’re a little bit flexible on that.

Damien:

Okay. They let you in eventually.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, they didn’t let me in there, but Michelle came and rescued me and brought me here, because you’re not in their building officially.

Damien:

No, right. Did you think they didn’t know who you were? They didn’t know your stance.

Malcolm Roberts:

No, I think it was completely accidental. It wasn’t deliberate. It wasn’t planned. The lady behind the counter said, “Who am I dealing with,” in a conversation to one of her producers. And I said, “Senator Malcolm Roberts.” And she said, “Okay.” Then it seemed to be they were embarrassed, but it’s not their fault.

Damien:

Yeah. But you were allowed in suddenly. You had a senatorial privilege, did you? Because you don’t have to be vaccinated to be in the Senate, do you?

Malcolm Roberts:

No. And therein tells you something really strong. If it’s good enough for the senators and the MPs to not be vaccinated, why the hell can’t everyday Aussies be unvaccinated?

Damien:

Well, that goes to the heart.

Malcolm Roberts:

That’s the exact issue.

Damien:

That’s why we’re doing this show.

Malcolm Roberts:

Good on you, by the way.

Damien:

[crosstalk 00:01:30]. No, but I talked to Craig Kelly, and he was saying because he didn’t have to be vaccinated to sit in the parliament. But then he came down to Victoria to speak at a rally we did in Ballarat, and he couldn’t hire a car. He got to Victoria, couldn’t hire a car because of his status. But he could represent us in parliament.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. And people say, “What the hell is it with parliamentarians who are given an exemption to do that?” And I said, “No, that’s not the issue. The issue is Australians are being forced to do it.” It should be exactly the same as for us. We’re not required to be forced to do it, they shouldn’t be required to do it.

Damien:

What’s behind that? Why weren’t you forced to do it? Why the exemption [crosstalk 00:02:05]-

Malcolm Roberts:

I’m guessing it would be interfering with the role of an elected MP, which would be right against the Constitution.

Damien:

But why wouldn’t it be interfering with the role of a McDonald’s worker?

Malcolm Roberts:

Exactly, exactly. And I’ve interviewed Professor David Flint a couple times on my TNT Radio.live show.

Damien:

Yeah, I’ve heard it.

Malcolm Roberts:

And he’s very good. He’s very sound. He’s won international awards for work, his expertise. He’s very highly regarded in this country on the Constitution, but he’s not one of these people who lives in an ivory tower.

Malcolm Roberts:

He’s on the ground, he’ll march in protests. Wonderful speaker. He’s so crisp and clear. And he’s saying, “I don’t know how they’re getting away with it.”

Malcolm Roberts:

Because what they’ve done, Damien, is the Liberal Party and the Nationals have locked together with the labor Party. And they have stitched it up federal and state.

Malcolm Roberts:

The federal can’t do this on its own. The state can’t do it on its own. Together, they can do it. That’s what’s wrong. This has been collusion. It’s been deliberate to try and put us in a stampede of fear. The virus of fear, really. And to bring in controls. There’s no doubt about that.

Damien:

Why? And why would the conservative parties be complicit with that agenda?

Malcolm Roberts:

It’s very simple. The World Economic Forum is driving this. The UN and World Economic Forum collude. They’re pushing a global agenda. The World Health Organisation, as you know, is part of the UN.

Malcolm Roberts:

They’re now trying to stitch up… I’m getting my staff to go and do research on the details. I’m speaking very broadly in an uninformed way, just relying on newspaper headlines, so forgive me.

Damien:

They can be in accurate, the newspaper headlines.

Malcolm Roberts:

Just sometimes.

Damien:

Just a little bit. They’re part of the same globalist agenda, aren’t they?

Malcolm Roberts:

Of course. Well, the globalists own the major media.

Damien:

BlackRock and Vanguard. Sorry, I’m interrupting.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah, exactly.

Damien:

You follow the money. Go back and follow the money.

Malcolm Roberts:

Correct. Yeah. And I’ve been doing that since I first started chasing this climate scam in 2008. Anyway, we can come back to that, but the globalists are pushing an agenda for control.

Malcolm Roberts:

And what the World Health Organisation wants is the ability to force people in individual countries at their order… Forget the government, to comply with various restrictions. Mandates, et cetera. Forced injections of people for future injections.

Malcolm Roberts:

That is global governance. All these people that said that United Nations are not about global governance are talking rubbish, because the United Nations was formed to implement global governance.

Malcolm Roberts:

Unelected. What is it now? Unelected socialist global governance. Words of Maurice Strong, number two in the UN at one time, and secretary general for the environment, I think he was.

Malcolm Roberts:

He said that, and the others have said pretty much the same thing. There’s a global agenda going on here. Their Rio Declaration summit in 1992, which Keating signed him after the labor Party.

Malcolm Roberts:

Which the Liberal Party has implemented and the National party has implemented, through John Howard and every prime minister since. That is a global governance document. It is to control people globally. And that’s what they want, global control.

Damien:

But on a personal level, it’s good for you, isn’t it, that the Liberals shadow labor like that. Because it means you can have this voice and be elected to parliament to be this voice. Is that right?

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. It’s a funny story. A very, very good friend of mine, been a friend for about 50 years. He’s now close to 80. Very highly regarded in this country. I think the world of him.

Malcolm Roberts:

Doesn’t take anything face value. Doesn’t trust anyone, researches himself. Anyway, and he never gives advice. It’s up to you. He only called me once, gave me advice when I entered the Senate and said, “Don’t talk about Agenda 21.”

Malcolm Roberts:

Because the conspiracy theory tag will come out and another tag will come out. Even though I respect him so much, I said, “No, I’m not going to do that. I’m going to come out and tell the truth.”

Malcolm Roberts:

And now, people are waking up to the Agenda 21 and they’re waking up to the UN and the World Economic Forum. And this virus has destroyed many people’s lives, not through the virus but the mismanagement of the government’s response. But it’s helped people awaken. People can now see this is driven globally when Macron and Trudeau and-

Damien:

Ardern.

Malcolm Roberts:

Boris Johnson and Biden. And they all stick to the same… Ardern. Yeah, nasty piece of work. They all stick to the same words. Build back better. What’s the other one?

Damien:

Two weeks to flatten the curve.

Malcolm Roberts:

Two weeks. There’s another big one, the great reset.

Damien:

Yes, that’s correct.

Malcolm Roberts:

These things are all coming out at the same time from different mouths around the world. They’re all connected.

Damien:

Well, how come you see it, Malcolm? And then other people would just think, like you say, “I think you’re nuts. You’re a conspiracist?”

Malcolm Roberts:

Because I want to explore what I see. As a mining engineer, I was taught the science of the atmosphere, and atmospheric gases in particular. And so I know that the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is around 0.04%. Around four 100ths of a percent. It’s nothing. It’s called a trace gas because there’s bugger all of it.

Damien:

It’s essential to human life. Feeds plants.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. Exactly, it’s plant food. It’s fertiliser. It’s essential for all life on earth. We were taught that when men and women are alive underground, we have to have fans that suck the air down the mine and through, and clear gases and so on.

Malcolm Roberts:

And so we learned about the atmosphere. When I first started hearing about this global warming nonsense, I thought, “This is rubbish.” But then what we tend to do is go, “Who’s little old me to contradict thousands of scientists and hundreds of politicians?”

Malcolm Roberts:

There’s just something in me restless when it comes to that kind of thing, so I dug down to the science and I realised it’s complete crap. And so then I thought, “Well, what’s driving it?”

Malcolm Roberts:

Then I found the UN and then I thought, “What’s driving that? Who’s controlling that? Why was it formed?” I found the globalists and that’s where it went.

Malcolm Roberts:

The answer to your question is most politicians in parliament are members of the tired old parties. The labor Party, the Liberal Nationals, and increasingly to some extent, the Greens. They’re increasingly tired.

Malcolm Roberts:

But the point is that they don’t want to look. Because if they pick up a rock, find a scorpion, they’ve got to deal with the scorpion. They don’t want to do it.

Damien:

They don’t want to fall foul of the bureaucracy, ultimately.

Malcolm Roberts:

They don’t want to fall foul of their party power brokers. I can speak in the Senate and exposing the climate scam. I can walk outside, Damien, and they’ll pat me on the back, the Nationals. And the Liberals will pat me on the back and the labor Party will pat me in the back.

Malcolm Roberts:

Some of them say, “Keep going, keep going.” Because they don’t believe it, but they’re not going to speak up about it. They’re not representing their people. That’s a fundamental flaw in our system.

Damien:

How do we change that then?

Malcolm Roberts:

Vote. Because the people who are responsible for what’s going on in parliament are the people of the country, the voters. We’re a constitutional monarchy. The supreme entity of our… If that’s the right word.

Malcolm Roberts:

The supreme document of our country is the Constitution. Now, the queen is a part of that constitution, but she has to comply with the Constitution. She’s not an absolute monarch. She’s wonderful. In my opinion, the role is wonderful.

Damien:

A lot of people now say that queen’s role has been defunct, because we became a corporation in 2004.

Malcolm Roberts:

No, nonsense.

Damien:

No, it’s nonsense.

Malcolm Roberts:

That corporation is only so we can trade and enter into contracts. Government has to buy things. The Constitution can only be changed by an absolute majority of the people of Australia, and a majority of the people in each of the voters in each state.

Malcolm Roberts:

A majority of the states have a majority… That’s right. That means the queen can’t change the constitution, the parliament can’t change the constitution.

Damien:

A referendum can.

Malcolm Roberts:

Only you and I can through a referendum, the voters. The voters are the sovereigns. Now, the voters are charged with electing people into parliament, and the voters for too long have gone, “I don’t like labor now so I’ll vote Liberal. I don’t like Liberal now, 10 years later I’ll vote labor.”

Malcolm Roberts:

What they should be saying is, “They’re both the same. We’ll vote for someone else who’ll actually do their job.” And that’s increasingly what’s starting to happen. This virus has woken people up and they’re saying, “God, this doesn’t matter what we have, labor or Liberal. Bugger the lot of them.”

Damien:

You think it might be the broom that sweeps clean the two party preferred system that’s oppressing all of us.

Malcolm Roberts:

That’s what a lot of people are saying.

Damien:

Yeah. Are you finding that in your polling?

Malcolm Roberts:

Yes, definitely.

Damien:

You’re finding your figures are improving. Are you up for the Senate?

Malcolm Roberts:

No, Pauline is up this time. She’s up in a couple of months and I’ve got another three years after that.

Damien:

Yeah. Pauline is interesting, isn’t it? Because I don’t know where you were in 1998. I’ll just tell bit of my personal history here for a second. I grew up in a really staunch labor household. My grandfather ruled the roost on that. “One day, there would only be the labor Party.” That sort of household, you know what I mean? And anyway, in 1998-

Malcolm Roberts:

And then 50% grew up in a Liberal household, “There’s only Liberals.”

Damien:

Exactly. Right. I understand that. In 1998, it was one of the last he actually did before he passed away. He voted Pauline Hanson and no one could believe it. Everyone was like, “Oh, my God.” You know what I mean?

Damien:

He was from south Australia and he was voting for this Queensland. It was meant to be a redneck and all that sort of stuff. You know the rhetoric, you’ve heard it all before.

Damien:

But now, I look back and one thing you can’t help but admire, Pauline’s tenacity. She went to jail, what seemed under very dubious circumstances. Something I’d love to talk to her about. Obviously, not to talk to you about it.

Damien:

But she was almost in front of Trump in recognising things that were wrong and sick in the culture, and things that were not allowed to be talked about. Because that’s the problem, isn’t it?

Damien:

Even with this thing about climate, you say everyone pats you on the back outside of the chamber. Inside the chamber, they all draw a different line. The problem is we’re not allowed to speak.

Damien:

Our freedom of expression is being encroached upon by political correctness. And I think Pauline identified that. What did you think of that in 1998, when you were sitting back? You weren’t in politics at that point in time.

Malcolm Roberts:

I didn’t pay much attention to it back then. I was too busy working. I always get focused on what I’m doing. Very much so. In 2016, Pauline approached me because she heard me speak in places.

Malcolm Roberts:

And she said she’d like me to stand beside her on the Senate floor. She needed someone strong to speak with her. And I said, “I’ll ask my wife.” I asked my wife and she said, “Yes, go for it.”

Malcolm Roberts:

Then I said to Pauline, “Okay. Now, I can have a talk with you. We need to get together and have a really good chat, because I’ve got some questions for you.” We started at 10:00 in the morning at her place and we finished at 9:30 at night. It was 11 hours, something like that.

Damien:

It was real meeting of minds, was it?

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, what was going on was that I wanted to know why all the smearing and all the rest of it, and how she’d been… She’d had freeloaders attack her and make use of her.

Damien:

Was that David Oldfield?

Malcolm Roberts:

There were several people in the mix, Damien. But what I realised was that she was relatively young for a politician. She was only about 40 something I think, early 40s. That’d be about right.

Malcolm Roberts:

And then she was inexperienced. But what I saw was that the growth in her, because of her honesty, people identified with her and they loved what she was doing. And it just shot through the roof. BD in Queensland and Howard in federal were just terrified.

Damien:

Particularly Howard, I’d say. Well, she stole both sides of that. That’s the thing. She stole both sides to her cause, didn’t she?

Malcolm Roberts:

That’s right. I wanted to find out what happened. And what I came to realise very quickly in our discussion, was that no one could have managed that situation. And then when you have freeloaders hanging on, criminals hanging on, they took advantage of this. She’s not naive, but she didn’t have the experience she’s got now.

Damien:

She didn’t have the political acumen, did she?

Malcolm Roberts:

Correct. But boy, she’s got it now. And then I could tell a very good friend of mine who’s known her for decades, told me she’s very honest.

Damien:

Is Pauline still honest or has she been corrupted by the political process?

Malcolm Roberts:

Completely honest. The honesty is what drives her. People say that she loves a fight. She doesn’t. You can see her get nervous before a fight. And so she doesn’t like a fight, but she knows that it’s dishonest to avoid it. She won’t run away.

Malcolm Roberts:

And so you watch her as she gets into it, she knows that she’s got to do it. She doesn’t like it. And then when she’s in the swing of things, she’s wonderful.

Malcolm Roberts:

People think that she’s absolutely determined, and she is. But she’s got wonderful listening skills. And so what she’ll do in a party meeting, she’ll say, “I think we should do this.” And sometimes with a lot of conviction and emphasis on it. “That’s what we’re going to do,” sort of thing.

Damien:

What’s a party meeting involve? Because there’s only two of you in the Senate. Do you know what I mean? How does that work?

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, we have our staff there and advisors, because we can’t possibly go through every bill in detail.

Damien:

But you got Mark Latham, too, in New South Wales.

Malcolm Roberts:

No, no. He’s New South Wales.

Damien:

Yeah. New South Wales.

Malcolm Roberts:

[crosstalk 00:14:47] Steve Andrew up here in Queensland. You have Andrew.

Damien:

Okay. Is there ever a point where the four of you get together?

Malcolm Roberts:

No, no. And Rod Roberts and Mark in New South Wales run their own show. Pauline is very much into devolution of responsibility. “Away you go.” She can say at a party meeting, “I think we should do this.”

Malcolm Roberts:

And I’ll say, “Hang on a minute. I disagree.” “Well, why?” “Because of this, this, and this.” “That’s a good point. I never thought of that. We’ll go with what you’re saying, Malcolm.”

Malcolm Roberts:

She’ll completely churn because she’s got a new slant of looking at it. She’ll usually be well organised and thorough in her approach, but sometimes she might not be, in which case she’ll change.

Damien:

You wouldn’t want it to go to a vote though, would you? Because she’d probably have the casting vote.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah, the leader has the casting vote. No. With Pauline, she also has a lot of [inaudible 00:15:33], a lot of political instinct. Someone who doesn’t know their way around parliament said that she’s the best since Joh Bjelke-Petersen for understanding what people think. But quite frankly, that’s just about listening.

Damien:

Are you just giving us an insight into political allegiance there when you mention [crosstalk 00:15:51]-

Malcolm Roberts:

No, no. Well, Bjelke-Petersen did what was in Queensland’s interest. Now, he’s been tainted by having people like Russ Hinze around him. I don’t think he was that corrupt, but he was passionate about Queensland.

Malcolm Roberts:

It didn’t matter whether he was fighting Whitlam in the labor Party in federal parliament, or Fraser who replaced him in the Liberal Party as the prime minister. Bjelke-Petersen put Queensland first and he was wonderful for Queensland. Pauline Hanson puts Australia first and she’s wonderful for Australia.

Damien:

He’s another Queensland maverick though, isn’t he? There’s quite a few Queensland mavericks.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah, he is. Yeah, he is.

Damien:

We talk about Bob Katter up in Kennedy, and Paul Lane, of course. But Joh ran for PM, too, in 1987. He was going to have a tilt at the top job. Can you remember that?

Malcolm Roberts:

I can, but I didn’t know a lot about it. Coming back to Pauline, I didn’t know a lot about her in 1998. I knew it was a media beat up, so I didn’t pay much attention.

Malcolm Roberts:

But having worked with her, she’s wonderful. She’s absolutely wonderful. A lot of labor and Liberal people love her. And in parliament, they know because both sides will deal with her, will work with her.

Malcolm Roberts:

Because they know that if she says something, that’s it. She’s going to do it. And if they come back with more information and they can convince her, then she’ll take it on board. And she’s very good at listening and she’s got a very good heart. Very warm and generous.

Damien:

In 1998, she tapped into something in the Australian psyche because she won 11% of votes.

Malcolm Roberts:

No, she got 11 MPS in Queensland, she won 23% of the votes.

Damien:

23% of the votes.

Malcolm Roberts:

That terrified Howard.

Damien:

That would terrify anybody. Yeah. What did she tap into? What was it? Is it just the honesty you’re talking about, or were there things that were being left unsaid in Australian politics and she was happy to say them? She had an unassuming style?

Malcolm Roberts:

We’ve got to understand, Damien. I’m not trying to give you a lesson here, but the MPS in Canberra in particular, and to a lesser extent in Brisbane, are slaves to foreign interests.

Malcolm Roberts:

You can look at our tax system, our industrial relations system, the regulations we have in this country. Foreign multinationals are favoured. Japan has 2.5% or had 2.5% of its major corporations are foreign owned. America and Britain around 12.5%.

Malcolm Roberts:

Australia, 90%. They’re not my figures, they’re from the deputy commissioner of taxation, who retired some time ago. And so we’re destroying our country and giving a free ride to these foreign own multinationals.

Malcolm Roberts:

And what happens is the prime ministers, whether they’re labor or Liberal, will appease them. They get donations from them. Big pharma donated last federal election, $400,000 to the labor Party, $500,000 to the Liberal Party. And now, we’re seeing the biggest transfer of wealth ever in our country’s history, from your pocket and my pocket and everyone’s pocket, into big pharma for nothing.

Damien:

Can you believe what you’ve seen over the last two years in Australia? What’s happened as a result of the coronavirus.

Malcolm Roberts:

It’s difficult for anyone to believe. It’s incredible. But the thing is having had the background researching where the climate scam came from, it’s not surprising at all.

Malcolm Roberts:

It’s just a manifestation. Now, what is really scary, it’s not surprising, is that our staff in my office have done the research on the Digital Identity Bill. And that is truly horrific. The COVID restrictions.

Damien:

I saw you grilling people in the Senate-

Malcolm Roberts:

Sorry?

Damien:

I saw you grilling people in the Senate Estimate Committee the other day. It was actually the Reserve Bank you were grilling.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah, the Reserve Bank. They’re usually one of the better ones in Senate Estimates. They actually come clean and pretty straightforward. But the Digital Identity bill has been not introduced into parliament, because there’s a process for that.

Malcolm Roberts:

But they’ve introduced it into the overall mix, and they’ve given us copies of the bill. That bill, significant portions of it are copied and virtually pasted from the World Economic Forum strategy for digital identity around the world. Digital transformation.

Malcolm Roberts:

They want complete control. The things that we’ve got with, what do they call them, QR codes, the vaccine mandates, injection mandates,.that’s the basis of their identity.

Malcolm Roberts:

And what they want, they’ll set up a system where they’ll remove cash, then you’ve got no alternative. That’s underway. You can see the lines in the bill, they don’t say that, but that’s what’s coming.

Damien:

You fought against that only a couple of years ago, before.

Malcolm Roberts:

Cash ban.

Damien:

Yeah. There was a $10,000 cash ban. You weren’t allowed to give any more than $10,000 to someone in payment, and that was imposed by a so-called conservative government as well. You stood up for that.

Malcolm Roberts:

It wasn’t imposed because we beat it. We got wind of that and we went to the labor Party and we went to the cross benches, and they all went, “We’re with you.” And then we went to the labor Party in the lower house, Steven Jones, and said, “How can you possibly support this? Your voters would be up in arms.”

Malcolm Roberts:

And they passed it in the lower house. But we got enough into the labor Party and embarrassed them enough that when it came to the Senate, they consigned it to a committee.

Malcolm Roberts:

But the significant thing there was not that we did that, but there were people in the Liberal Party who joined us and said… Not as a party, but they joined us in our fight against the cash ban bill.

Malcolm Roberts:

And there were a number of people and grassroots and parties in Victoria, party branches in Victoria, who really hit the roof about it. And they really pushed their Liberal MPS.

Malcolm Roberts:

And so after a while, it was bubbling around in the committee. And we just moved a motion saying, “Let’s get rid of it off the list for the Senate.” And it went.

Damien:

I get a bit confused though, Malcolm. They talk about vaccines and QR codes being important to bring about the Digital Identity Bill. It seems to me it doesn’t even matter. It’s almost a smokescreen.

Damien:

While we’re fighting against the mandates, the Digital Identity Bill is being introduced anyway. And I reckon there was likely deterrents. “You know what? We’ll let the mandates go,” because they’re going to get what they want through the Digital Identity Bill that’s being passed as we speak.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, don’t count on it because we’ve been very effective. The bill has not even been introduced into the lower house as part of the parliamentary process.

Malcolm Roberts:

We’ve already smashed it. We’ve raised people’s interest and awareness of it. When I go to a rally, sometimes I just say, “How many of you heard of the Digital Identity Bill?”

Malcolm Roberts:

20% put their hands up, and it’s increasing. We’ve put out a series of eight videos, seven videos on that. I’ve spoken in Senate on it, done a number of other things, raised it at rallies. We’ve got a lot of awareness out there, and the government would be crazy to even try it now because they’ll get smashed.

Malcolm Roberts:

And the other good thing. Sorry to interrupt. The other good thing is, but I asked questions of the digital transformation energy in Senate Estimates a couple of weeks ago. Bloody hopeless.

Damien:

What’s that, please? What is that?

Malcolm Roberts:

You know of Errol Flynn?

Damien:

Yeah.

Malcolm Roberts:

Everything he touched, he screwed. It’s the same with these guys, but they wrecked the things. They’ve had so many major programmes costing billions of dollars, and they’ve wrecked everything they’ve touched. They’re in charge of putting in the digital transformation, so we’re in good shape there because then they can’t do it.

Damien:

But when you talk about these things, I’ve been involved with the freedom movement in Melbourne a lot, in response to the lockdowns, the restrictions that have been placed on the culture.

Malcolm Roberts:

Good job, too. Good job.

Damien:

Yeah, absolutely. But if you depart from ending the mandates, which is clearly important. It’s something to focus on. It unites the team. If you depart from it, start to talk about some of these greater issues and the World Economic Forum, et cetera, and UN. All those involvements. The WHO.

Damien:

People can get very agitated and it splinters very, very, very quickly, particularly around identity politics. It’s hard to have the broader conversation. It’s very clever by the globalists, even if they [inaudible 00:23:17] accidental. But it makes it very hard to talk about these things, doesn’t it?

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, I disagree with you because what happens. If you talk about too much of this, then you’re correct, it diffuses from the focus. The focus is on ending the mandates. The focus is on bringing freedoms back, ending the restrictions, stopping kids getting vaccinated.

Malcolm Roberts:

But people need to know what’s driving that. Why are they suddenly wanting to inject kids? Why are they suddenly wanting mandates? As you said a little while ago, you wouldn’t have believed this two years ago. You wouldn’t have believed some of this stuff six months ago.

Damien:

The police are firing rubber bullets on the peaceful Victorian protesters.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. We have to understand that first of all, what’s the background to this? Give people the context, then they’re more likely to continue. And then the second thing is we have to give them the information of what it’s really about, so they really fight it.

Malcolm Roberts:

And they have to understand who they’re fighting. Morrison is just a front for the World Economic Forum. What’s his name? Mathis Coleman left leadership of the Senate, Liberal Party. The government and the Senate went into the OECD.

Damien:

Yeah. They all do, they all do.

Malcolm Roberts:

Global insanity. Global insanity.

Damien:

Yeah. But they all do that, don’t they? Is the problem career politicians? That’s the problem, because they work through the system and they want to stay inside of the system. It’s the last thing you want to do if you want to stay inside a system, is fall foul of that very system that you’re appealing to.

Malcolm Roberts:

Look at Greg Hunt. Greg hunt, before he got into politics, was a member of the World Economic Forum. He was director of strategy for it, and he’s a graduate of the World Economic Forum’s global young leaders programme. So is Jacinda Ardern, so Macron, so is Trudeau, so is Boris Johnson, so are many of these people. And what they’re doing is they’re infiltrating our entities.

Damien:

And Andrews.

Malcolm Roberts:

Is he, too? I didn’t know that.

Damien:

I believe so, I believe so.

Malcolm Roberts:

They’re infiltrating these entities. The Republican Party in America has got five of them, the Democrats in America have got 20 or so of them.

Damien:

It’s not right versus left anymore, isn’t it? It’s big government versus the people, ultimately, isn’t it?

Malcolm Roberts:

Correct.

Damien:

We got to devolve from the system. Somehow, we have to devolve from the system. What will be that process? How are we going to do that?

Malcolm Roberts:

We have to make sure the system is implemented properly. At the moment, it’s the breaking from the system, the contradiction of the system, that’s enabling it to happen. We have to get back to compliance with our Constitution properly.

Damien:

How do you do that? How do you bring that about when none of the institutions seem to be in support of you?

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, we’ve got to raise it with the people. That’s why when I got into the Senate, my first speech in the Senate back in 2016, I called for an OzExit. You remember Brexit was-

Damien:

Yeah, I absolutely do.

Malcolm Roberts:

… in the mind of people then. November, 2016. And I called for an OzExit, Australia exiting the UN. It’s a corrupt, dishonest, incompetent, anti-human body. It’s an industry. It’s pushing the globalist agenda, who only might control.

Malcolm Roberts:

I raised it then. We got to keep raising it. And so I tend to go for things. What my staff said, “Malcolm, hang on. Just pull the reins back a bit and educate people about what the UN is doing.” And that’s what we did. We’ve got a lot of people now. The moment we mention UN on Facebook, people just swamp it.

Damien:

Yeah. The globalists really struggled with Brexit, too, didn’t they? Because the British people voted for Brexit and then it took them a long time for it to be realised, because the establishment just the didn’t want to implement it, despite the will of the British people.

Malcolm Roberts:

Full marks to Nigel Farage. He did a wonderful job.

Damien:

Yeah, he did.

Malcolm Roberts:

But it’s significant. People within the UN have said that the model for global governance that the UN is trying to build, is the EU. There’s a unicameral parliament there which is supposed to be representing the people from all across the EU.

Damien:

That’s what we have in Brisbane. Brisbane is a unicameral parliament. That means one house.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yes. But the real decisions are made by the bureaucrats who control the show, and so they’re all appointed. You’ve got an unelected continent wide socialist governance going on, and they’re stripping away the powers of the nation states. And the British, to their credit, and especially to Nigel Farage, said, “No. We’ve had enough.” And they pulled out.

Damien:

Now, this is the perversity, isn’t it? Because Farage never has any power locally, but he has power in the EU. He goes to the EU and he says to them, basically, “I went out of this place.” They mock him and laugh at him. Then what is it?

Malcolm Roberts:

It takes him about 20 years or something.

Damien:

And he comes back and says, “Finally, we’re out of here. We’re leaving.” He gets what he wants. But again, he’s thrown away any power that he would’ve had politically, because he wasn’t just simply being a purely political operative. He’s actually a man of some sort of principle.

Malcolm Roberts:

Right, he is.

Damien:

He’ll be painted as someone of no principle, and everyone else is painted as having principle according to the media elite that controls what we see and hear.

Malcolm Roberts:

Maybe this is Nigel Farage’s responsibility to do what I’m about to say. But who’s really responsible there? It’s the people. The people could see what Farage was doing.

Malcolm Roberts:

They got on board behind him, they forced the conservative party, the Tories in Britain, to really push Brexit, and they got it. Then the moment they got out of Brexit, what did they do in the next council elections? They voted with the Tories again.

Damien:

Well, Peter Hitchens, Christopher Hitchens’ brother. He’s been saying for years, and he’s a Tory voter, that the Tory Party needs to collapse. There’s no point voting for it.

Damien:

It’s a pointless party, because it needs to collapse so something can grow in its place. Because otherwise, it’ll continue to do exactly what you’ve just said. It’ll just tody up to the system, staying slightly right of whatever the leftist party is. But offering nothing, ultimately.

Malcolm Roberts:

That’s right. We’ve got the Liberals in this country and the Nationals pretending to be right wing. We’ve got the labor Party who was in coalition the last time it was in government, with the Greens. We’ve got the labor-Greens coalition. And both coalitions go after the middle vote, because that’s where the majority of voters are.

Damien:

Yeah. Especially in Australia, because it’s a small [crosstalk 00:29:04].

Malcolm Roberts:

Scott Morrison belted Bill Shorten last time, because Bill Shorten was untrustworthy. Even the labor Party voters wouldn’t vote for him. But they got the labor Party into deep trouble at the election because of 2050 net zero from the UN.

Malcolm Roberts:

And Scott Morrison was all over it, really bashing the labor Party. Now, the labor Party has adopted it, and the Nationals pretended to dispute it but they went along for the ride.

Damien:

Is there a few things going on there? He was emboldened by Trump. The presence of Trump helped him to be able to take that stance.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yes, but Morrison is shallow and he’s dishonest, in my opinion.

Damien:

Yeah. It was cynical. He did it as a political exercise.

Malcolm Roberts:

He’s doing what he’s told to do.

Damien:

What will he do this time? Will he pivot on mandates suddenly? He hasn’t got long, he better hurry up and do it. The labor premiers might beat him to the punch.

Malcolm Roberts:

I think there’s something else that he’s working on very hard. You’ll notice he’s coming out to align with the Americans and the British on Ukraine. “Vote for the Liberal Party. They’re strong on security.” It’s crap. They’ve got us into so many wars.

Damien:

Will anyone really care? Not to say whatever is happening in Russia and with the Ukraine, but that’s not really going to have any bearing on Australians, is it?

Malcolm Roberts:

What he’s trying to do is whip up fear, because with fear… Humans are wonderful. We’ve got this wonderful thing called the neocortex, logical thinking, processing. But you get someone afraid, that all gets bypassed. We go back to the primaeval way of thinking. Fight, flight, or freeze.

Malcolm Roberts:

And what he’s doing is whipping up some fear around that and saying, “labor Party is weak on this. You have to come to us.” He’ll say, “Taiwan.” And that’s why he’s pretending to scream at China, because he’s trying to show they’re strong, labor Party is weak.

Malcolm Roberts:

And then they’re trying to frame labor Party as colluding with the Chinese. Liberals have had MPs colluding with the Chinese. Decades of it. The Chinese are influential in both sides of politics.

Malcolm Roberts:

What the people need to do is to wake up and say, “Hell, we’ve been voting for these people ever since we were kids. Mom and dad voted for them, granddad and grandma voted for them. I’ve got to stop and think there’s no difference between Liberal Party and labor Party. Why should I vote for either?”

Malcolm Roberts:

And they put us into this mess. The labor Party and the state government has colluded with the Liberal Party, National party, and federal government. They could not have implemented the mandates, they could not have mismanaged COVID without colluding.

Malcolm Roberts:

They’ve done that. They’ve done it under the World Economic Forum’s guidance, directions. They’re doing so many things to damage our country under the UN’s directions. Literally directions.

Malcolm Roberts:

And so people are waking up and they’re saying, “Hang on a minute. They’re the same.” And they’re also saying we need a third force in politics, so that’s why they’re looking at the minor freedom parties now.

Damien:

And what about Trump and his election loss in 2020? Do you believe that he lost that election, or do you believe there was-

Malcolm Roberts:

Stolen.

Damien:

… other powers involved. Okay.

Malcolm Roberts:

Stolen. Yeah. One of my staffers is all over the American political scene. He knows what’s going on, he knows about the electoral colleges, but deeper behind that. And he was telling me, he was unmasking some of the counting before it was actually happening. And he’s saying, “Trump walked this in but it was still stolen.” And now, we see in Arizona-

Damien:

The Dominion voting system.

Malcolm Roberts:

Each state seems to be different.

Damien:

Don’t they want to bring that here, the Dominion voting system? That’s what I’ve heard. Or is that just skullduggery from outside?

Malcolm Roberts:

That’s more myth. I’ll tell you what we’ve done about that, same person in our office. Had a talk with me about an audit of the federal election system. He said, “Do you know that the federal election has never been audited in this country?” Western Australia does get audited, New South Wales does. No one else

Damien:

As they say, vote early and vote often.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. There are two aspects. The first was an audit of the election processes and safeguards, especially cyber safeguards before the election. And an audit of the result after the election, before it’s declared.

Malcolm Roberts:

And so we floated legislation to that effect from my office. We did that. The Liberals came out and said, “We’re not going to vote for it.” And same with the labor Party. The Liberals took it then.

Damien:

It works well for the two of them, doesn’t it? The two party system, they look after each other.

Malcolm Roberts:

No. On this occasion, not so. Because what they did was they came and they saw us, and we said, “There’s the legislation. Copy and paste whatever you want.” They copied and pasted almost the whole thing.

Malcolm Roberts:

They changed minor phrases in a couple of areas, so it’s basically our bill. The Liberals then brought it back. labor Party was forced to vote for it because they couldn’t be seen to be voting against it.

Damien:

Looked like they vote against that. Who could vote against that?

Malcolm Roberts:

And the Liberals did, too. We’ve got that election audited in place, so our elections are safeguarded. And why is that-

Damien:

Is this from the next election?

Malcolm Roberts:

From the next, yeah. Before the next election. What’s significant is that we don’t have electronic voting. We have a paper system, which is wonderful for the house of reps. But in the Senate when you’ve got 120 candidates-

Damien:

And a massive paper a kilometre long.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. How do you allocate those preferences? A human can’t do it, so you’ve got to do it electronically. That’s the process. Our office went out and we listened to cryptographers, some of the best in Australia, and asked them for their views. We got a lot of input. That’s why our bill was basically reintroduced by the Liberals [crosstalk 00:34:04]-

Damien:

Can we trust the process that’s going to look after this safeguard though?

Malcolm Roberts:

Yes.

Damien:

Because it seems like all the institutions are corrupted at some level.

Malcolm Roberts:

We’re very confident. The fellow in my office, he’s been talking with a lot of people. And he said they’re very confident that we’ve now got an election that’s free from tampering.

Malcolm Roberts:

Where it’s still not free is we also introduced the voter ID. And the labor Party is totally opposed to voter ID, because they vote a number of times, some of the labor members. More than two or three.

Malcolm Roberts:

And so they don’t want that. And we know that’s happening, and the Liberal Party wants to bring that in. But where we failed was that we had the election audit and the voter ID in the same bill.

Malcolm Roberts:

The Liberals were clever. They took our work and carved it into two. They introduced the election auditing, and labor couldn’t help but support it. Now, they kept the voter ID separate. Now, they’ve put that up again.

Malcolm Roberts:

At the moment, because we’re fighting for freedom in this country, Pauline and I are opposing every piece of legislation that the government puts up. Not just abstaining, but putting a no vote to it, so the Liberal Party has got to be careful how it introduces voter ID.

Malcolm Roberts:

We’re supporting it, but we can’t vote for it at the moment because freedom is far more important. As Pauline says, “Voter ID is very important to us, but even more important is freedom. Go to hell.”

Damien:

And freedom is?

Malcolm Roberts:

Freedom is freedom from mandates, freedom from a lot of the restrictions, the lockdowns, the closed borders. All the freedoms that have been… You can’t steal freedoms. Freedom.

Damien:

It’s been taken from us though.

Malcolm Roberts:

Taken from us.

Damien:

Freedom has been taken from us. How do we bring it back? Do we need to amend the Constitution?

Malcolm Roberts:

No, no. The Constitution is fine. What we need to do is… You’ll see. I can’t tell you what it is now. We’re going to be doing something in the next session of parliament. Pauline has already tried to get an anti-discrimination.

Damien:

I saw that. Yeah. And George Christensen put a similar bill up, didn’t he?

Malcolm Roberts:

Yes. This issue, Damien, is probably the most important in the country because it’s about our future. It’s about our kids. All kinds of things run off it. Injecting kids run off it.

Malcolm Roberts:

What we’ve got to do is recognise that it is so important, but it’s going to be solved probably… We don’t know yet. We tried every trick we can and every open strategy.

Malcolm Roberts:

And the government, because it’s following World Economic Forum orders and UN orders, they’re just immune to it. Someone in the court system will have a breakthrough. We had one in New Zealand last week. There’s a good case in Adelaide.

Damien:

There’s no mandate placed on the police or the army. That’s right, in New Zealand?

Malcolm Roberts:

Correct. Yeah. Then there’s a case going on in Adelaide and another one, AVN I think is doing it. I can’t remember. The Anti-Vaccine Network.

Damien:

They’re bringing a case into South Australian court, are they?

Malcolm Roberts:

No. I don’t know which court they’re in. I think they’re in the federal, ultimately getting to high court. Then there’ll be people pressure, because senior members of the Liberal Party in the Senate have told me that they’re terrified of the number of members who’ve left the Liberal Party.

Malcolm Roberts:

Said, “The hell with you lot. You’re not Liberal anymore.” And the number of high value donors who used to donate significant sums to Liberal Party, they’ve said, “To hell with you lot.” [crosstalk 00:37:11]-

Damien:

I’ve had both size of the house, labor [inaudible 00:37:12]. There’s a lot of hostility towards members at the moment they haven’t experienced before. There’s always some level hostility to parliamentarians.

Malcolm Roberts:

The people putting pressure on is working. The third thing is it’s going to be some kind of solution in the political arena, somewhere in parliament. We’ve got a few things lined up there.

Malcolm Roberts:

Pauline has already done a couple of things, we’ve done a couple of things. More than just putting pressure on. Then you’ve also got pressure in the media, social media. That’s where we’re ramping that up, providing we don’t get banned, because we’ve been threatened.

Damien:

Banned? From social media.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. We’ve had some of our posts taken down.

Damien:

Do you get banned a bit?

Malcolm Roberts:

I’ve been banned on YouTube twice just for telling the truth.

Damien:

Have you ever been on the ABC?

Malcolm Roberts:

I was initially?

Damien:

Initially what?

Malcolm Roberts:

Greg Jennett back in the first time, before I got kicked out for the citizenship issues.

Damien:

Yeah, that was citizen, was it?

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah.

Damien:

Almost everyone got kicked out [inaudible 00:38:02]. I think we should have let them all go. If we knew then what we know, now we probably said, “See yous later.” But anyway.

Malcolm Roberts:

Greg Jennett from the ABC has asked me if I’d come on. I went on a couple weeks ago with him.

Damien:

How was that? What was the reception like?

Malcolm Roberts:

Fine, fine. There’s a funny story there. The ABC would come to us and they’d distort what we’re saying, and edit it and chop it around, and make us look like something we’re saying that wasn’t true.

Damien:

We’re going to do that to you, Malcolm.

Malcolm Roberts:

Good. I know. Yeah, I can tell from your eyes. Anyway, we said, “No more interviews with the ABC.”

Damien:

Starved them.

Malcolm Roberts:

Starved them. And Pauline is dynamite for ratings. People love watching her. Anyway, the ABC got down on their knees, basically. And I said, “Look, I’m not interested.”

Malcolm Roberts:

They’d call up and say, “Will you do an interview?” I said, “Live or prerecord?” “Prerecord.” “Not interested. Live.” And then Greg Jennett came to me and said, “Look, we won’t disturb [crosstalk 00:38:59]-“

Damien:

They can’t manipulate it if it’s live. Yeah. That’s what you’re saying, because otherwise they’ll edit and make you look however they want you to look.

Malcolm Roberts:

Right. Greg Jennett, I like dealing with him. He put a funny close in last time to get the last word, which contradicted the truth. But that’s fine, it wasn’t about me, it was about climate in general.

Damien:

People are starting to see the mistakes though, aren’t they? People are starting to see through their mistakes.

Malcolm Roberts:

Look at this studio here. How many people-

Damien:

Okay. All right, guys. Just so everyone knows, we’re in The Courier-Mail offices. And I think it was built for about 2,000 people when it was built, whenever it was built. That’s what people have been saying. And how many would be in here now?

Malcolm Roberts:

I don’t know, but there’s a massive… How big is that, 80 metres by 30 metres? 80 metres by 40 metres.

Damien:

It’s empty.

Malcolm Roberts:

Full of desks. Empty.

Damien:

Entirely empty.

Malcolm Roberts:

There’s two journalists over there in the corner. Media is [crosstalk 00:39:45]-

Damien:

The legacy media is really struggling, isn’t it? Yeah.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yes, and they’ve done it to themselves.

Damien:

Well, Trump called out fake news, didn’t he? Remember fake nerves? Now, everyone says fake news. It’s become part of the lexicon, hasn’t it, that we talk about?

Malcolm Roberts:

Trump was like getting a shark and slitting its belly and watching the other shark’s feet on it. Look at Joe Rogan.

Damien:

Yeah. I don’t watch his show, but hear he’s just doing…

Malcolm Roberts:

I haven’t got time to watch it.

Damien:

It’s huge figures. You’ve got your own podcast. I heard some.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. We saw the ratings on Joe Rogan’s interview of Robert Malone.

Damien:

Right, Dr Robert Malone.

Malcolm Roberts:

Was 11.5 Million views. Tucker Carlson show on Fox News had the next highest with 3.8. That’s one third.

Damien:

That’s extraordinary.

Malcolm Roberts:

And CNN rounded off the top 10 with 600,000. People don’t trust them.

Damien:

Why don’t the mainstream just talk to the same people? You can see what works. Why wouldn’t the mainstream just talk to the same doctors that we talk to?

Malcolm Roberts:

Because their owners are the globalists who are pushing the thing. Big pharma in America funds 70% of the media advertising in America. They can’t afford to contradict a big pharma.

Damien:

Yeah. But then what do they do in the meantime and see Joe Rogan’s figures? Sweep. But does it not matter anymore? You don’t need to sell papers, it’s actually a propaganda. George Soros’ propaganda arm doesn’t need to make any money because he can support it anyway.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, that’s true. But also, Gates is known for funding social media and the legacy media, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars to put out propaganda. And the people now know that, and they’re saying, “To hell with you lot.”

Damien:

What are we to make of Trump’s championing of the vaccines? He’s really proud of the vaccines. He still is and he still talks about it. What do we make of that?

Malcolm Roberts:

I can’t work that out. It doesn’t fit with Trump. The only thing I can think of is that… And this ties in with what we’ve learned about Fauci, who’s a genocidal maniac.

Malcolm Roberts:

Fauci was too big to knock off. He’s been in that position 40 years. He’s now 80, so he’s been there all through the prime of his career. He’s entrenched. He’s got a shadowy network of people that he controls through disbursement of money.

Malcolm Roberts:

He’s extremely powerful. You could see Trump in his early days with this COVID virus wanting to take on Fauci, because Trump didn’t run away from people. But you could see him after a while back right off.

Malcolm Roberts:

And so maybe he was doing that because Fauci controlled the injections and so on. Maybe he was just scared of opposing. Trump, you could see, he wasn’t Trump in his normal sense.

Damien:

He got out manoeuvred, didn’t he? He really got out manoeuvred.

Malcolm Roberts:

That’s the word.

Damien:

He outmanoeuvred them by using their social media against them, but they got him back a beauty, didn’t they?

Malcolm Roberts:

That’s a good summary, and I think he fell victim to that. You’ll notice the media when he was in power was all over him for not managing COVID properly. Sleepy Joe came in, completely mismanaged it, and yet they said he was doing a wonderful job. The media, they got him over COVID. They misrepresented what he was doing.

Damien:

What do we make of him running again in 2024?

Malcolm Roberts:

Bring it on.

Damien:

Bring it on?

Malcolm Roberts:

Bring it on. Love it.

Damien:

Yeah. You want to see it again. It’s something you would have really appreciated. He pulled us out of net zero. Didn’t he pull us out? It was Paris he pulled out of.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah, Paris.

Damien:

Which was extraordinary, and it looked like he might even pull out of the UN and all these things. And he was talking a lot about NATO.

Malcolm Roberts:

Pulled out of WHO.

Damien:

Pulled out of WHO. This is just unheard of. No one has done it ever since. It hasn’t been that long, but they wouldn’t even think about it. Wouldn’t dream of it. Because he wasn’t a political operative, really. He didn’t grow up through the system, so he made some really bold calls.

Damien:

But then Morrison lost his mojo, clearly, when Trump fell. And he just went straight back to net zero. And so the Australian people lost a lot of heart in that time.

Malcolm Roberts:

I don’t know that he went straight back to net zero. He was driven back to net zero by Biden and Boris Johnson. Johnson is a real disappointment.

Damien:

Yeah, Boris is. But there’s too many powers operating against a small to medium player. How would you go as the prime minister of Australia standing up to that sort of pressure, which would be really intense? It was serious interests.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, I had a word with [inaudible 00:43:56]. I think first of all, you put the national interest first. And if you do your job well, Maggie Thatcher showed you get reelected. If you do your job well, you get reelected. Reagan showed that.

Damien:

Howard took a real risk, didn’t he, with the GST election. People told him not to go to it. It destroyed Houston. Katie made Houston looked like a fool, and Howard went to the people with.

Damien:

It’d almost take something like that from Morrison, wouldn’t it? Some conviction. Australian people need to see something from him that he believes in, that he’s willing to put his neck on the line for.

Malcolm Roberts:

He hasn’t got the stomach for that. He’s a wind vein and he won’t do that. I can’t see anybody in the Liberal Party at the moment who would do that. And there’s certainly no one in the labor Party. They’re playing the globalist game.

Malcolm Roberts:

The prime minister, Maggie Thatcher showed, so did Ronald Reagan. If you explain why you’re doing something, the people will come on board if it’s done correctly,

Damien:

But you need a narrative to sell then, don’t you? You need something to sell. You need to identify something to sell the people. Some conviction in something.

Malcolm Roberts:

Correct, correct. And Damien, what I’ve noticed, whether it’s in industry or in politics or even social issues. People are not scared of change, they’re scared of uncertainty. And quite often, uncertainty comes with the change.

Malcolm Roberts:

And I’ve had some pretty radical things that I’ve done as an executive that people have followed, even though it was right out of their comfort zone initially. But if you give people the right background and understanding and create a vision, then people will go, providing it’s truthful.

Malcolm Roberts:

What’s happened is you had Kevin Rudd standing in front of a church every Sunday. You’ve got Morrison standing up at Hillsong and all this. Fake Christians. Morrison wouldn’t behave the way he’s behaving if he was a true Christian.

Malcolm Roberts:

What we need is people with conviction. If you look at what’s happened with this virus completely being mismanaged, and I mean completely mismanaged. We could spend a couple hours on that.

Damien:

Deliberately so? Was it set off? Is it a bio weapon that was deliberately set off?

Malcolm Roberts:

I don’t know that it was a bio weapon. There’s certainly [crosstalk 00:45:55]-

Damien:

Opportunists are just using it now.

Malcolm Roberts:

Could be a bio weapon, because the funding came from the United States illegally, and Fauci has admitted that. It could be a bio weapon. It certainly caused a lot of damage.

Malcolm Roberts:

But so far as the leadership, what a good leader does is a good leader listens to the people, finds out what their needs are. And then gets the data and paints a vision and says, “Damien, wouldn’t you like this?” And a leader is characterised by having followers who choose to follow him or her.

Damien:

Unless you know the necessity for change while the necessity is there.

Malcolm Roberts:

Right. What happens is leaders are not created and said, “Okay. Now, people must follow.” Leaders are leaders because people want to follow them. It’s a choice.

Malcolm Roberts:

What we’ve had in the vaccine is the complete opposite. Sorry, the virus is the complete opposite. We’ve had people pushing, shoving, coercing, blackmailing. It’d be like trying to get a horse to move by just all you’re doing is kicking it in the ass all the time, instead of leading it forward.

Damien:

Is Klaus Schwab a leader in that respect then?

Malcolm Roberts:

[crosstalk 00:46:53].

Damien:

Because he’s identifying something needs…. There is a problem with us, with society. There’s eight billion of us on this planet. There’s never been so many of us. We’re facing such huge amounts of debt. Who do we owe this money to? Every country in the world seems to owe money. Who’s it owed to?

Malcolm Roberts:

There’s not a problem with population, because each belly comes with two eyes, two ears, and a wonderful mind, and a wonderful heart. We’ll always overcome these issues. We’re on top of this now. There are more people now in the middle class than ever before, so we’ve got fewer people in poverty, despite population [crosstalk 00:47:27]-

Damien:

An abundance of wealth, really. We’ve never been so wealthy ever.

Malcolm Roberts:

The core problem is that humans are prone to control. Some people, the control freaks want to control others, and it shows an insecurity but people see them sometimes as dynamic. Then we see people subservient to that control, and so what we see, the eternal battle between control and freedom-

Damien:

Master, slave.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah, it is. Let’s face it. If you’re a master and I’m your slave, you can get work me for nothing, and the produce that I produce is yours. What a wonderful way to get goods.

Malcolm Roberts:

Trouble is slaves, eventually you end up having less efficiency. And that’s the lesson we learned from the release of this slaves in Britain. What was that? 18th century.

Malcolm Roberts:

The more efficient way is to help your people who are working for you to be better off. Then they’re more committed, because a slave doesn’t have any heart in the game.

Malcolm Roberts:

And humans, the heart determines everything. And so you have people who are more committed, more creative, more entrepreneurial. If you’ve got people working with you rather than for you, you can be much, much wealthier than just exploiting them.

Damien:

We’re going to enter ultimate slavery, aren’t we, more than ever before with artificial intelligence. We’ve never been more of an attack on what it means to be human.

Malcolm Roberts:

You’ve nailed it, you’ve nailed it. Feudalism was where the barons controlled the land, and they said, “I’ll be the baron now. You go and eke out of living. You’ll produce and I’ll take most of it. You’ll have enough to barely keep you alive.

Malcolm Roberts:

That’s what the UN wants. That’s what their dictators in charge of the UN, unelected dictators, are saying. They want to return to feudalism, because then they will basically control your property, control how you live, what you do, when you do it. What you say, what you spend money on, social credit system. That’s what they want.

Damien:

Are we already living it? Because everywhere you look, you just see everyone is on their mobile phones constantly. Wherever you are in any setting, people are just engaging with digital media.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. That’s the wonderful thing. These mobile phones liberate people, because think of the things that help me with my productivity and help the world with productivity from this. But used wrongly, they become a control tool.

Damien:

We’re having a superficial [inaudible 00:49:35] of it really, because it’s more complex. Like everything in the world, it’s actually really complex. [inaudible 00:49:40].

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. This is wonderful for liberating people and freedom, but it can be used, providing government… It needs government to get in the way of freedom, and government can then turn this into a weapon. You’re absolutely right.

Damien:

We talk about the need for change and a good leader would bring us on a journey, articulating why there is that need for change. But there’s something else that’s wrong, too, I think in this culture, which change seems to happen for change’s sake.

Damien:

And maybe change doesn’t need to occur at all. Actually, tradition is what saves us and keeps us whole and keeps our humanity intact. And I think climate change might be a real example of that. That’s something I think you’ve spent a lot of your political career investigating and certainly criticising.

Damien:

I believed I heard that’s what the carbon tax was about. Carbon taxes are a means for globalism, for the UN to raise taxes, because the UN doesn’t have any natural tax base.

Malcolm Roberts:

Correct.

Damien:

A nation state has a tax base, but a universalist system like that doesn’t have one. World governance doesn’t have a tax base. But that’s what the carbon tax, wasn’t it? Because a percentage of that went to the United Nations.

Malcolm Roberts:

Correct. A big percentage. No, you’re absolutely correct. I don’t need to say anything about that. You’ve nailed it.

Damien:

Yeah. But that wasn’t necessarily a good thing, because that was change.

Malcolm Roberts:

Terrible.

Damien:

That was articulated to us by Julia Gillard, and that was change, but that wasn’t necessarily a good change, was it? Change is not always good.

Malcolm Roberts:

No. And so much of what we hear today from the Liberal Nationals, and the labor Greens is about reform. “We’ve got to make reforms.” And here comes another reform. It’s really fiddling, tinkering. It’s not reform at all.

Malcolm Roberts:

We need reform in tax. Complete overhaul, comprehensive overhaul to make it fair, efficient, and honest. We need complete overhaul of the industrial relation system.

Malcolm Roberts:

And now, I’ve had senior people in the ETU, the CFMEU, two of the most powerful unions of the country, say they want reform. I’ve had Dave Noonan from the CFMEU as senior national secretary say, “Yes,” he will sit down and discuss something like this.

Malcolm Roberts:

Because what’s happening is the industrial relation system has been corrupted by politicians. It’s now this thick. How can any individual work and know what his entitlements to her entitlements are? We want proper reform, not tinkering.

Damien:

The union alludes with government and corporations now, anyway, isn’t it?

Malcolm Roberts:

Correct.

Damien:

Actually, I remember being out the front of the CFMEU in Victoria, before it started to really go off down there with Andrews government. And it was extraordinary.

Damien:

And the membership were wild. They were so aggro. And John Setka, the leader of the CFMEU, tried to bust his way out of that office with knuckle dusters on. Punch his way through his membership. Got pushed back into the office.

Damien:

We walked past it again the other day and it’s still boarded up. Months later, it’s still boarded up as a reminder to what went down there on that day. And it really set off. The next day, 30,000 to 40,000 people occupied the West Gate Bridge in Melbourne.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah, and that was wonderful. That’s the grass roots saying, “To hell with the CFMEU leadership.”

Damien:

It felt like hope at that point in time, and then the next day there was a few of us that were saying every day, every day, They’re just going to keep fighting every day. We thought, “Wow. This is a people’s revolution. We’re part of a people’s revolution.”

Damien:

Then the next day at the shrine, there was maybe one 10th of the people that had been there before. Significant number, but nowhere near it.

Malcolm Roberts:

[crosstalk 00:52:51]-

Damien:

And that’s when they opened fire on us. It was significant, too. Because think the state finally went, “Make them pay, make them pay.” And it’s extraordinary that the state actually said, “We will not tolerate you any longer.” But that’s not extraordinary at all, because that’s what power has done throughout history.

Malcolm Roberts:

Correct.

Damien:

There’s actually nothing extraordinary about it.

Malcolm Roberts:

No, but it’s extraordinary that you stayed there. See, even in the face of those rubber bullets, you and many, many other people stayed there. And in the face of the CFMEU’s control of its members, the members said, “Go to hell.”

Malcolm Roberts:

And that was significant because Dan Andrew said, “If one of my largest union supports is being undermined by its own voters, I’ve got problems.” Dan Andrews brought, as you know, brought in lockdowns.

Malcolm Roberts:

The harsh, severe lockdown, the latest one. The last one with about 200 cases a day. He released the lockdowns with 2,000 cases a day because the people stood up, and that’s what we need. You were highly effective.

Damien:

People get rewarded from the system, don’t they? Because I was just talking to a guy the other day, and he was telling me how good Daniel Andrew was. That he’s never met a politician so willing to look after the people, to go that extra mile.

Damien:

And where does he get his money from? The government. He gets his money through government services, through ministering to addicts and alcoholics and stuff. He’s just funded. He’s basically funded to praise the government, to minimal effect of what he’s doing.

Malcolm Roberts:

Look at his media. He’s got so many journalists and social media manipulators. But if you look at government, what’s going on. Now, I’ve been a volunteer. I was a volunteer for basically 12 years.

Malcolm Roberts:

I was working voluntarily and costing me money to do so, in terms of some of the material I had to buy. Fighting a government that was taking money from me in the form of taxation, to put in climate bullshit which was completely wrong.

Malcolm Roberts:

And when I go around the country, I see thousands, if not tens of thousands of people who are fighting the government. Because the government is telling lies. And the government is using their money, either directly in campaigns or indirectly through funding the ABC to push campaigns out there.

Malcolm Roberts:

We’re actually fighting our own government. That’s why. And if you go to Canberra, I don’t know if you were in Canberra for the protest a couple weeks ago.

Damien:

Yeah, I was. Yeah, I was. I saw Pauline come out.

Malcolm Roberts:

So was I. Wasn’t it wonderful to see Australia back?

Damien:

Yeah.

Malcolm Roberts:

You go to Camp Epic and people were having fun. Because even though they were locked up to some extent, they were just being Australians again. And the buzz there was just phenomenal.

Malcolm Roberts:

It was one of the best things I felt. I felt like up until then, I’d been almost ashamed to be Australian in the last couple of years. But I felt that buzz. I could just feel it tingling in my body.

Damien:

Commissioner of the AFP came out and said estimates. I’m sure you’d be aware, he came out and said, “Maybe 6,000 or 7,000, 10,000 tops there on the day.” The propaganda wall continues, doesn’t it?

Malcolm Roberts:

I asked questions of the commissioner of the AFP, and I got to say he was quite good. He acknowledged that the behaviour of the crowd was fantastic.

Damien:

He did that.

Malcolm Roberts:

Head of ASIO. Was it Mike Burgess? He also said the behaviour was phenomenal, and that there were very few activists. There were two or three activists, but they weren’t part of the crowd. They were hangers on who wanted to take advantage of it. That was something for all Australians to be very, very proud of. [crosstalk 00:56:11]-

Damien:

That’s all Australians, or do you think it was predominantly Western European Australians or Western European heritage?

Malcolm Roberts:

There are a lot of Aboriginals involved, a lot of mixed races.

Damien:

There are a lot of [crosstalk 00:56:20].

Malcolm Roberts:

A lot of whites, for want of a better word. The big, big players were people who’d come from the former Eastern European countries, the communist countries. Same climate.

Malcolm Roberts:

When I went around the country speaking at rallies on climate, always the people who came up immediately I finished. They’d come up and they’d say, “Thank you. That was wonderful.” And they always had a foreign accent from Eastern Europe.

Damien:

Eastern Europeans are really strong. They’re really strong. You’re right. It was a European Australian movement mainly, because I see it every time. No one wants to admit it. No one wants to talk about it, because then you can be so easily pilloried.

Damien:

But if you see it, you look at it. But is there a problem? Is there a problem with mass immigration? Not multiculturalism as such or immigration, but mass immigration.

Malcolm Roberts:

There is a problem.

Damien:

Everyone is not moving in the same direction, as a cohesive unit, as a culture.

Malcolm Roberts:

Let’s get to that in a minute, and remind me if I don’t get back to it. But these Eastern Europeans, they said time after time, “We know what’s happening. We were born and in a totalitarian regime. Cruel, no freedom. We can see that coming here through the climate. We can see that climate change scam and the UN trying to get control.”

Malcolm Roberts:

They saw it. And I recognised that very early on in my research, even the first year, that it was all about control. Not about the environment, not about climate at all. It was about control and money. That’s what these globalists want. Immigration-

Damien:

10% will be fine and the rest of us will be slaves, serfs.

Malcolm Roberts:

Correct. That’s all it’s about, control and money. They’re making the billionaires happy. You’ll notice that the UN gets a few key people on board. They’ll make the billionaires, like Twiggy Forrest will make a lot of money out of it.

Malcolm Roberts:

Atlassian founders will make a lot of money out of it from the scam of so-called renewable energy, which is really unreliable. It’s wind and solar. They’re devastatingly expensive, they cripple countries eventually. We’re starting to see that it’s a terrible future.

Malcolm Roberts:

That’s what they do. They make a few people rich and those people jump on board. Coming back to your immigration. Immigration, we have about 70,000 people leave a year, but we’ve had something like 240,000 come in every year.

Malcolm Roberts:

We have a massive growth in population. It’s suppressed wages, it’s destroyed some workers conditions. It’s cruel, the housing market. And it’s put pressure on infrastructure. Traffic jams are longer than they have to be. Waiting lists in hospitals are longer than they have to be.

Malcolm Roberts:

What Pauline and I want, we recognise immigration is good on two conditions. First of all, that you can manage the numbers within what we’re capable of with our infrastructure.

Malcolm Roberts:

And secondly, that we bring people in who want to come to Australia because they want what we’ve got, not come here and destroy what we’ve got. We want people who will comply with our laws, comply with our values, comply with our culture. People say to me, “America is multicultural.” America is not multicultural. America is Americans first, and they’re very, very proud of that.

Damien:

Haven’t we taken part of America with that though? Because we bring people here, but then we teach them our version of critical race theory. We teach them to hate our culture, we teach them to hate us.

Damien:

And this is an irony, because mainly there’s white middle aged men still in the parliament. There’s a lot of white women, too. And there’s other minority groups.

Malcolm Roberts:

The white men are gutless.

Damien:

But they’re the ones selling this. They’re the ones selling it for big government. It sells.

Malcolm Roberts:

Because the globalists have told the media that this is what has to be done. And then when the media pumps it up, people say, “I’m afraid to speak against it.” And so the white male parliamentarians, many of them just kowtow to it, just fall into line. And then they start parroting the same thing.

Damien:

We’re future readers. “We don’t care about the future, we just destroy it just so we get what we need and then [crosstalk 01:00:04]-“

Malcolm Roberts:

Exactly. “We want to get a vote.” That’s what some of them say. But America says, “By all means. If you’re Polish descent, be proud of Poland. If you’re Greek descent, if you’re African descent, if you’re Indian descent, be proud. Be proud of being Korean and Japanese and all the rest of it. Number one, I’m American.”

Malcolm Roberts:

And that’s what they say, and that’s what we need in here. Number one, I’m Australian. I was born in India to a Welsh father and an Australian mother. What am I? I’m Australian because that’s my citizenship and that’s what I’ve worked for. And same with Pauline, she’s Australian. I don’t know where you were born, but you’re obviously Australian.

Damien:

Is there a crisis of masculinity in this country?

Malcolm Roberts:

Yes.

Damien:

Is that why so many young men are committing suicide?

Malcolm Roberts:

Yes. It’s really crisis of courage. A crisis of integrity, a lack of integrity, a lack of courage.

Damien:

Have all the institutions been taken over by feminism as well?

Malcolm Roberts:

Most of them. Feminism is to some extent a reaction to females being left out of processes. Females couldn’t vote 120 years ago. That’s wrong.

Damien:

They didn’t have to go and fight foreign war either, and die on foreign fields. I guess there’s two ways of looking at it.

Malcolm Roberts:

Certainly. But what I’m getting to is that quotas where you have so many percent females will destroy things. Not because they’re female, but because you promote the people who are not quite competent.

Malcolm Roberts:

What we needed to have was an adult discussion saying, “We want you as a female in there, because you bring skills that you as a male don’t bring.” Males and females are wonderful when they’re working together, and they’re complimentary because females and males are different.

Damien:

That’s one of the divisions that has been done by government to us.

Malcolm Roberts:

Correct.

Damien:

The division between men and women has been the ultimate one, really, in many respects.

Malcolm Roberts:

And you’ll notice that the UN and the World Economic Forum come out and say, “We have to fix climate because it hurts women. We have to fix climate because it hurts minorities. We have to fix climate because it hurts the children.”

Malcolm Roberts:

What the hell has it got to do with that? Everyone suffers if it’s true, but it’s not true. What they do is they always come up with something to divide, so that they get the female vote, the male vote, the white vote, the black vote. [crosstalk 01:02:12]-

Damien:

Nature will reassert itself eventually though, won’t it? Men will stand up for themselves again, ultimately, won’t they, when they have to. Or is that [foreign language 01:02:18]-

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, some of us already are and some women are. Pauline has always stood up.

Damien:

Definitely. And I see a lot of women, too, particularly in the freedom movement saying, “Where are the men? Where are the men?”

Malcolm Roberts:

I was about to say that a while ago and I forgot. You talked about a lot of the Eastern Europeans being leaders of the freedom movement here. Women, community groups. Women, marches, rallies. Women.

Malcolm Roberts:

They’re either upfront or they’re out the back. Or they’re saying, “Get your ass down to Canberra, hubby, and start protesting.” Because they’re concerned for their kids. Women have just been so wonderful. Gives me goosebumps to think about it. They’ve been wonderful just pushing this.

Damien:

It’s interesting, isn’t it? Because we talk about the Eastern Europeans have really been on the front lines. You think the Vietnamese would be a natural cohort, because they escaped a totalitarian communist regime as well to come here.

Damien:

Many of them fleeing in horrible circumstances, on boats, et cetera. But there’s not so many of them on the front lines, too. Is there a problem that they maybe don’t feel welcome, because they feel like, “That space is very much a European space?”

Malcolm Roberts:

I don’t know. I haven’t done studies. Could it be due to the Vietnamese… Basically, a lot of Asians tend to be more… What’s the word? Compliant with their regime.

Damien:

But clearly not these ones, because these are the ones that have fled the regimes.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah, they fled. They didn’t stand up. They tried to, some of them, but they couldn’t.

Damien:

That’s an interesting point about immigration that people very rarely raise, too, isn’t it? At what point do you say, “Okay. Should I have fled Victoria?

Damien:

“Or should I flee Australia because I’m frightened about these circumstances that may be encroaching on us, and becoming totalitarian? Or is this the hill I die on and I stand and fight?”

Malcolm Roberts:

Exactly. And we’ve got so many Victorians coming up here now. Victoria had an extra seat allocated to it in the federal election, in the distribution of seats. And Western Australia is going to lose one. Now, they’re cancelling that because so many of them moved to Queensland. [crosstalk 01:04:17]-

Damien:

Yeah. I’ve got friends that moved here about eight months ago.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. When are you coming up?

Damien:

They saw Daniel Andrews’ Strong Cities Network and they said, “I’m out.” I’m here now, Malcolm.

Malcolm Roberts:

But the scary thing, Damien, is that in Mackay for example, and so many regional towns, they’re putting in the same crap. What do they call them? I can’t remember the UN’s name for those things.

Damien:

The the bloody Victorians are going to spread the wokeness with them. They’ll bring the wokeness up here. Don’t let anymore in.

Malcolm Roberts:

I was talking to a mayor of a pretty big city in Queensland. Mackay, I’ll mention it. They’re only doing it to take part in listening to it, but that’s how it starts. You’ve got to stand up and say, “To hell with you lot.” You’ve got to do your research and get rid of it.

Damien:

I’ll say when we arrived here, the Brisbane River was really flooding. You know what I mean? It reminded me of watching images on television of 2011, I think was the last major flood.

Damien:

And Kevin Rudd rolling up the sleeves and stuff, sandbagging. Hoping to get the top job back, which he did eventually, of course. And surely, these two major floods in 10 years, that would be an example of climate change, wouldn’t it, Malcolm?

Malcolm Roberts:

In 1893, there were three floods in the one summer. And each of them was more severe than the 1974 flood, which was more severe than the 2011 flood by a long way.

Damien:

And that was even before they were damming. They weren’t using the dam stands, so it was just natural waters coming through.

Malcolm Roberts:

Correct. You and I were talking before about the early settlers in Brisbane. They camped where the city centre is now, and the Aborigines came down from Spring Hill and said, “Nah. You’re going to get flooded.” And they didn’t take any notice.

Damien:

And that was John Oxley, wasn’t it? He was one of the early explorers and stuff.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, there’s a book. I don’t know how long it’s been out. It’s called The City in the River. And Australian rivers, they quite often got very little in them. This close to the coast [inaudible 01:06:03], but they’ve got very little water in them. But next thing, they’re running massively.

Damien:

When they flood. Yeah. Well, up here in the tropics, too, it’s different again, isn’t it? There was a convergence of two rivers at that time. I think the Brisbane and what was the other one?

Malcolm Roberts:

The Bremer?

Damien:

The Bremer. Right. Yeah. They were smashing together. It’s a part of history that doesn’t really get talked about, too. The times when those first contact between European Australians and Aboriginal Australians.

Damien:

And it’s not all doom and gloom. Clearly, it’s a clash of civilizations, and I don’t know the way around that. I don’t think anyone does. It’s been a really intractable problem for Australia as a culture. [inaudible 01:06:38]. But there’s other moments, too, that it doesn’t get celebrate, does it? In the bureaucracy, anyway.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, I think before we can propose solutions to problems, we have to understand the cause of the problem. And we haven’t bothered to listen to the Aborigines to understand the cause of the problem.

Malcolm Roberts:

And the government, and to some extent the early churches, were the major cause of the problems. And Whitlam really ramped up the problems under labor.

Malcolm Roberts:

But we still get prime minister Morrison and Anthony Albanese, the opposition leader, standing up and talking about closing the gap. It’s all bullshit. They just mouth platitudes. There’s not a single statement in there that’s really factually strong and consistent.

Malcolm Roberts:

We were up in Cape York, spent three weeks running around the Cape. We’ll go back again, because we listened to every community on the Cape. And the message we got repeatedly was land rights have been a complete failure. Native Title, been a complete failure.

Malcolm Roberts:

The Native Title Act, the [inaudible 01:07:38] preamble to the act is littered with the words UN agenda… United Nations, sorry. UN, United nations. What that was about was about locking up land. Taking it off the white fellas and keeping it away from the black fellas.

Malcolm Roberts:

Now, the Aborigines, when you listen to them in the communities, they can’t build houses because they can’t get land. Why would you build a house if you couldn’t own the land?

Malcolm Roberts:

Government has destroyed the Aborigines. What we’ve got now in this country, feeding off government, feeding off taxpayer, is the Aboriginal industry. They have black consultants, they have white consultants. All kinds of consultants and lawyers.

Malcolm Roberts:

The money goes from us in huge numbers as taxpayers, and it goes to the Aboriginal industry and gets hived off. And the people in the communities don’t get it.

Malcolm Roberts:

The people in the communities, when you actually listen to them and meet them. They’re wonderful, they’re fired up, they want autonomy. They want to make their own decisions. That sense of responsibility is removed from them by stupid government, state and Liberal.

Damien:

The world is changed, hasn’t it? They can’t stand the gilded cage as well. Sometimes [crosstalk 01:08:32]-

Malcolm Roberts:

Correc.t.

Damien:

… feel like we want to keep them in a gilded cage.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah, and that is doing enormous damage. Because what a human wants, the freedom to live, the freedom to make decisions. And make bad decisions and wear the consequences.

Damien:

I talked to someone on the show one time, and they were really concerned about the stolen generations. And they were talking about what great business plans they’ve brought to the Aboriginal community, to help them achieve in business and stuff.

Damien:

And I thought, “Isn’t it possible that in the future, that will be again, too part of cultural appropriation?” And you could see him flush red. I’m saying flush. It was a big crawl that I did in a way, too.

Damien:

But it was just to prove a point, because that’s the fear though. That’s the fear we’re all confronted with. And he was a good person. He was not being… You know what I mean?

Malcolm Roberts:

What do they say? Good intentions usually end up in damage. Because the point is-

Damien:

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Malcolm Roberts:

Thank you, thank you. [inaudible 01:09:25] than I. But this is probably the strongest thing I can say about parliament. Liberal, labor, Nationals, and Greens don’t make decisions based on data.

Malcolm Roberts:

They make decisions based on looking after their mates, looking after their donors, looking after vested interests, kowtowing to the globalists, getting good media headline. Opinions, hearsay, looking good.

Malcolm Roberts:

Rather than actually saying, “Go and do the work, get the data, make a decision. Explain it to people and bring the people with you.” The climate change, the immigration, the Aboriginal issues all are devoid of data. They just try and do things that look good. And when you do that [crosstalk 01:10:03]-

Damien:

It’s hard operate with truth and integrity in those areas, because you know you can be ripped apart, so instead you try and stay away from it.

Malcolm Roberts:

I say it to people in the Liberal Party, labor Party, National party. Not the Greens because they wouldn’t understand. They’re incredibly thick and so ideologically driven. But the others, I say, “If you-“

Damien:

How you going with Lidia Thorpe, too? She’s joined you in the Senate.

Malcolm Roberts:

She’s actually quite nice to me. Quite pleasant, because I don’t pay any attention to her when she’s behaving like an idiot. She actually came up to me and sat in front of me and said, “I actually agree with lot of what you’re saying.”

Damien:

Wow. You’re getting a bit of that outside of the chamber.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. Data. Look at the Liberal Party and the labor Party. How many leaders have been dumped over climate? I’ve counted about seven or eight. If they came up with the data, Damien, it’ll be all over.

Malcolm Roberts:

If they came up with the data, I’d be gone and finished. And I’m saying, “Go do it.” But I’ve got the data on my side, so whenever I have that position and there’s no evidence of what we’re doing will have any impact, I’m going to keep fighting it. I’m just going to keep going.

Damien:

That’s the same with corona, isn’t it? If they come with the data, they wouldn’t need to coerce me into a vaccine. I’d be lining up for one. As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t be having this interview with right now. I’d be sitting home somewhere really safe, looking after myself and my family, hopefully.

Damien:

Our ability to make choices for ourselves has been taken away from us. And our ability to be able to take responsibility for ourselves and be treated like an adult, we’ve had in my experience in life.

Damien:

And I can make some of my own choices here. Thanks very much, government. But no, I better not. Because what do the experts say? Experts? What are you talking about? Who’s the expert?

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, what do they say? The experts, they say the scientists. There’s no science driving this mismanagement of COVID. On Monday, the 23rd of March, 2020, we had our first single day session in the parliament pushing through the COVID measures. Which was Job Seeker, I think it was.

Malcolm Roberts:

And then on Wednesday, the 8th of April, 2020, the following month, we had another single day session. And we pushed through Job Keeper. And I basically said to the government… And I was wrong on this.

Malcolm Roberts:

But I said, “Looking at all of the deaths being reported from overseas, we don’t know what’s involved so we’ve got to err on the side of caution.” I said, “We’re going to give you a blank check. Go to it.” But I said, “We want the data, we want a plan, and we will then hold you accountable.”

Malcolm Roberts:

And by the way, have you gone to Monash University and seen the remarkable results they’ve had with their in vitro trials of ivermectin? Very promising results. And have you looked at Taiwan, which is managing this virus extremely well?

Malcolm Roberts:

We have abysmally mismanaged. They never gave us the data. I wrote letters to the prime minister, letters to the premier. In Senate Estimates, I said to the chief medical officer, “I want the data that characterises the virus. And I want it in absolute terms and I want it relative to past severe flues.”

Malcolm Roberts:

[inaudible 01:12:57] came back on a wonderful graph, really easy to understand. They gave me the numbers. The severity on their own damn graph says low to moderate, not severe. Lower severity than past flues. What the hell are we doing?

Damien:

How do they still get away with it? That’s the thing you got to ask, how it still gets through. Malcolm Roberts, I could keep talking to you for hours. It’s been great.

Damien:

Look, what it is, is we’re allowed to be wrong, but we’re allowed to have an honest conversation. Because when we don’t and we’re shy of having an honest conversation, I feel like this is what’s going to cause the culture never to really get to where it needs to go. Thank you for having the courage to come on and have an honest conversation.

Malcolm Roberts:

You’re very welcome. And you didn’t talk about my shorts either.

Damien:

We’ll get those in a minute. We’re going to get those in a minute. You just dubbed yourself in. Are you rolling? We came to Queensland and this is what we’re expecting to see, and we didn’t see it until the right honourable Senator Malcolm Roberts turned up in his suit. He thought, “No, better wear the tie because I want to look good.” [inaudible 01:13:56] Hugo Boss shorts, did you say?

Malcolm Roberts:

Yes, and Armani sandals.

Damien:

Armani sandals, which have Aussie flags on them as well. I think they’ve got Aussie flags showing up. Aussie flag. [crosstalk 01:14:06]-

Malcolm Roberts:

Actually, we went out to listen to a wonderful scientist. We had dinner with her, my wife and I last Saturday. And we spent so long with her that it was late getting back.

Malcolm Roberts:

She’s got some wonderful stuff about COVID which we’re going to release soon. But so late getting back, we got cut off. I haven’t been home for three days.

Damien:

He hasn’t been home. [crosstalk 01:14:24]-

Malcolm Roberts:

I did have a shower this morning. I did have a shower this morning.

Damien:

I was going to say, mate.

Malcolm Roberts:

I came into town and I borrowed a shirt off one of our staffers who lives downtown.

Damien:

I told your chief of staff that I’d be happy to. I’ve got a couple shirts [inaudible 01:14:38].

Malcolm Roberts:

[crosstalk 01:14:38].

Damien:

Might have wrapped it around you. Could have worn it is a muumuu.

Malcolm Roberts:

Everyone above 5’3″ is abnormal anyway.

Damien:

You’re right. You should pass a law in parliament, I reckon. Thanks, mate.

Malcolm Roberts:

[inaudible 01:14:47].

Damien:

Good to talk to you.

Fifteen months ago I asked the Australian Electoral Commission questions around election integrity. I was expecting to have my questions answered and to be reassured our elections were safe. Instead I had bland assurances everything was safe and elections were audited. Proof of those audits was never provided.

After spending all of 2021 pursuing the AEC, One Nation presented our Electoral Legislation Amendment (Voter Integrity) Bill 2021 to the Senate. Special Minister of State Morton finally realised we did have a problem and the government passed a suite of bills to address our concerns. My questions on Tuesday to the Australian Electoral Commission covered the only area the Government was not able to fix because of opposition from the ALP and the Greens – voter ID. The need for voter ID dates from 1995 when the AEC stopped residency checks, which is a way of auditing the voter rolls.

Out of date voter rolls allow dishonest players to vote multiple times, at multiple booths using a different name from the voter roll each time. These are the names of voters who have left the country, passed away, moved away and so on, plus human and data-matching errors at the AEC The only way to ensure every vote comes from a properly registered voter, voting once under their own name is to ask for voter ID.

The answers to my questions to Tom Rogers, the Electoral Commissioner were far from forthright. I will be resuming this matter in the new Parliament. I urge all Australians to enrol to vote, and to exercise your right to vote in the next election.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending again today. Can I start with a compliment to your social media team? It has a nice balance of humour and information in what is sometimes a very hostile environment. That’s reassuring and pleasing.

I’d also like to compliment Minister Morton for his voting integrity bills and for acknowledging the work that I did informing those initiatives with my integrity of elections bill, which preceded them. It’s very important for people to understand, and for voters right around the country to be assured, that their vote will not be wasted and that there is no reason to not vote. There is every reason to turn up now, because we’ll be having audits of the election processes.

My first question today is as a result of multiple reports from constituents who went into a booth in previous elections and were told they had already voted. This may have been human error by the poll worker, yet I think it’s the only issue that Minister Morton’s electoral integrity package failed to address that my bill did.

For clarity, there are two types of multiple voting: one where a person votes multiple times under their own name, and another where a person votes multiple times under different names. The first one, multiple voting under one’s own name, has been well examined, and the conclusion seems to be that it does not make a tangible difference, because we’ve now got electronic rolls in most booths—not all, but most. So let’s turn to the second one, people voting multiple times under different names. Has the AEC done any work on this issue?

Mr Rogers : We look at the entire voting process at the end of every election. We put, as you know, a submission in to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, where we raise issues that we think have been flagged during the conduct of the previous election. Many of those observations are our observations, and many of them have also been passed to us by others. The issue of multiple voting was dealt with in those submissions previously and in supplementary submissions. What you’re referring to there is impersonation, and that’s not something that we’ve had any evidence has had any sort of impact on the election at all. It’s not something that was raised with us in any formal way previously. It’s not something that has been put into a submission to the joint standing committee at all, to the best of my memory. So that’s not something we’re looking at, at all.

The other thing with impersonation is that those sorts of things do become known, because, if someone was doing impersonation on a large scale, we would get feedback from a range of different sources that that would be the case. Don’t forget that many of these polling booths are actually community polling booths, where people know other people in the community as well. It’s not something that’s been personally raised with me. I’m not sure, Deputy Commissioner, if it’s been raised with you.

Mr Pope : No, that’s correct. I would add that there’s another category that is what we call ‘apparent multivoting’, which is actually an administrative error where someone has been marked as having voted, on a paper certified list, and they have put a wrong mark against a person’s name. Sometimes it can be seen as being something else, but it is simply an administrative error.

Senator ROBERTS: Is there a phone number or a way of reporting occurrences in order to further investigate the problem, if there is a problem?

Mr Rogers : On our website, there is a—

Mr Pope : fraud email reporting process—

Mr Rogers : and people are welcome to use that.

Senator ROBERTS: The AEC stopped residency checks last century, in 1995. When was the last time the AEC audited a sample of the electoral roll to get an idea of accuracy?

Mr Rogers : We use a whole range of tools to check the accuracy of the electoral role, and we conduct internal audits on that. I think the ANAO also conducted an audit of the electoral roll. I’m not sure if anyone remembers when that might have been—there are a lot of shaking heads—but we could find that out for you fairly easily. So it’s been audited even by the ANAO. In fact, now that I’m warming to my theme, I think it may have been audited twice. I’d have to check that for you. If I’m wrong, I apologise to the ANAO, but I think they came back to check the results of the initial audit. I’m happy to come back to you on that.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, if you could, please.

Mr Rogers : So there’s more than one way of auditing the accuracy of the roll. The second thing is when we get data on someone’s residence from more than one data source, which is what we do—we effectively triangulate that data to make sure that it’s accurate—we also do, as I mentioned before, our own internal checks of the accuracy of our data entry to make sure that that is an accurate process.

Mr Pope : We do. And we match our data with a range of other data sources, and we also do an annual quality assurance process.

Senator ROBERTS: So, although you say that you haven’t had any evidence or you don’t see much possibility of it, this is surely a case where voter ID would stop someone from voting multiple times under different names or from voting under the names of people who are no longer voting themselves. I know what you’re saying about the community, but sometimes people rock up to a booth that’s not in their community.

Mr Rogers : I might perhaps repeat what we said at the last estimates. I’m loath to get involved in the issue of the voter ID process. I think that’s a highly political issue. It is a matter for parliament. I’m genuinely trying to be right down the centre here. I understand the arguments on both sides of this, but it has become a very polarising debate in places where this has been implemented. So that’s a matter for parliament. What we’re reflecting on here is the processes that we put in place to assure the vote within the legislation that’s currently valid. That bit about voter ID is something that I think I said a little flippantly last time, ‘We have a definite policy not to have a policy on,’ because we’re going to get dragged into that process.

Senator ROBERTS: I can see that. I accept it. It is ironic, Minister, that we need an ID to get into a pub but that we don’t need an ID to get in to vote. That’s just a comment.

Senator Birmingham: Your comment’s noted, Senator Roberts. The government would wish that there had been, or were, broader support for some of the ID measures that, as you acknowledge, Minister Morton had brought forward.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair.

I investigated where Meat and Livestock Australia is taking the $28bn red meat industry.  It is clear that the industry plan titled “Red Meat 2030” does not tell the full story. Red Meat 2030  is a strategic plan to double the value of the red meat industry without increasing herd numbers or prices, whilst bringing the industry to net zero emissions. This sounds like a fairy-tale and yet the Liberal/Nationals Government is selling this plan to farmers with a straight face.

In answer to my questions on Tuesday Jason Strong, Managing Director of Meat and Livestock Australia made the stunning admission the Red Meat 2030 plan is not a plan but an “ambitious goal” – bureaucrat speak for a political goal not a planning goal. MLA do not have a plan for how to deliver the 100% increase in the value of the red meat market.

Improvements to feed composition, genetics, transport and finishing have led to a 13% increase in weight. Where is the other 87% increase coming from if herd numbers are not increased?

Tuesday’s answers give us a hint of what is really planned. To explain, at the moment marginal farming land produces meat that sells in the cheaper end of the market, mostly through major supermarkets. This allows everyday Australians to buy red meat as a routine part of their diet. Once MLA complete this plan, there will be no more of this reasonably-priced meat. The only red meat produced in Australia will be a premium product to go on the tables of the very wealthy, with most production being exported to wealthy citizens of other countries. That is where the 87% price increase comes from.

Red Meat 2030 is a plan to take red meat off the table of everyday Australians. This is implementing the political goals of the United Nations to reduce red meat consumption to 14g – one mouthful – a day.  I spoke about this UN plan in my speech to the Senate recently. A vote for the Liberal, Nationals, Labor or Greens is a vote for taking red meat off the table of everyday Australians through their Red Meat 2030 plan.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you for attending. May I start by complimenting Meat & Livestock Australia on their Australia Day TV advertisement. I loved it.

This is my first question. Mr Strong, in your letter to me, dated 27 October 2021, you acknowledged that the data I quoted at the last Senate estimates from a report published on the CSIRO website titled ‘Australian cattle herd: a new perspective on structure, performance and production’, dated 2021, was correctly quoted. I thank you for that and accept that Meat & Livestock Australia consider the figure I used is higher than what you would use. The lead author of that report, Dr Geoffry Fordyce, works for Meat & Livestock Australia on your NB2 herd pillar feed base program. Is that correct?

Mr Strong : He certainly has. I’m not sure if he’s currently contracted, but certainly he has worked with us, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: So my decision to use the data that I used was logical, then, wasn’t it?

Mr Strong : Partially, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I want to turn to the Meat & Livestock Australia Strategic Plan 2025. You’re familiar with that. On page 4—these are your own words, Mr Strong—it says:

With a new whole‑of‑industry strategic plan in place, Red Meat 2030—

that’s the name of your plan—

there is an opportunity for MLA to drive transformational change. We have to find ways to support the industry to deliver on its ambitious vision of doubling the value of red meat sales.

Could you please specify what percentage of this 100 per cent increase in sales revenue will come from price rises and what percentage will come from sales volume increases.

Mr Strong : The Red Meat 2030 plan is actually the industry plan that was put together by RMAC. It’s a 10-year plan that the industry collectively put together. Our five-year plan then fits in behind that. We’ve adopted the same overarching goal and the six pillars—

Senator ROBERTS: That’s your MLA—

Mr Strong : That’s our five-year plan. It draws on the Red Meat 2030 plan, which is the broader industry plan. It doesn’t specify what component of that growth comes from price or volume. Speaking from opinion, having been involved in that process, the setting of that target was being ambitious for the future of the industry in creating and capturing value but also making sure that we weren’t, as an industry, limited to price or volume. The industry, collectively, has over the last 30 years invested in a significant range of activities—not just with Meat & Livestock Australia and our R&D and marketing but with a range of other activities as well—for us to produce a higher quality, more consistent, traceable and guaranteed product but also to take advantage of or participate in the preferential market access that we have available to us. So there are opportunities for us to increase productivity, but there are also opportunities for us to create and capture more value in higher quality products where we have preferential access to high-quality markets. So it’s a combination of both.

Senator ROBERTS: Pardon me, but it sounds like waffle. Who are you trying to convince here? The farmers, the producers, need to have some kind of faith in what you’re leading and yet you’re telling me now that it’s just an ambitious plan with no limit on price or volume. Surely this has all been modelled.

Mr Strong : There are a number of things sitting behind it, but I think it’s quite the opposite to waffle. It’s providing opportunity in multiple areas rather than restricting it to one.

Senator ROBERTS: Hang on. Opportunity comes from knowing something about it. What you’re saying here is: ‘We haven’t done this. It’s an opportunity because it hasn’t been modelled.’

Mr Strong : The opportunity comes from the investments that the broader industry has made over the last 20 or 30 years in having a consistent, quality, traceable product—with a quality assurance program behind it—that is being sold at higher prices into markets where we now have preferential access.

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that, but you’re still talking very generally. To double the value of red meat sales you need to double the price if the herd stays flat.

Mr Strong : If the volume stays the same. The volume can increase if the herd stays the same size. You can have increased carcase weight or increased productivity.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, 13 per cent is your increased carcase weight. There doesn’t seem to be any real meat in this.

Mr Strong : There’s an outcomes report that actually lays out some of the progress that has already been made. Look at something like Meat Standards Australia, which is the eating quality program. Last year it added $158 million in value to farmgate revenue for producers and over the last 10 years it has created more than $1 billion in value at the farmgate. We can share with you the extension adoption report, which does list some very specific areas, like Meat Standards Australia, like the Profitable Grazing Systems program and the Producer Demonstration Sites program, which have quantified increases in farmgate value and also increases on a per hectare basis of benefit to producers of adopting the things that the industry has invested in.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, I’ll accept that, if you’d like to send us that. The fundamental figure though is 100 per cent increase in value with flat herd size.

Mr Strong : No, it’s not, Senator. There’s nothing about a flat herd size. It is doubling the value of red meat sales over a 10-year period.

Senator ROBERTS: In the last Senate estimates we had a difference of opinion on the direction of herd numbers, and we’ve still got that.

Mr Strong : Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: I maintained that the only way to meet net zero carbon dioxide targets—and why you’d want to meet that is beyond me, because no-one has given me any proof—under Meat & Livestock Australia’s CN30 program, the Carbon Neutral by 2030 program, is to hold herd numbers at the historically low numbers experienced during the recent drought. In reply you said:

We are very aware that there have been discussions that things like the carbon neutral goal are reliant on limiting livestock numbers or reducing production or profitability, and we completely reject those.

I thank you for your answer on notice regarding herd numbers and I now reference a document you sent me—a Meat & Livestock Australia publication titled ‘Industry projections 2021: Australian cattle—July update’. On page 4 there are herd numbers. Herd size, slaughter and production are all flat—and, arguably, slightly decreasing in the last few years—across the period indicated, from 2000 to 2023, and down from their peak in this period. Am I reading that right?

Mr Strong : You may be, Senator, but I don’t have that one in front of me. What I can do is provide you with the updated projections from earlier this year, which show the projected increase in production and outputs, so increases in herd size and increases in productivity. We can provide that to you.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, if you could, please.

Mr Strong : We can certainly do that.

Senator ROBERTS: Coming back to what you raised earlier on, in the bottom graph carcase weights are showing an increase of 13 per cent. This does in part reflect the work done by Meat & Livestock Australia on genetics, feedbase and transport. Is that correct?

Mr Strong : In part, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Only in part? There are other factors involved?

Mr Strong : Yes—like producers’ willingness to adopt new technologies. But I think part of the increase in carcass weight comes from the increase in turn-off through the feedlot sector. An increased number of animals have come through the feedlot sector as a finishing mechanism in the last year or two. That also contributes to an increase in carcass weight.

Senator ROBERTS: Either way, it’s a good job because 13 per cent is a significant increase in productivity and profitability.

Mr Strong : Correct.

Senator ROBERTS: Page 2 of this report says the average herd number for cattle from 2016 to 2021, which included a substantial drought influence, was 26,619. The best year was 2018, at 28,052. Meat & Livestock Australia’s projections are 27,223 for 2022 and 28,039 for 2023. This is down from the CSIRO’s figure of 30 million to 40 million before the drought, which was the point I was making in the last Senate estimates.

Even if the CSIRO figure is higher than you would accept, I fail to see an increase here in these figures. And I’m still trying to see where the increase in the herd numbers component of the 100 per cent increase in red meat production is coming from. Is it true that, unless the herd numbers recover to around 30 million, Meat & Livestock Australia are projecting a permanent reduction in the Australian herd?

Mr Strong : No, it’s not. The paper you’re referencing is not a CSIRO paper. Dr Fordyce is the lead author and he’s previously worked with CSIRO. It was present on their publication site but it’s not a formal CSIRO paper. But that’s an aside.

Senator ROBERTS: But he did work for you?

Mr St rong : Absolutely. And he still does work in a range of different areas. He’s been a very prominent researcher with the Queensland Department of Primary Industries in northern Australia and has done quite a bit of work with MLA and our predecessors over the years.

Senator ROBERTS: So he’s pretty competent?

Mr Strong : That doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything, though, does it? We could also quote other papers—

Senator ROBERTS: No. But, if he’s competent, there’s got to be a reason for not agreeing.

Mr Strong : Certainly. But other papers that have been produced by independent analysts say the herd’s even smaller than what we project.

Senator ROBERTS: Even smaller?

Mr Strong : Yes. Those papers are by private commercial analysts. They are widely read and get quoted to us as much or more than this paper does. But the herd size isn’t the only driver of productivity. As you said, it’s about being able to increase carcass weights, increase value and increase productivity. One of the things that Dr Fordyce has been involved with is the NB2 program that you mentioned. The ability to increase cows in calf, decrease cow mortality, increase calves that survive and increase weaning weight in reasonably modest levels—a decrease in cow mortality by a couple of per cent, an increase in fertility by a couple of per cent and a 10-kilo increase in weaning weight—has a material impact on northern productivity not just in numbers but also in value. The herd size is an important number to help us with our planning and projections when we look at a range of things; but it’s only one of the contributors to productivity, profitability and how we get to a doubling of value for the red meat sector.

Senator ROBERTS: Looking at agricultural producers, whether it be livestock or crops, there’s certainly a huge increase and improvement in the use of science to guide it. That’s become a wonderful productivity improvement tool. But it still comes back to basic arithmetic. If herd numbers are not growing, after allowing for improved carcass weights, the only way to increase the value of red meat production by 100 per cent, after allowing for the 13 per cent carcass weight increase, is for price increases of 87 per cent.

Mr Str ong : No, it’s not. Chairman Beckett mentioned our trip to Darwin two weeks ago. One of the great things we heard about there was the use of knowledge that’s been gained over the last 10 or 20 years by the industry. There were a couple of fantastic examples of the use of phosphorus as a supplement in phosphorus-deficient country. For the same cow herd size, there was a halving in cow mortality and a 30 per cent increase in weaning rates. Herd size is not the only way to increase productivity. When you think about ways to make significant improvements in productivity, it actually becomes a minor factor. Being able to produce more from what we have, regardless of what we have, and creating and capturing more value from that is much more important than the herd size.

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that it’s a laudable goal to increase the productivity, capturing more from what you have.

Mr Strong : Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: So, if herd sizes stay flat, are you able to provide me with the breakdown of where the 100 per cent increase in red meat value will come from?

Mr Strong : We can provide you with some.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’ve got questions on this. Perhaps, if you stick around, we can talk about it.

Senator ROBERTS: Good. I’ve only got two more questions. Can you provide that breakdown?

Mr Strong : We can provide some. As I say, that’s an industry broader 10-year goal. In our five-year plan we’ve laid out a range of areas that we’re investing in, so we can certainly provide you with a range of activities that are currently underway. And, like I mentioned before, the outcomes report will give you some evidence of where that progress has already been shown.

Senator ROBERTS: Just to summarise, I’m concerned—and hopefully your figures will alleviate that concern—that what you’re relying upon is a huge increase in price, which will hurt the consumer. The second thing I’m concerned about is why this is being done. Let’s listen to the chair’s questions and let’s get the figures from you.

My last two questions: I acknowledge from your letter that there’s been a reduction in carbon dioxide production of 53 per cent since 2000 by the Australian red meat industry. Again, there’s never been any evidence produced that carbon dioxide needs to be cut from human activity. This has been driven by measures that are now in place. How will you get the other 47 per cent, other than calling the permanent herd reduction numbers a net zero measure?

Mr Strong : There are a range of things already underway and a couple we can point to straightaway including feed supplements. There are two good examples of that.

Senator ROBERTS: Changing the nature of feed supplements?

Mr Strong : No, additional feed supplements that will go into a ration, for example. The red asparagopsis seaweed product has demonstrated to reduce the production of methane by more than 90 per cent. There’s also a synthetic version of the same type of component, which so far has demonstrated the same type of effect. So feed supplements are certainly a key opportunity in reducing the amount of methane being produced.

One of the other areas relates to things we’ve just been talking about, which is increasing productivity from the herd that we have through improved genetics, improved productivity through the things we were just talking about. So there are a number of areas in addition to a stable herd which are already largely proven and underway. We’re only a couple of years into the path to 2030.

Senator ROBERTS: WWF in America has been on a concerted campaign to kill the beef industry. The same organisation is doing the same here in this country, and cattle graziers have told me that. So there’s a lot of pressure on the beef industry, its very existence, for political reasons, not economic or scientific reasons. Do you, as the MLA, just accept the mantra that we need to cut the carbon dioxide produced by humans or human activity, or do you actually have scientific justification for accepting that?

Mr Strong : It’s not our position to enter into that discussion.

Senator ROBERTS: So you accept it.

Mr Strong : It’s not the environment to have a position either way. This is an industry goal, which is ambitious, but what’s really important is that we don’t think about CN30 in the absence of profitability, productivity and intergeneration sustainability. There’s nothing that we’re doing or investing in that doesn’t have a lens on profitability or productivity of the industry at the same time as thinking about its impact on the environment.

Senator ROBERTS: I would beg to differ. It seems to me that you need to have a sound rationale for why you’re doing these things and I have yet to see any proof of that. Feeding seaweed to cattle, feed supplements: surely there’s cost in there. You’re asking farmers to change their practices which could increase costs further. It seems like the doomsayers that have been hitting our electricity sector, our transport sector, our regulatory sector are now hitting our agriculture sector in many, many ways.

CHAIR: Is that a question, Senator Roberts?

Senator ROBERTS: No, that’s a statement.

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (“TGA“) and their buddies, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (“ATAGI“) and the unaccountable Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (“AHPRA“), have enabled the distortion of science in Australia that has seen COVID vaccines mandated, the minimising of vaccine reactions, banning of alternative treatments and general COVID mismanagement.

In this final Senate Estimates session before the election is inevitably called I tried to desperately get straight answers out of Australia’s Chief Health bureaucrats about how they could do so much of this without evidence.

Part 1

This session goes to the over 801 deaths reported around COVID-19 vaccines and the Health Department’s incompetence or negligence in failing to answer over 47% of my formal questions on notice in 6 months when the deadline was 6 weeks.

Transcript (click here to read)

I’d like to table just a portion of the transcript from the previous session in February, 16th of February. There are 15 copies here. Thank you. The latest available TGA DAEN report from your website dated 24th of March, 2022, says there are 801 deaths, 11 of which are attributed to COVID-19 vaccines. So there are 801 deaths reported by doctors. So according to the TGA 801 deaths that doctors have reported as being due to COVID-19 vaccination, doctors reported them. The TGA then steps in and reviews these doctor certified reports and says that there are only 11 deaths attributable to the COVID-19 vaccines. How many of these 790 cases have been reviewed and closed? And how many are still under review?

Senator firstly, your assertion is not factually correct. Doctors have not said those deaths, 800 and something deaths are due to COVID vaccination.

They’ve reported that.

There have been reports as we have said before and misplace, doctors will often provide a report and then they say in the report, we don’t believe it’s due to a vaccination in a majority of jurisdictions, a majority of states and territories, there is a requirement for the state and territory health systems and their doctors working between to report deaths that are temporarily associated. In other words injection one day someone has a heart attack a week later. But in many of those cases the doctors indicate that they don’t believe there’s a link. So I think it’s highly misleading to say the doctors say these deaths are due to a COVID vaccine. Having said that, we do as we’ve indicated before we review all deaths in these reports and we follow up for further information including with coroners where coroners reports are done in postmortems, with the state and territory systems. These deaths are generally in health facilities. So there have been post-mortems and there is a thorough medical history on them. And as I’ve indicated before if there is something unusual and there is a possibility that it could be associated with a vaccine, we convene an independent, by independent not departmental staff. We convene an independent expert group of relevant doctors to evaluate whether there is likely causality. And we use World Health Organisation protocols and these approaches are used by regulators globally.

[Malcolm] Thank you. So how many of the 790 cases have been reviewed and closed and how many are still under review?

Senator I would have give, take that on notice

That’s fine. at the current time but the overwhelming majority has been it’s just that obviously it’s a figure that changes by the hour.

Okay. That’s fine. I’d happy to take that on notice, for you to take it on notice. Of any outstanding reported deaths, some could be death related to COVID-19 vaccination. Do you have a timeframe for when the TGA adjudication will be completed?

Our part is relatively fast once we have all required information, but if, let’s use a hypothetical of someone who has a vaccination on Tuesday and has a heart attack on Friday, they’re in a hospital in Perth, the WA health system reports to us. This is a hypothetical. We obviously require the information from a postmortem that may have been done, had that person say, had AstraZeneca and was it a major thrombosis with thrombocytopenia in their brain? So it also requires postmortems to be done. It may even require a coroner’s report to be done. So the timing at which we can close a case and then if we need to refer it to his expert committee senator does depend on when we get the information from the hospital system, the postmortem and all that. Because otherwise you are working in the dark. And so it’s really important to have that objective information by the professional people who carry out postmortems and if need be, if it has been referred to the coroner, the advice from a coroner, because again that’s their professional role to determine cause of death.

So it’s variable. How long do the TGA reviews take per death?

[Skerritt] Sorry.

How long does the TGA reviews take per death?

So once we receive the, it’s an iterative thing. So if we have a death report, we’ll come back and we say, “Look, it says headache in the report. Can we get information on whether they had a bleed in the brain?” Now the hospital may respond within hours or they may say, “Look, we’ve got the brain.” And again, this is a bit gory. “We’ve got the brain in the freezer. We will have to conduct some morbid anatomy on that…” Sorry, we’ll have to look at the brain in a postmortem sense. So sometimes it actually can take weeks if they then have to do those laboratory and other forensic tests. Once we get the information we move as quickly as possible. And we also move as quickly as possible to report any reports of death. So for example, the very first report of death which was in April last year, I think we reported it within 24 to 48 hours of the group concluding that it was associated and we do so in our weekly updates. Now, fortunately there have been no confirmed deaths due to vaccination this year. And there’s also been no confirmed cases due to thrombosis with thrombocytopenia this year.

Okay, thank you, Australians, our constituents want to know who is accountable for this process? Who decides whether the death was a COVID-19 vaccine death and who certifies if this is the case.

So if it’s due to vaccination it’s the role of the Therapeutic Goods as a safety regulator. But acting on, as I said on the advice of this external panel and with the commitment and responsibility of publishing weekly safety updates on which report this information.

So you are the head of the TGA so it’s your responsibility.

Yes.

So you’re accountable.

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Who’s on the expert committee?

There is no fixed expert committee. It’s really important to emphasise that if say a death was due to some neurological condition, we have a large number of neurologists. There are some, it’s not a standing committee. And so there is no fixed membership Senator. If it’s a cardiac thing, we’ll have cardiologists and we’ll have cardiac pathologists. And there’s so many subspecialties in medicine these days. And so the composition of each panel is different depending, because we want the best scientific and clinical expertise.

[Malcolm] Okay. So I’ve asked you Dr. Skerritt or Professor Skerritt sorry, about the questions raised at previous Senate estimates rounds. And if you refer to the transcript of the February 16th Senate estimates. If you go down the bottom there, you’ll see that you’ve twice failed to deliver what you have promised. We asked first in October and we had a six-week deadline for that

Sorry Senator, you asked for what in October?

The process, by which deaths reported by doctors are reviewed by the TGA.

We’ve provided every-

[Man] They haven’t.

Every response to every… We’ve provided them through to the government. Every response to every question on notice .

Well, then ministers, who in the government is responsible because Professor Skerritt, you said, I asked you again in February 16th, after the, four months after the first request in October. And I said, “Could we have that process in writing?” And you said, “I believe it has been provided but we can provide it again.” And I said, “We haven’t received it.” And you said, “We can provide it to you.” They’re categorical.

[Skerritt] Senator-

So now it seems to me minister that the head of the Therapeutic Goods Administration is saying he’s provided to the government but the government hasn’t provided it to us. What’s going on?

I can’t comment on the process following that. What I can say is if you wish to write to me please write to me and I can provide in .

Professor Skerritt, we’ve asked you twice and twice… And once we were put on notice and last February, just two months ago, you told us personally you would get it to us. This is the first I’ve heard about having to write to you about it.

Well, I don’t deliver responses to you directly, Senator.

[Woman] So then I asked the government what’s interceded because we have not got the material from the TGA.

[Skerritt] .

[Woman] Do we have a question on notice number that we’re talking about?

Yes, we do.

[Woman] That would be very handy to have so that we can ask somebody to check that.

Question number 14, details of how a decision of death due to COVID vaccination is made?

So what was the question on notice number? Do we know?

So that was back in October. I don’t know that one

Senator we’ll take what you’ve just requested on notice and and get you an answer. Because it seems to me that there there’s a bit of a misunderstanding here.

[Malcolm] Twice.

I think adjunct professor Skerritt has indicated he would provide what you’ve requested. So we will endeavour during a break to be able to get to the bottom of that and respond to you today.

Quite sure somebody is listening to us at the moment that we’ll be able to follow that up for us.

Minister, can you follow up my questions from October as well too, please? ‘Cause I’ve got like lots of questions outstanding.

I will certainly have a look at that, but-

Yeah, we have a huge number outstanding something like generally there are 61 of a 136 questions on notice outstanding from the last Senate estimates. That’s around 45% of the questions we’ve asked. We’ve asked a lot of questions, but that’s our right because we do it not only for ourselves but on behalf of our constituents. 45% of the questions have not been answered. So if-

[Woman] If you could leave that with me Senator-

Sure.

And I’ll respond to the committee as soon as I’m able to get an answer.

[Malcolm] If that’s the last question chair on this round and then we’ll come back later. If vaccine injured people are from identifiable subgroups say due to specific health conditions, why did you not proactively allow medical exemptions from these groups, for these groups? For example, those with comorbidities?

The Therapeutic Goods Administration’s not involved in provision of vaccine exemptions.

Well, who the hell is because we’ve had so many doctors tell us personally and nurses that it’s almost impossible to get an exemption. And I know of someone who got his first shot and then had a severe reaction to it and was required by his employer to have a second shot. We’ve heard this so many times.

[Man] Senator-

Senator innit?

The chair of ATAGI will be here at 10 o’clock and ATAGI is responsible for determining the conditions under which people would, vaccines contraindicated a very small list of conditions, that the chair ATAGI would be happy to answer that I think when he comes.

[Malcolm] Thank you.

[Woman] Okay. Thank you.

Part 2

Doctors and other health professionals feel great pressure to not report adverse events or sentiment which could undermine the vaccine rollout. Health Bureaucrats continue to deny such pressure exists despite official guidelines saying that Doctors could be de-registered for opposing supposed public health measures from the government. AHPRA threatens to deregister Doctors but is a private corporation with no accountability to the Senate or the Australia Public.

Transcript (click here to read)

Chair, Can I just ask something that I forgot to ask before I noted rather than interrupt Professor Skerritt? You mentioned that of the reports that you received from doctors about deaths, some explicitly say, it’s not due to the vaccine. Are you aware and what are you doing about the fact that have been told by a number of doctors that they are afraid to report vaccine deaths? Are you aware of that and what are you doing about that?

I’m not aware of that and any doctor or individual, or even you on behalf of a constituent with the relevant information can report a vaccine adverse event, doesn’t have to be a death, it can be a sore arm. Any individual can report directly to us, so–

Do you do any auditing to make sure that process is being followed or that you’re getting reasonably accurate numbers?

So as I’ve indicated, the reporting is two things. Firstly, it’s mandatory within a majority of states, but not all states. Although quite interestingly, the state that is the most active in reporting adverse events for their health system is Victoria and it’s not one where in law is written down it’s just seen as part of their medical practise. There is no force of law that says if Dr X out in the suburbs sees an adverse event that they must report. Reporting of adverse events is not mandatory in Australia. It would require this place to change a therapeutic goods act.

Senator, can I just point out, I feel I need to say something here. There there’s been over 11 billion doses of vaccine given around the world, 11 billion doses. The risk benefit profile of all of the vaccines that are in common use and the ones certainly that the TGA has regulated here in Australia is overwhelmingly in favour of benefit. There is no conspiracy here.

[Senator Roberts] Do we have the numbers on that list?

11 billion doses have been used? We would’ve seen problems in 11 billion episodes of doses if they were there.

Why did you use the word conspiracy because in my experience, most of these kinds of derailments are due to incompetence or gutlessness in terms of not looking at the figures. I’m not accusing you of either of those, I’m just saying that’s my experience but you raised the word conspiracy. Now,

I do realise the word conspiracy–

Are you aware that some doctors here and overseas have done the research and they say that as few as 1% of adverse events are being reported. Some are saying as few as 10%. So you multiply the deaths due to the vaccine. You multiply the adverse events due to the vaccines by in one estimate by a hundred or by other estimates by 10.

Senator, we don’t believe that that’s a relevant comparison.

You don’t believe it, but that’s what doctors are telling me.

Senator Robert please let witnesses respond.

So I’ll pass it to John in a moment. But I think, just to be clear I’m not accusing anyone of conspiracy here but that there are conspiracy theories around. I think we have all heard them and they have affected, particularly in some of our more vulnerable parts of our population and I’m referring here to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. In a way that has caused harm and I feel it’s my role as the chief medical officer to look at that from the Australian perspective. I’ll let John answer about the issue, Professor Skerritt about the the issues you’ve raised in terms of reporting. We do know there is under reporting of a range of matters in many countries, but one of the main reasons that the statistics you and Senator Rennick, have both mentioned about the number of reports that the TGA has looked at extraordinary number, but the vast majority, almost all of those have been shown to have another explanation. And that is not hiding things, that is a totally transparent the TGA reports on every week, regularly. So that’s why I mentioned that word, but please to be clear–

I’m gonna go clear Senator Grogan–

But just to… Sorry, Paul, just to explain. I do agree that for some other medicines you might only have 10 or 5% of adverse events reported but for the COVID vaccines to use that cliched word there’s been an unprecedented communication approach to doctors, hospitals, health systems and the public about coming forward with adverse events. We want people to report adverse events. So firstly, there’s been a lot of awareness. So for example, among the doctor networks we have a video conference, it was every two weeks and there’s other video conferences that are held even more frequently. It’s now every four weeks. In fact, there’s another one tomorrow. And that has the heads of the IMA the heads of the College of General Practitioners, many leading doctor and communication groups. And again, one of the consistent messages is report adverse events even if you don’t think that there’s a likelihood of them being associated. So I would say for the COVID vaccines there’s greater awareness than there ever has been for any other medical product. The states and territories, as I’ve said, either have mandatory adverse event reporting for vaccines or they have pretty well old systems such as in Victoria. And thirdly, there’s been a tremendous investment in what we call stimulated and active reporting. So through AusVaxSafety a proportion of people who get vaccinated get SMSs at regular times and are contacted. So you’re not requiring men to say, “I don’t feel well,” it’s an adverse event they’re asked and followed up. Do you have any ill feeling, any adverse events how you going? Taken together, I think we have probably the most comprehensive picture of safety of these products and we have had for any medical product ever on the market in Australia

Professor Skerritt, I’d urge you to have a look at the systems for reporting because I’ve had a number of reputable credible doctors tell me that they are aware of adverse events not reported because the AHPRA is intimidating doctors. Professor Kelly, if I could just mention that the word conspiracy used to be used quite a bit in the past for exactly that. Vague claims. But the word conspiracy now is used as a defence to ridicule someone who’s raising a genuine issue. So that is quite often when I see the word conspiracy. It’s used to deflect so that’s why I brought up–

Senator I think that… Frankly, AHPRA wouldn’t know if a doctor reported an adverse event to us for name of a reporting doctor is anonymous and confidential, they cannot take action. So how on earth could AHPRA sanction a doctor who reported an adverse event to the TGA? They wouldn’t know.

Well, how can we get AHPRA here and ask them directly? Because they’re away from our scope they’ve been taken away from our scope by understanding 2017. They’re giving headaches to doctors in this country and doctors are looking me in the face in massive groups, groups of 40 or more, in suburbs in Brisbane, telling me, that they’ve lost the doctor-patient relationship. They have to abide by health directives and AHPRA is doing that.

Senator, I simply do not believe that AHPRA has told doctors not to report adverse events. I think that I’d believe a flat earth policy before that.

We’re gonna go–

How do we get AHPRA here?

Senator Roberts has jumped in after I was about to hand to Senator Grogan–

Chair, how do we get AHPRA here? Because they’re not accountable to the–

We have tried that before, and that’s a separate issue. We’re not gonna discuss that right now. We’ve taken that to the government before.

Part 3

The TGA has been morally deficient in their blind acceptance of overseas data provided by the pharmaceutical companies to approve COVID vaccines. Despite this, they bat away any criticism or safety concerns as simply a conspiracy theory. As I said, conspiracy theory is “used as a term to ridicule the person asking the question” and what did one of our Chief Health Officers respond to that? “It is and I’ll be using it that way”. The contempt these bureaucrats have for openness and transparency is palpable.

Transcript (click here to read)

Your office obtained de-identified clinical data, patient data from the COVID-19 vaccine trials. And did that data form your decision on the vaccine, or did you just accept what the manufacturer said?

So Senator, of a long established process is that we receive an aggregate submission looking at the analysis of a patient data. And then during the review both our clinicians who review that data carefully and also our advisory committee for medicines which is composed of eminent clinicians across various disciplines, we do go back and ask a series of questions to the company, but of the global regulators only the US Food and Drug Administration, obtains individual patient data as a course of practise, so-

[Malcolm] So the answer is no?

So we do not obtain individual patient regulator. We’re simply not resolved to do so.

[Malcolm] Okay, that’s fine, I just needed the answer. So the TGA with all of it’s resources didn’t take the opportunity to review you the approximately 44,000 records on the vaccine testing. Yet you improved it to inject into millions of Australians?

I don’t agree, but we didn’t take the opportunity to review the results for trials. We spent many person months. In fact, probably several person years, you aggregate the size of a team of clinicians and others looking at that data. We looked at that data on 44,000 people and the trials was very carefully.

What clinical testing was done in Australia on the COVID-19 vaccines.

So for there were some vaccines that have had early stage trials done in Australia but it is not a requirement, but medicine or vaccines are clinically trialled in Australia, if it were a requirement we’d have far fewer medicines and vaccines on the market. We look for trials done in comparable populations. So we assume a trial done on an American is gonna be transferable to the Australian population. However, if there are trial groups missing such as we have a lot of Australians of Asian descent we’ll look at that in a trial data too.

So you also assume then that a trial by an American pharmaceutical company done on Americans is just acceptable?

We Don assume it’s just acceptable. We look at, as I’ve mentioned, the total amount of data for Pfizer is over 220,000 pages. And so that would fill many pallets of paper if it were deposited in the middle of this room. So we scrutinise, we review that data at extreme length. We spend thousands of of man and woman hours reviewing that data.

But no testing here.

We test the vaccine here in a laboratories. As I mentioned earlier, we have about 105 laboratory staff.

So are those tests to make sure that the control batches comply with the current batches in this country, or are they actually testing the vaccine for its efficacy, for its safety?

The tests are looking, well they relate to safety because they check the vaccines composition. They check that there’s no contaminants in it. And they check that it aligns with the requirements of-

So you’re not testing the vaccines efficacy or safety or risk?

We are looking at safety in a post market sense. The data from FDA and Safety comes from clinical trials that are being conducted globally. And I would add the same approach is accepted by all world’s major regulators, including Europe. So the European Medicines Agency, which regulates for European Union does not require trials to be done within Europe.

Are you aware there are major concerns about the FDA processes in America and many of the health agencies in America being completely tainted by pharmaceutical companies, all fix for interest.

TGA makes independent sovereign evaluations of vaccines, the government expressly rejected, this government expressly rejected a possibility of TGA automatically accepting US FDA decisions. So government position, and it was the accepted in this place when a bill went through the house was for TGA to continue to make its own sovereign decisions. And we don’t always make the same decisions as FDA around medicines and drugs.

And you rely upon various committees-

Yes, we do.

For approval of different types of drugs, including vaccines.

We rely on them from advice. So we have an active advisory committee for vaccines and an advisory committee for medicines, for example, that will go to treatments.

Have you assessed that committee’s composition for conflicts of interest?

Oh, very much so Senator and, first of all-

[Malcolm] Can we get a copy of that?

Senator, there would be individual personal information we could provide, I don’t think it’s appropriate to say, well, doctor so is X, but we could explain both the process and we could explain those candidates who were not considered-

[Malcolm] Yes, please.

So within those constraints, of course we would very welcome to-

[Malcolm] We’ll take from there.

It is absolutely important that the people on the committees do not have a conflict of interest.

I agree.

It would up the process.

Last question on this topic before I move on to a second one. Were the COVID-19 vaccines ever tested upon zero to four, four year olds? And could you please provide a copy of the data to prove that the vaccine is safe for young children and babies?

The vaccines are not approved for zero to four year olds. So they have not been approved in this country or in any major global regulator areas, there is an approval in China for a Chinese made vaccine, I think down to age three. But when I look at the US, when I look at Canada, Australia, Japan, Europe they are not approved in that age group.

When will they be approved?

It depends on the date of it’s submitted to us and whether it’s accessible.

Are you expecting at any time in the next three months before the new parliament comes in?

I can’t predict that we may receive an application midyear but it is really dependent on the completion of trials, and on the quality of the data.

Thank you, let’s move on then to the next topic. Can a COVID-19 vaccine enter and affect human DNA? Now a Swedish study and I’m gonna table this. A Swedish study has demonstrated that it could and while the paper, which is being distributed, at section four states, and I’ll quote, “At this stage we do not know if DNA reverse transcribe from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome.” So they’re acknowledging that, “the fact is that the Australian government may have not independently confirmed whether it does or not.” So the question is, have you done so, have you kept us safe?

So we are familiar with this paper. It is actually quite widely discredited in the medical community for a number of reasons. Firstly, reverse transcriptase of the type required are not commonly found within cells, are not commonly found within the nucleus. And if this were plausible, you’d argue as I mentioned earlier, probably all of us sitting here have 20,000 genes and 20,000 mRNAs that are making various proteins on time. You’d have all those proteins clogging up the nucleus. The second issue is that the amount of messenger RNA used in this study was not the physiological levels. It was a very high level of messenger RNA. So this paper was published in a second or third tier journal and it’s been fairly widely discredited. And again, I’m happy to provide a bit more information on what experts in the field have said about this particular study.

Yeah, I’d welcome that. But my question was not whether the paper was good or not. The question is, has the Australian government independently confirmed whether the material does transcribe or not? So my question was, have you done that? And have you kept us safe from the possibility of that?

We do not believe it can plausibly-

[Malcolm] So that’s a belief?

For scientific evidence does not show-

[Malcolm] Can we see that scientific evidence, please?

[Malcolm] Okay, thank you.

[Malcolm And John] If could take that on notice.

Yes.

Thank you. Secondly, did the TGA issue authorization solely based upon the basis of the manufacturer’s data?

To which for vaccine, are you talking about?

[Malcolm] Pfizer?

So every medical product is submitted on the basis of, sorry is reviewed on the basis of a submission that a company or other sponsor makes. In every case, there are questions sometimes in the case of one of the COVID vaccines but I think questions numbered in the hundreds. There are many questions where we go back and request further data. We also look at data from studies if that vaccine is for example, already on the market as professor Murphy mentioned for AstraZeneca and Pfizer, where there was already use overseas, we look at that data, but the process is that the data does come from the organisation that submits it, but we don’t take it at face value. We drive pharmaceutical companies crazy by asking them dozens and quite often hundreds of questions and ask for more things.

Why did the TGA just refer to the manufacturer that and take their word for it? I know you just said-

Well, as I said, we don’t take their word for it. Otherwise we’d just be a rubber stamp. You might as well bother having a-

[Malcolm] That’s my concern.

We are not a rubber stamp. What do those people do all day? And I think it’s fair to say. When you’ve had, at the time we were reviewing the vaccines we had teams of people working seven days a week. So they were extremely busy reviewing hundreds of thousands of pages of data-

[Malcolm] My concern-

And these are very highly qualified people Senator.

My concern professor Skerrit is that there have been so many contradictions so many reversals of data, so many denials, so many orders, so many instructions, so many absurdities throughout this whole COVID and I call it a mismanagement.

[John] That’s your assertion?

That is my assertion. And there have been so many absurdities so many contradictions we’ve got one state predicting another state. We’ve got one state contradicting itself within over a period of weeks. We’ve got so many of these that people are rightly very very suspicious and concerned.

Well, I would also add the fact that Australia of course has a very high vaccination rate. And while there are some individuals who are suspicious or concerned about the data, a massive majority of Australians have chosen to become vaccinated. I’d also add that there is one national medicines regulator who has a role of looking at the safety, efficacy and quality of vaccines.

Okay, my next question goes to, is from constituents, many constituents. And I’d like to tell over these, please. I’m not tabling the questions. I’m tabling handout, listing reports and scientific publications on the toxicity of graphene oxides to living organisms.

[John] Oh, yes, it’s toxic.

My constituents have asked me to ask you about a recent UK study, which has formed the basis of criminal charges in that country. “Due to the presence of compounds including, graphene oxide in COVID-19 vaccines.” Graphene oxide is not on the ingredients list. Have you tested specifically for graphene oxide, or other unlisted chemicals in the COVID-19 vaccines?

We have and other regulators have assessed the vaccines. There is no graphene oxide in any of the vaccines.

Have you tested?

I would have to take that on notice but we have no evidence, we do-

You have no evidence, but have you tested for that?

I said, I’d have to take that on notice but I am absolutely confident. There is no graphene oxide vaccines, why on earth would you put it in there?

That’s what people want to know?

Yeah, why on earth would you do that?

[Malcolm] But we talk about that-

That probably sounds like some conspiracy theory again, Senator.

That’s usually used as a term to ridicule the person asking the question.

[John] It is and I’ll be using it that way.

Okay.

But to think that someone, and it’s not directed at you Senator, but to think that someone would put graphene oxide into a vaccine would amount to a conspiracy theory.

We may have some interesting material for your next sentiments.

[John] Thank you Senator.

Yes, you’ve already explained that graphene oxide is toxic to humans.

[John] Oh, yeah.

Professor Kelly, your response to Senator Rennick’s questions about the denial of people wanting to go overseas, from going overseas because of their global commitments. I’ve heard that so many times, minister whether it be from the leader in the senate, previous it was on the senate, Senator Corman, in answer to my request for data as to why we’re complying with UN requirements and UN policies, I get told because we have to comply with our global commitments. I understand that the Omicron variant entered Australia at a time when only vaccinated people were allowed into the country?

That’s correct, Senator.

Thank you, that’s all for me right now. And I’ll come back with the target.

Part 4

AHPRA is an unaccountable private organisation that holds the threat of de-registration over the head of any Doctor who dares give advice against vaccination counter to the Government line. They must be held accountable and the primacy of the confidential doctor-patient relationship must be restored.

Transcript (click here to read)

[Roberts] Through this quickly then, I’d like to table this. My questions are for ATAGI because that’s where I was directed by the gentleman at the table now. Thank you. It’s in regard to AHPRA, this is from their website and I’ve also got another page on their website. Which I’m not tabling, but I’m happy to do so if needed. Dr. Crawford, are you there?

[Dr. Murphy] Here’s for AHPRA question might not be relevant, it’s ATAGI, senator. So let’s ask you a question and we’ll see…

Okay we’ll ask a question to everyone then. Well, some, this is on ATAGI and national boards. Position statement goes back to 9th of March, 2021 right from the start, pre-vaccine. While some health professionals, practitioners, sorry, may have a conscientious objection to COVID 19 vaccination. All practitioners, including students on placement must comply with local employer, health service or health department policies, procedures and guidelines relating to COVID 19 vaccination national boards regulate individual practitioners and not health services or state and territory health departments. Down the bottom of this notice, it says, any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation programme, including via social media, is not supported by national boards. And the doctors read this, may be in breach of the codes of conduct and subject to investigation and possible regulatory action. So that was very, very clear. Then there’s a social media guideline which I won’t go through now. So I, is anyone aware of John Larter, who is a experienced paramedic who took a vocal stand against mandatory vaccination in his industry against mandatory vaccination. AHPRA moved swiftly on him and Larter told the media that he was not even given an official reason for his suspension when it happened. Ros Nealon-Cook is a psychologist who took it upon herself to warn Australians on social media of the severe and widespread harm being caused to child development and mental health by prolonged lockdowns. She was instantly suspended for her trouble. The more concerning one, these are all of concern in August of 2021, the COVID medical network published an open letter titled “First Do No Harm”. The COVID medical network’s open letter did not list any authors. So APRA went to the Australian securities and investments commission ASIC, and found out the names of the three directors of the COVID medical network. Two were doctors and their medical licences were immediately suspended. The COVID medical network was formed in 2020 to provide the public with informed evidence based advice concerning lockdowns and other matters that differs from that of the government and its bureaucratic instruments. The organisation runs a weekly video conference that is tuned into by hundreds of Australian health practitioners, professionals, sorry. The other, one of these doctors who were suspended, Robert Brennon was given written reasons for his instant termination. APRA accused him of spreading, quote, Medical Misinformation, unquote via the COVID medical network open letter because this is the words that APRA used, the content of both the letter and the video contrary to New South Wales public health orders because I’ll say that again, the content of the letter and the video are contrary to New South Wales public health orders enforced at the time and have the potential to undermine public health strategies by potentially influencing medical practitioners and the community not to be vaccinated. Then they go on, APRA, to say, it is not our role to evaluate the scientific validity of the letter. Our concern is that the letter strongly argued a highly polarised position contrary to public health order. In other words, the position argued by Dr. Brennon and the COVID medical network might be scientifically correct. And the position of the Australian government scientifically incorrect but as far as APRA is concerned. The crime lies in contradicting the government’s position.

[Lady] Senator Roberts, so you have a question?

Yes I do, why is AHPRA allowed to do this? And what are you doing to make sure AHPRA is held accountable? Because they’re not as far as I know, to the parliament.

So APRA is a creature of all governments. So it’s a creature of all state territory governments and the Commonwealth government. It has its, and it has a range of boards of experts. So there’s a medical board and there are boards of nursing and paramedicine. And I think the message really is in that that final statement that said that promotion of statements or advice that contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seek to actively undermine the national immunisation programme has been determined by APRA and by its expert boards as being unprofessional conduct. And we would support that contention by AHPRA.

So can I get access to that evidence from a AHPRA?

What evidence?

That it’s the best scientific evidence.

[Doctor Murphy] Well, I think the best I think professor been giving you the best scientific evidence all morning, about the the benefit of vaccination. And I think that’s just, there are scientific standards that are well established in the literature.

Can I get the evidence? Not statements and opinions about the evidence. Can I get the evidence?

We can give you lots of evidence?

[Roberts] No can I get AHPRA’s evidence? They’re touting, but remember Dr. Murphy, it’s not only, what might be scientific, it’s also about the contradiction of the public health statements

Senator, if you would like to provide that information to us, we can investigate it on notice and go back to AHPRA

[Roberts] Provide what to you?

And understand what you…

[Roberts] This information?

Yeah, yeah. If you can provide it to us,

[Lady] Senator Roberts.

We can follow it up.

[Roberts] Final question.

[Lady] I’m just conscious of time. Cause I’ve got four other senators now, asking to ask questions.

I’d like to know why ATAGI is not here in person. And also I’d like to know…

Professor Crawford is here online. He’s actually based in Melbourne, senator, so…

[Roberts] Thank you. That’s all I needed to know. I’d like to know the relationship between, Dr. Murphy, between the boards, APRA and the AHPPC. And the final question, public health is quite often used these days in America and in Australia as a catch-all for the community, public health, when, and that’s why orders are given and people are supposed to follow them. But public health is a nonsense. It’s not an entity. The primary public health goes back to the primary relationship between a doctor and a patient. In this country, now, are you aware that there is not a relationship between many doctors and their patients because the doctor has got a puppet master behind him telling him what him, what he can and cannot say.

The Individual relationship between a doctor and his patient is sacrosanct and APRA would not have any problem with a doctor.

[Roberts] Dr. Murphy, they have.

AHPRA would not have a problem with a doctor having an individual discussion with his or her patients around vaccination. What this is talking about is the public promotion of misinformed and wrong scientific evidence. So that’s what they’re concerned about, bringing the profession in to distribute and undermining public confidence.

But what I’m talking about is doctors who are very concerned.

[Lady] Senator Roberts your time has expired now we’re going to move on, I’m sorry.

Just one minute. What I’m very concerned about is doctors who are telling me personally that they cannot give advice because AHPRA is sitting behind them. So what they’re getting is a public health dictate when they go to the doctor, not advice.

Well if you can provide evidence of that

Yes, I will.

We’ll be happy to investigate.

[Roberts] Who do I provide it to?

[Physician] And Senator, I’m very happy to provide a definition of public health as a public health physician. Is it actually a recognised AHPRA profession? And that is me and there are others in the department that have that. And I would refer to my opening statement about what the definition of a public health physician does and how that works. It’s about protecting the population at the population level and preventing death at the population level. That is not in any way to take away the importance, absolute vital importance of the individual doctor, individual patient relationship. It’s a different part of the profession.

[Lady] Okay, thank you.

[Roberts] Thank…

The Morrison-Joyce government’s recent fuel excise reduction creating a 22c per litre drop in petrol and diesel prices, is now shown to be a deceitful marketing tactic.

Senator Roberts said, “The devil in the detail is that the Morrison-Joyce government reduced the amount of excise that road transport operators could claim back against their tax, meaning that despite the 22c drop road transport operators only received a 4c per litre reduction.

“The Prime Minister has perfected the sleight of hand; he gives with one hand and takes with the other.”

Road transport is the primary method of transport for non-bulk freight in Australia and is an essential part of the supply chain for many industries, delivering food, clothing and household goods.

Senator Roberts added, “These high fuel prices feed directly into the prices Australians pay at the supermarket. Only yesterday Independent Research firm Morningstar revealed prices in Coles and Woolworths have risen by 4% in just 3 months.

“One Nation lobbied the Morrison Government very strongly this month to get this fuel excise reduction, but we did not expect this short-sighted deceitful con and clawback.

“The money Australians are saving at the fuel bowser with a 22c reduction, will now be spent at the grocery store checkout over the next few months.

“The Morrison-Joyce government excels at deceptive gift giving and I encourage all Australians to punish his insincerity at the next election and to put the major parties last.”