The Queensland Labor Government’s decision to add an extra fine to unjabbed teachers is vindictive and cruel. It’s also about political donations and Labor taking care of their mates.

The Labor-aligned Queensland Teachers Union was nowhere to be seen when mandates were in effect and teachers were stood down without pay for more than half a year. The Red Union was different. They fought against mandates and teachers flocked to them and ended their memberships to the QTU who donates to the Labor party.

This fine was a move to punish unjabbed teachers who didn’t stay with the Labor-aligned QTU when they didn’t stand up for workers’ rights. If you ever thought Labor was the party for the worker, they certainly aren’t now.

Transcript

Rowan Dean
Well, as I mentioned at the start of the show, we’ve seen so many conventions and rights, democratic rights tossed aside all in the name of public health. The sad reality is that it isn’t over. We learned today, we learned last night actually that the Queensland Government is planning to dock the pay of Queensland teachers who have decided not to get vaccinated.

00:26
Rowan Dean
And the Federal Government seems fairly indifferent to what’s going on as well.

00:32
Anika Wells
Ultimately I think everyone has the right to make a choice about whether or not to get vaccine. But no one has the right to be free from the consequences of that choice. And these have been set out a long, long time coming. And they’ve had their pay docked, you know, for the six months running up to this. So this isn’t a surprise and it’s something that the Queensland Government going to have to work through with this very small pocket of teachers, given 99% are actually vaccinated.

00:56
Rowan Dean
A very small pocket of people we’re humiliating, demonizing and punishing. And here I was thinking labor was supposed to represent the workers. Hmm. Joining me now is One Nation Senator for Queensland, Malcolm Roberts. Great to see you, Malcolm. How are you?

01:15
Malcolm Roberts
I’m very well, thanks, Rowan. How are you? It’s good to be here.

01:17
Rowan Dean
Good mte, good. Listen, I got all these emails yesterday from several teachers, their families and other people who are absolutely livid with anger. You know, these are human beings. They’ve got feelings, they’ve got families. They’re being treated like dirt and scum, even though we know that, according to the CDC, the Center for Disease Control itself in the US, there’s no need.

01:42
Rowan Dean
They’ve now announced there’s no need to distinguish between vaccinated and unvaccinated. Personally, I wonder whether there ever was. Malcolm Roberts, what did you make of this news and how vindictive can a government be?

02:01
Malcolm Roberts
The real issue here is about political donations and about punishment. They’re the three words to remember. Now, I’ve been dealing with a teacher who’s been fighting for restitution for the teachers for a year and a half now. Sorry, sorry for half a year, because they were only cut on December 17th. But she’s been very strong. And so I called her up today and she pointed for four points with regard to punishment.

02:27
Malcolm Roberts
She said, first of all, they’ve been penalized for losing seven months worth of work because they were suspended due to not complying with the vaccine or the injection mandates, not misconduct, suspended due to noncompliance. They lost their pay for seven months. They lost their homes, marriages broke up, distressed people making decisions that were not good and sometimes causing lots of problems and heartaches.

02:52
Malcolm Roberts
Suicides. She’s personally had to talk four people out of suicide. Now after, if that’s not enough, they’ve been penalized for serious misconduct. So just January 23rd, which is only seven months ago, they were penalized, they were suspended, they were told, because noncompliance. Now they’re being accused of serious misconduct. Then the third thing is that some of these people have been living in state education, in state homes, and so they’ve been paying rent to the state government.

03:22
Malcolm Roberts
The state government tossed them out, tossed them out. And some of them couldn’t get their furniture out in time, were charged rent because the furniture was still in the place. One woman was denied the right to even access the furniture in her house. She had to pay someone to get it out for her. The fourth thing is they have now been labeled with this:

03:41
Malcolm Roberts
Quote “any further reprimand could lead to terminations.” This is belting them. It’s not just humiliating them. It’s belting them. This woman has been prevented from doing the work she loves for seven months.

03:56
Rowan Dean
Exactly. Malcolm, these are teachers. These are the people we rely upon to educate our young. To show. To show our children the ways of behavior, the values to take forward in life, positivity, creativity, inspiration, education. These are the people we rely on to bring those values to our children. I tell you, the sheer vindictiveness is there a more nasty, vicious government than the Palaszczuk government?

04:32
Rowan Dean
We saw Dan Andrews. He’s just a thug. We saw all the police brutality, throwing people to the ground, pepper spraying them and all this stuff. But we have this nasty, vindictive Palaszczuk government that seemed to want to hurt and punish anyone who disagrees with them. Is that an unfair comment?

04:51
Malcolm Roberts
You’re exactly right. If a private employer or a public company were doing this wrong, the Queensland Government would have been down on them like a ton of bricks. Now these are doing it. It’s bastardry at its worst, but there’s a reason why they’re doing it. The teachers believe that it’s got something to do with the fact that the Red Union, I think it’s called the teachers professional Association of Queensland a new Union has been making very great increases in numbers in the last few years and the Queensland Teachers Union is scared of that increase.

05:20
Malcolm Roberts
The Queensland Teachers Union has lost a lot of members. Now the Queensland Teachers Union is close to the ALP state government and they had d large sums of money from teachers dues to the Labor Party for their for their campaigns. Now all of a sudden they’re looking at membership drops and the Teachers Professional Association of Queensland, the Red Union, is taking over.

05:41
Malcolm Roberts
And so when the vaccine mandate came along, the injection mandate came along the QTU the Queensland Teachers Union, abandoned these workers, abandoned these teachers and the red union saw them flocking to them because the red unions stood with them side by side and took them,

05:59
Rowan Dean
Fascinating

06:00
Malcolm Roberts
Defended these people, supported them and that’s what’s going on now. We’ve got an industrial relations amendment bill coming in that’s going to make it difficult for the red union to get more members. This is about labor punishing people who dared to join the Red Union.

06:15
Rowan Dean
Malcolm Roberts, political donations. You’re 100% spot on there to point to the Machiavellian maneuvers behind it. Great to speak to you. Thanks so much for speaking up for those teachers and we’ll chat again soon. Thank you so much.

On this episode I talk to Paul Withall and Amanda Sillers about parental alienation, male suicide and family law.

Paul is the Founder of Zero Suicide a not-for-profit organisation that advocates to make bulk change on the issues in society that cause people to have suicide attempts or thoughts at an institutional and government level. Zero Suicide does not accept money, grants or raise funds through merchandise. They run on love and fight for the truth. Paul is also lobbying for a Minister for Men.

Amanda is one of Australia’s most renowned research advocates in the Parental Alienation space. Her foundation, Eeny Meeny Miney Mo, is a support group for parents and children who are experiencing alienation.  She knows about this because she has lived experience. This experience and her research puts Amanda in a powerful position to unpack parental alienation and how it is harmful for both parents and children. Amanda is dedication to have parental alienation recognised as a form of child abuse across the Family Court and Domestic and Family Violence legislation.

Transcript

Speaker 1:

You’re with Senator Malcolm Roberts on today’s news talk radio, TNT.

Malcolm:

This is today’s news talk radio, tntradio.live. And I’m Senator Malcolm Roberts. And I’m very, very proud to be a host on TNT radio because we’re putting out both sides of the news. I want to move now to a man I met a couple of years ago in Maryborough, which is on the Queensland coast and his name is Paul Vittles. And he struck me as being very knowledgeable, very dedicated, and very caring man, who has a passion for helping people. Very, very caring. He was passionate, he was very active, energetic, but he was not overbearing. He just knew his stuff and he wanted to share it and he wants a voice. We’re going to give it to him now. Paul Vittles is the founder of Zero Suicide, a not for profit organisation that advocates to make bulk change on the issues in society that cause people to have suicide attempts or thoughts at an institutional and government level. Zero Suicide does not accept money, grants or raised funds through merchandise. They run on love and fight for the truth. Paul is lobbying for minister for men. Welcome Paul.

Paul:

Thank you, Malcolm. Thanks for the opportunity.

Malcolm:

Tell me something you appreciate, anything at all?

Paul:

Being in a position to be able to help other people and getting opportunities to make a difference in the community.

Malcolm:

Well we hear, Paul, a lot about the plight of women during family breakdowns, but how badly are men suffering?

Paul:

It’s not just the suffering, it’s the lack of support, the reason why they’re suffering. There’s no housing directly for men that are going through anything. They can’t get funding for free legal. When they’re in family court, there’s people that are making false accusations and restraining orders, and there’s no services for these men to turn to, to get assistance. So in turn, it makes them lonely and causes them issues.

Malcolm:

I mean, our previous guests today have said pretty much the same thing. Is there something unique about men compared with women? Women, when they get under pressure, they tend to run off to other women and they seek each other. And then the other women actually like that. If you know what I mean? Because they’re given the opportunity to care and humans love to care. Men and women love to care. So when we ask for things, we’re giving the other person who we’re looking for care from a real opportunity to express themselves, men don’t seem to think that way.

Paul:

No, they don’t. It’s not that they don’t think that way, I don’t believe. I believe it’s because they don’t have the opportunity to reach out that way. So men feel that if they’re going through something, they can talk to their mates about it. But if it’s something like you’ve lost your children, they’re worried that they’re going to be branded more so through relationship breakdown, if they’re having problems in their relationship, a domestic dispute with their partner or just niggles in the relationship. They don’t want to tell other people that, because it can in turn cause them more problems. People ask questions and if they put it out on social media, in turn, other people will attack them. And for that reason, it makes them stay silent, it’s because of the way society is.

Malcolm:

And that’s the very worst thing that someone can do rather than share it. And when we share we give someone the opportunity to care, even if sometimes they might reject us because they’ve got issues themselves, but it gives them the opportunity to care.

Paul:

Yeah. But men are scared. That’s the thing, men are scared now because society’s changed to the place where men are put in a corner and they’ve got to fight their way out of that corner. And whether there’s no services and we reach out to politicians and other services, there’s just simply nothing there to actually deal with the three issues that men deal with the most. And that’s like you say, one of the top things, relationship breakdown’s the main reason for men’s suicide.

Malcolm:

What are the other two?

Paul:

First one’s relationship breakdown and divorce, the second one’s loss of children or access to children and the last one’s financial or court. And to actually add to that with the mental health banner that everyone talks about when they link suicide and mental health together, men’s suicide’s just under 50% mental health related.

Malcolm:

And all three of the top causes for suicide are involved in the family law court system, all three.

Paul:

100% spot on. And when these men go to family court, there’s no one in court to actually talk to the people or assess the nature of how they’re dealing with the process. And especially men, they’re losing their children. The people that they’ve loved and cared for, and they’ve built their whole life around. Even their partner, even if the family’s broken down they’re losing that partner as well, even if they’ve had the fight and things are bad, but there’s nothing for them. So in turn, these men that have fought their whole life to become a father and to have a happy, healthy relationship when that breaks they’re broken. And there’s nothing there, the family court for these men to turn to, there’s more to it, but that’s the basis of what happens.

Malcolm:

So, let’s explore that a bit more by looking at what men do differently, compared with women during times of family distress, what do men do that women don’t do? And what do women do that men don’t do?

Paul:

Well, men will isolate they’ll… I suppose both genders would drink. But men will isolate because they have to isolate because there’s nowhere for them to go. They can’t reach out to a solicitor and get help. While they’re going through family court, for instance, 40% of men that go through your family court it costs them a minimum of $11,000. Some men don’t have that and it’s really hard to get legal aid in a small community town because there’s a conflict of interest there. So for that reason, they may-

Malcolm:

What the conflict of interest?

Paul:

Conflict of interest is when you have one solicitor that’s being used, say the local legal aid solicitor, and another solicitor comes in. I mean, someone wants to use the solicitor, but there’s none in the town. They actually physically cannot get a solicitor.

Malcolm:

So, if the spouse’s signed up with that solicitor tough luck, you can’t sign up with that solicitor?

Paul:

Yep. And that solicitor might be the local legal aid solicitor, and they’re being funded because men can’t get free legal when it comes to family court. Whereas women, with no disrespect, if they make a claim of domestic violence or anything like that, they can get free legal for those reasons. And during that process, they’re being funded as well with housing, with food, food parcels, food vouchers, and many other things. But men can’t get that assistance. So when they’re going through the process, they feel even further isolated pushed back further into the corner.

Malcolm:

So they see the system is different for them, and they’re probably wondering why. And they may not even know that women get all these things, but they just know that they’re isolated and alone, and they’re very vulnerable. And they just dig deeper into themselves, whereas they should be reaching out.

Paul:

They should be reaching out. But where do you reach out to, Malcolm, when there are no services that are individual for men? I challenge anyone in Australia, look through and find a domestic violence service for men, look through, find… even trying to get just normal alcohol or drug counselling. They’re there but the waiting list is three to six months. So if someone in family court, a male turns to alcohol or starts drinking heavily, or starts using drugs more, or for whatever reason during that process, there’s no service for them to get help, to deal with that issue, which causes further depression.

Malcolm:

I’ve got some other questions prepared, but I want to, before we get onto those other questions, you’ve compiled a report on men’s suicides based on government statistics. And the final copy of that is being released next week. Is that true?

Paul:

Yes, it is.

Malcolm:

And it’s titled… I have it here with me, I haven’t read it because it is long and it’s detailed, Zero Suicide Report on Men’s Suicide in Australia. And I think there’s a Facebook page?

Paul:

Yeah.

Malcolm:

What is that?

Paul:

Our Facebook page is… Good question, Malcolm. It’s ZeroSuicide Community Awareness Programme and Walks To Prevent Mens Suicide.

Malcolm:

So we’ll do that again. ZeroSuicide Community Awareness Programme And Walks To Prevent Mens Suicide. What do you mean by walks to prevent men’s suicide?

Paul:

We launched a proposal in state minister for men on the basis of suicide two years ago. When we did that, we did that around three states and it was walks. So we walked from one place to the parliament house to announce the proposal. And basically it was a protest.

Malcolm:

What sort of distance?

Paul:

2 and 3K. Not far walks, but it was more about the… We were hurt, we wanted to get our message out. So as we were walking along the streets, we were handing out flyers about the proposal, we were trying to engage with people and show them what was going on. When we got to parliament house, it was a really good feeling just to be proud that we’d had the proposal and from there we got other people were coming up to us. Even after that walk, our leadership team of 12 in Victoria, we all walked separate ways and walked through the whole city, handing out all the leftover flyers of 150.

Malcolm:

Hang on. You just told me a leadership team in Victoria. Is this a national crusade?

Paul:

No. So we launched it in Victoria two years ago, we had a lady, Kathy Cooper that was passionate about our work and she’s from New South Wales. So we ended up forming a Zero Suicide in New South Wales.

Malcolm:

So you’re from Queensland.

Paul:

I’m from Victoria.

Malcolm:

Oh, you’re from Victoria. That’s right.

Paul:

Yep.

Malcolm:

That’s right. You’re you’re in the show society.

Paul:

Yep, so [inaudible 00:10:01]-

Malcolm:

That’s right.

Paul:

That’s why I became the leader, so to speak-

Malcolm:

[inaudible 00:10:04] as Queenslander.

Paul:

Because being a travelling show person, I’ve got the capacity to get to the government offices in all the different states to get to all these different places. And that’s what made Kathy from Zero Suicide join the team because she knew I had the capacity, she’d seen what I was doing. She’s like, “I need to help you, I’m in New South Wales. What can I do?” And here she is out there flown up today and she’s outside in our Zero Suicide tent today leading the way. We’ve got walk to… We’ll talk about that later, we’ve got event coming up at parliament house in Canberra that she’s instigated.

Malcolm:

Do you want to talk about that now or deliberately leave it till later? Whatever.

Paul:

I’ll leave it till later.

Malcolm:

Okay. When’s when’s later?

Paul:

When we’re about to wrap it up.

Malcolm:

Okay. Okay. Now we’ve talked about dads and moms who really in a lot of trouble and hurting, but children are missing out on their dads during family breakdowns. What do you see happening in this space?

Paul:

Suicide. Oh my God.

Malcolm:

Of children?

Paul:

Oh, you wouldn’t believe it. There was a 10 year old last week committed suicide.

Malcolm:

10?

Paul:

10. Yep, in Wollongong. 10 years old, that’s how bad this is getting. Now, we can’t honestly say we know exactly what his cause was because I didn’t deal with that child. But there’s 10 year olds, there’s 14 year olds. And you’ll see in this report that I’ve given you that some of the statistics it’s horrible. But what happens, it’s not just suicide. These children get bullied at school, we know bullying at school causes suicidal thoughts in children. This is when the children realise that, “Hang on, my dad will think that my mom or dad doesn’t love me.” So they have that opportunity to have their first try of drugs or go to that party. That’s when that starts. That’s when they think, “Well, they don’t care about me. I might as well do it.”

Paul:

So that starts the whole cycle. And in turn, once you live at home is what you see. And if you’re not getting the love, or even if you are getting the love, if you alienated against or any of that, it all starts at home or with your peers that you work around. And that’s why children are killing themselves. And not just killing themselves, starting that process of having an unhealthy life as a teen. Because when teenagers go through that, they don’t understand. And they might say they do, they don’t understand. And because they say they understand they don’t get the assistance that they need from the people that need to help them.

Malcolm:

So you won’t hear this in the Mockingbird media, the legacy media, the tainted media, the mainstream media, you will hear it on tntradio.live because the only mandate at tntradio.live is to tell the bloody truth. And that’s why we want to give a voice to people like Paul right now. So Paul, one of your pet strategies is to get a minister for men. How will such a thing make a difference for our society?

Paul:

There’s literally hundreds of ways. Firstly, having a minister for men instated, we can start dealing with the issues that are facing men in society that make them want to take their own life.

Malcolm:

So in some ways it’s a bit of a flag, but men have arrived. The issue is real.

Paul:

Yes.

Malcolm:

So it’s symbolic. It’s a flag.

Paul:

Yep.

Malcolm:

Okay.

Paul:

We have ministers for women, at the state and federal level all over our country. We don’t have ministers for men. Isn’t that the most inner quality you could talk about when it comes to our parliament? I mean, at the end of the day, let’s can even make the minister for men, a woman. It doesn’t matter so long as they’re trying to deal with the issues before the thought takes place. So we need to instigate, we need to get some simple answers. They could have the men’s sheds. They could be government funded, we can use the youth programme. So with the correctional facilities, we have these children that go out and do… Young boys that are going out, cleaning graffiti off with other criminals.

Paul:

Instead, we could put these into the men’s shed where they’ve got old heads working together to learn from each other. If that was funded, we could make change. There’s lots of different things. We have people screaming that men are the instigators to domestic violence. Okay. Don’t blame, let’s instate the minister for men, let’s research the reasons why. From that, we can instil the things that need to change in men. In turn, we drop the suicide rate. We can deal with the domestic violence issues. You know that you can’t take a child to a refuge in Australia if you’re a man?

Malcolm:

Well, what do you mean?

Paul:

You can’t. There’s no one refuge in Australia that a man can leave domestic violence with their child and go into. None.

Malcolm:

So if a man is suffering from domestic violence, then he can’t take his child with him?

Paul:

And in turn that causes domestic violence. It forces these men to stay in the home. Quite and often men are threatened, “If you do this, you’re going to lose your kid.” We’ve all heard this before, we’ve all heard the sentence. That forces men to stay in toxic environments, and some of these men are not violent. Of course they are but if they stay in that environment, the children see it. Like I said, it goes through that, that causes children to feel bad. It educates them that’s the wrong relationship.

Malcolm:

We need to go to an outbreak. And so this will be the last question for you, Paul. But while I understand now, the minister for men is a flag to say, “Hey, men have problems too.” And I, and I get that. And that’s a positive reason for doing it. I think that it’s a need to get back to basics for both men and women in our country. Need to get back to basics for Aboriginals in our country. And need to get back to basics for so many groups of people in our country.

Malcolm:

And so I would put it to you that while the minister for men might be a nice flag, until we fix family law, until we fix the tax system, until we fix the energy system that man has caused, government has created. Until we fix cost of living, until we fix overregulation, we will be continuing this spiral of misery because government seems to think that they have to be the solution when they’ve caused the bloody problem in the first place. Government’s duty is to create the environment in which people can operate sociably and effectively. They don’t have to be the environment, they have to create the environment. And if we got back to basics we’d have one spouse at home because the taxation system would be reasonable and we’d have so much nurturing, so much of a better environment for a decent family.

Paul:

You’re right. But at the end of the day, because they haven’t done that suicide and all suicide is now nearly 80% men. And that’s because that hasn’t happened, Malcolm. That’s why we need to instate the minister for men. In talking 80% of all suicides of men, clearly there’s something wrong with our society. That’s why I fight for the minister for men, the segregation, just because you’re Aboriginal, you look through those stats. Most of those people will be men and all the same problems, family relationship breakdown, loss of children. And it’s all the same thing. The LGBTQI community, same thing. You’ll find it’s mostly the trans or the gay men. And that’s why we need this minister for men because it’s 40 years now, this is [inaudible 00:17:24]. 40 years, men’s suicide has been 70% of all suicides.

Malcolm:

Wow. We need to do something about this so well, we can see that the need for minister for men to draw attention to it. We need to get back to basics in this country and fix the governance. So thank you so much, Paul, for coming in. We’ll now go to an ad break.

Paul:

Thank you for your time, Malcolm. And I appreciate it.

Malcolm:

This is Senator Malcolm Roberts again, back with a new guest on parental alienation behaviours. We’re going to move from the term parental alienation to parental alienation behaviours. So my guest is Amanda Sillars and she’s with Eeny Meeny Miney Mo Foundation, and we’re going to talk more about that later. Amanda is one of Australia’s most renowned research advocates in the parental alienation behaviours space. Her foundation, Eeny Meeny Miney Mo is a support group for parents and children who are experiencing alienation. She knows about this because she has lived experience, this experience as both a child and as a parent later. And her research puts Amanda in a powerful position to unpack parental alienation and how it’s harmful for both parents and children. Amanda is dedicated to have parental determined and dedicated to having parental alienation recognised as a form of child abuse across the family court and domestic and family violence legislation.

Malcolm:

And I must give her an apology because she contacted me some time ago and I put a note in my calendar, “Call Amanda Sillars.” But I kept trying to find her number. So anyway, here we are face-to-face and what a beautiful smile she’s got. Anyway, welcome Amanda.

Amanda:

Hi, it’s great to be here.

Malcolm:

First thing, tell me something you appreciate can be about anything?

Amanda:

I guess, despite the things that I’ve been through in life, I’ve had a lot of trauma and things like that as a child and as a parent as well. I’m grateful that I’ve got that experience, that I can better understand others who go through these type of things. It’s a strange thing to be grateful for, but I’ve learned so much from it and I’ve become a better person and less judgemental and more understanding.

Malcolm:

Thank you. I appreciate your smile, very much. Childhood Amanda is such an impressionable time and a child’s adoration for their parents, makes them especially vulnerable. How easily can children be manipulated by one parent?

Amanda:

Oh, extremely easy. From the day that we’re born, we look to our parents for the facial expressions of what’s happy, what’s sad, what’s surprising and the angry face and all that sort of stuff. So, starting off with some of the naive alienating behaviours is the nonverbal communications. So, if a parent’s showing that they’re bitter towards another parent, or they’re angry or they’re horrified, things like that is that children will look at their parent for these cues and they’ll respond to these cues. So if you’ve got a caretaker that’s showing that they’re really angry at the other parent, and the child starts to associate that when the moms or dad’s angry with the other parent, “But this parent’s making them upset.” And so, they can start withdrawing from the other parent as a result of simply the non-verbal communications.

Malcolm:

Well, I imagine it actually probably goes even deeper and you correct me if I’m wrong, because you’ve been through it and you’ve done the research. But if a child loves both parents and they’ve got good reason to, and one parent suddenly starts trashing the other parent, then the child is going to be, “Hang on, well I don’t see that.” So that child is going to be very confused, they’re very much doubting what they are seeing and they’re going to doubt themselves and reduce their self-confidence. Because they’re saying, “Mum is saying this, but dad is not that way. There must be something wrong with me, the child.” Is that valid?

Amanda:

I guess, when you’re criticising the other parent, you’re criticising the child as well, because the parent’s part of them. I’ve got a huge list of all the-

Malcolm:

This lady is prepared.

Amanda:

I know. I’ve got a… so we’ve got things like, obviously we talk about the denigrating, the parent to the child. Maybe we’ve got the vilification of the targeted parent without any adequate supportive evidence. And unreasonably interfering with communications, and the time the child spends with the targeted parent. Eradicating the targeted parent from the child’s life, purposely withholding information about the child from the targeted parent. So these are all alienating behaviours. Interrogating the child for information about the targeted parent and the time spent with them. This is the really serious one, because parents can start questioning the child. Like, “What did you do with the other parent? Who did you see? What did you get fed?”

Amanda:

And the child will respond, and sometimes they’ll start responding in a way that they’re trying to please that parent, because they see that parent’s fishing for information. So what will happen is sometimes we have a situation like the parent might have got upset with them over something. And the child learns to catastrophize things because they’re with the parent that has these cognitive distortions, where they catastrophize, they’ve got this black and white thinking, like they’re all good. The other parents all bad. And so this is quite distressing for a child to start learning these kind of behaviours. And it does affect them. So kids will start reporting back things that didn’t happen. Because I thought it was all about just a parent, not just, but a parent denigrating the other parent. But it’s not, it’s actually the children can start confessing to things that didn’t happen.

Amanda:

And there’s a study that’s called The Mousetrap Study and they asked a series of questions over a number of weeks. And there was one question that remained the same. And that is, have you ever had your finger caught in a mouse trap? In the first week none of the children… These were school-aged children, none of the children had had their finger caught in the mouse trap. By the second and third week the children started reporting back, “Oh yeah, my little sister, she got it caught in, I got my finger caught in. It was in the attic.” And they started elaborating on it. So it just shows you that you ask a child the same question again and again, eventually they’ll tell that child what they think that their parent’s fishing for, and naturally children want to be helpful and they want to please their parent.

Amanda:

So you can imagine that I’ll give you our worst case scenario. So, we’ve had cases where the father might have been bathing the child in the bath. And then the mother who’s now separated from him and is like, “Well, what was he doing? Did he touch you down there? Did you touch your private areas?” And the child’s like… Oh, maybe the first time they’re saying, “No, it didn’t. I just washed myself.” And then the child will come back the second time, if they’re washing… The father might not even wash the child anywhere in their private areas.

Malcolm:

So, the child is sensing that he or she would please the mother if he or she said these certain things?

Amanda:

Yeah, absolutely. And so we see a lot of cases where, and it’s not just fathers that are being accused, we’ve got moms that have been accused of things like that as well. So this is not gendered, this comes back to those problematic personality traits, which we do highlight on our website of all the different… Sorry, I just go through my… I’ve got so many pages that are printed out here today.

Malcolm:

I don’t know that you need those pages because you seem to know it pretty well.

Amanda:

Yeah, well… Yeah, sorry.

Malcolm:

But she’s thorough, she’s thorough.

Amanda:

I just want to make sure, because my… Here we go. So what we’re looking at, the characteristics of alienating parents are the problematic personality traits, which are under the narcissistic personality, borderline personality, paranoid personality, and the histrionic personality traits. And then we’ve got the cognitive distortions, which I said before is those really unhelpful thinking traps, like they’re never wrong. They catastrophize, they overgeneralize, all those sort of behaviours. And then we’ve got externalising unwanted emotions and responsibilities, and unable to accept their own problems. And they tend to blame other people that projection and abnormal grieving responses, when people are in an intact relationship, everything’s okay. But then once they break up, some people can’t transition into that co-parenting, that separated environment.

Amanda:

And they have to reformulate things to make them hate that person, because they’re not able to manage with that separation. So they can basically start saying that whole relationship was abusive or it was really bad, that whole entire time just to get them to hate this person, because they’re not able to transition into that separated environment type of thing.

Malcolm:

So aren’t these… Well, in my ignorance and my lack of experience, they seem to be symptoms of underlying mental health problems in the parent that is trying to alienate another person.

Amanda:

Absolutely.

Malcolm:

So sometimes done deliberately for ulterior motives, sometimes just done almost habitually without even knowing.

Amanda:

Yeah. Naively, they can be naively done. When someone’s got residual, there’s a little bit of alienation in most separations. But if you’ve got somebody who’s got a mental illness or a mental disorder, it’s going to be worse.

Malcolm:

Mm-hmm.

Amanda:

Yeah.

Malcolm:

What’s the experience and impact for the parent who’s being alienated from their child or children?

Amanda:

Oh, it’s such a helpless-

Malcolm:

Because you had that experience?

Amanda:

Yeah. I’ve actually been through that. And the thing is it’s being judged, when you’re being vilified.

Malcolm:

Judged by the child?

Amanda:

When you’re being judged by the family court system, or if people have had child protection involved or police involved and things like that. You’re guilty until you prove your innocence. And so you’ll spend all your time trying to explain yourself, and sometimes you’ll give that much detail in a sentence. It’s like that of an affidavit because you’re feeling like you have to prove yourself all the time.

Malcolm:

Justify.

Amanda:

And sometimes because you’re not getting support, there’s not enough support for these people in these situations that you can become quite unhinged. So can you imagine if you’re going for a single expert report and you’ve been vilified, you’re not seeing your children, you’re now being financially abused with the incentives of child support to the abuser. People become, as I said, unhinged. And so you’ve got one hour appointment with a single expert and you’ve got that period of time to tell what’s going on in your life. And when you’ve got one hour and they haven’t looked at the timeline, when they haven’t interviewed other people in the family or in your community and stuff like that.

Amanda:

And you’ve only got that one hour to tell your story. That one hour you could come across as a absolute… really unwell and unregulated, you can sound dysfunctional. So, a lot of people aren’t trauma-informed, so they don’t understand this.

Malcolm:

So there’s another symptom of the system that’s failing, the system that’s diseased, the family law system. It has to be canned and you can’t understand someone in an hour.

Amanda:

No, definitely not. No, you really need longitudinal interview process and more people in the community that’s associated to the children and the parents to be interviewed. You can’t base it on one hour with the children, one hour with each parent. That’s just not enough.

Malcolm:

And can there be… We’ve been talking all day, all this show about parents who separate, who divorced, who are going through those proceedings, can this happen in a marriage, one parent be alienated?

Amanda:

Oh absolutely. You can have one parent that’s undermining the other parent’s rules in the house. You can have one keeping secrets from the other parent or trying to find out information on what they’re doing and stuff like that. Or, it’s very much like the alienating tactics that are after the separation. Let’s say it’s someone’s birthday, but then minimising things that are important about that person and making them less important.

Malcolm:

Or even downright putting the other person down.

Amanda:

Yeah.

Malcolm:

Either in front of her or behind his back or wherever.

Amanda:

Yeah. Talking down about the other parent. Absolutely. Yeah. Like, if they’re making the child a meal and it’s not what the other parent thinks is appropriate, they might just, “Oh, you’re always make him unhealthy food.” And you just even add the little simple things that the child starts to get this perspective of this parent. So you can imagine once you’ve got the separation, how that can just magnify.

Malcolm:

So a lot of the parental alienation seems to be about control, to try and hurt the other parent, not recognising that they’re hurting the child in the process. So what are some of the things… What’s the experience and impact for the child that’s being subjected to this manipulative behaviour?

Amanda:

Okay.

Malcolm:

Can it stay with them for a lifetime?

Amanda:

Absolutely, it can. I’ve got… Okay. It’s traumatic. We did a study recently and there was people that came forward to participate in the research that just are not in the frame of mind to be able to participate, that’s how damaged they are as the result of from-

Malcolm:

From being children-

Amanda:

… from being alienated. So they’re now adults.

Malcolm:

Yeah.

Amanda:

But they are so harmed that we could not have them participate in the study.

Malcolm:

In what way?

Amanda:

Suicidal dysregulated, you just can’t have people participate in research, because what it is it’s-

Malcolm:

So their wounds are that deep.

Amanda:

Yeah. Well their interview, so you ask a series of questions, you’re not just ticking a survey. Yeah.

Malcolm:

And that interview would break down because the adult who was once a child victim of parental alienation behaviours just couldn’t cope?

Amanda:

No, they can’t cope through it. Yeah. It’s just unethical. It’s unethical to interview somebody who’s that traumatised.

Malcolm:

So how will that make them as parents?

Amanda:

Yeah. Well, I can’t really cover this.

Malcolm:

Wow.

Amanda:

Yeah. History will probably repeat itself. Either they might become an alienating parent or they might become alienated because that’s the cycle. But what we’re seeing in the impact is that we’re seeing disrupted social and emotional development. We’re seeing insecure attachment styles. So what you see in the prisons, a lot of people that are in prison have the antisocial attachment style. Is interpersonal problems, the relationships they choose and how they manage those relationships. Paranoid thinking, obsessive compulsive tendencies, low self-esteem that’s without a doubt, we see so much low self-esteem. Resentment, grief, anger, depression, anxiety, somatic symptoms, physical symptoms, substance related problems and suicide. And then family violence and abuse they can end up into in relationships with family violence.

Malcolm:

So, because they went through that, they could become violent or they could become attracted to someone who is going to become violent later.

Amanda:

Yeah. Yeah. Because some people-

Malcolm:

We seem to have these contracts, the way I listen to people sometimes it’s almost like they’re contracted to marry someone who will teach them that lesson by the experience.

Amanda:

Yeah. Well, sometimes it’s what’s familiar. I know with my own situation, I had a father that was really good at telling people what they want to hear and very manipulative, but behind closed doors, he would grind you down, belittle you and things like that. And so that was a familiar thing for me. And so that’s what I chose in my partner. I chose very similar behaviours, even down to their birthdays, being a couple of days apart and looks were very similar as well. Big white teeth, broad shoulders, tall, everything was just so much alike, because it was familiar. And I was used to being treated that way. As a problem, because my dad used to always say things about my mom. Like, “Oh, you just…” He’d make negative comments about my mom. So I learn that was a bad thing, but that was okay to be spoken to that way. So, that’s what happens with this. It’s what’s familiar to you and you compromise yourself for other people and your own thoughts and feelings are minimised. You don’t matter.

Malcolm:

Well, thank you very much Amanda, for sharing that insight into your personal behaviour. It’s a strong woman who can do that, a strong person who can do that. We’re going to take an ad break and then we’re going to come back again with Amanda Sillars, and talk more about parental alienation behaviours.

Speaker 1:

[inaudible 00:36:53] weaponizing weather with reality and perspective.

Malcolm:

Al Gore effect warning. This is a warning, is in effect because of the media misinformation media. They’re not telling you about how much rain the Colorado river basin has had this monsoonal season and how much more is coming. It may be the wettest four month period on record in the so-called desert Southwest, which looks more like the swampy Southwest. But wait, there’s more. Texas has been in a hot dry summer, there is a drought in Texas right now. Not as bad as the 1950s and for the United States, not as bad as the 1930s, but a monster reversal is coming. In fact, what we’re telling our clients is Texas is going to go from dust to mud and floods, especially up across the Northern part of the state.

Malcolm:

Do you think you’d hear any of that from the media misinformation media? Of course not. This is weatherbell.com meteorologist Joe Bastardi for TNT radio, reminding you to enjoy the weather, it’s the only weather you got.

Malcolm:

And this is Senator Malcolm Roberts back again with Amanda Sillars. Now Amanda is not one to mark around. So she’s told me what she would like to talk about next. So guests usually have charge in my interview because they know the topic, I don’t. So, okay, Amanda, over to you, tell us what the topic is and what you’d like me to ask, or just go into it. Don’t worry about me, just go into it.

Amanda:

Good eye, science of social influences that support parental alienation theory. So what we do know from the research is that false memories can be implanted.

Malcolm:

We know that from parliament?

Amanda:

Suggestion and questions can lead to the corruption of memory and perception, and the cues of others shape our own perception. And this is true in influence children, teens then even adults. The mechanism of influence includes social pressure, visualisation, suggestive questioning, repetition, compliance, patternicity and confirmation bias. So that’s when someone who searches for information that supports their beliefs or values.

Amanda:

And going back to the interviewing is that interviewing, questioning and counselling techniques used with children can be so suggestive that they have the capacity to substantially alter the child’s recollections of events and thus compromise the reliability of the child’s personal knowledge. So you’re talking about in court situations where children are interviewed by somebody who’s not trained in how to interview children appropriately, they can start off with suggestive questions like, “Oh, does daddy hurt you?” Or, “Does mommy slap you?” They start with those leading questions kind of thing.

Amanda:

And this is quite common. We hear it a lot in child protection, we hear it with some police will be like that, suggestive with their questioning. Even though you’ve got people in units that are highly trained in the area, if they’re on site and you’ve got somebody who’s questioning a child and the child’s already had those questions asked by a parent and they’ve sort of giving into that parent, the child will start elaborating. The story will get bigger and better over time. So you can imagine when you get more and more people involved, how a case that could be so innocent with somebody telling the child often. Then now the parents abusing them and now they’ve been abusing them their whole life, and they’ve always done it and they’ve even done it to the other people. And, this is the hour of suggestibility.

Malcolm:

And children are very vulnerable, especially young children because they want to please.

Amanda:

Yeah.

Malcolm:

It’s important for their survival. So just building on that, I’ve prepared a question here. I understand that false allegations of abuse account for nearly 80% of cases during family court proceedings and this alienation is a way of permanently severing the parent child relationship. That’s a very high percentage for such destructive behaviour. Why do people make false allegations in custody disputes?

Amanda:

Well, I’ve written an article about this and again, instead of articles, I have list supports.

Malcolm:

Okay. Go through your list.

Amanda:

Yeah. So, buy some time to manipulate, brainwash and coach the children, gain an advantage in divorce, quickly put a parent out of the house without eviction or a court mentioned hearing to get vengeance, to control or manipulate a parent or get leverage in some way. Sometimes to put a parent in jail, they can set them up and bait the other parent. To emotionally and psychologically damage the other parent, they can get financial support and compensation from social services or victims compensation groups. I’ve seen that happen a lot of times. And when you question the victims of compensation, they don’t investigate. So you can go basically with nil evidence and just make claims that a parent has physically or sexually abused a child and a parent can get a compensation that will help them move into state, that will get them a new phone account and things like that. And then the child will be compensated a substantial amount of money when they turn 18.

Amanda:

So the child will hit 18 and they get a compensation to say that they’ve been sexually abused. When they in alienation cases, they haven’t been sexually abused and might have been, it would be exonerated by the police. It’ll be exonerated by the courts and everything like that. But this parent will still go and make these claims. I’m not saying in any way that the children aren’t genuinely… this doesn’t happen, but this gets misused, so you can see how it can get misused and easily get misused. So you can misrepresent a parent as being dangerous to officials or the children. And they can take that to schools and say, “Here’s my restraining order. Or…” And they might not have had the time to appeal that restraining order yet. But the parent will go and use that as evidence to vilify that parent even further.

Malcolm:

It’s a tactic.

Amanda:

As a tactic.

Malcolm:

As Rick said, it’s weaponized.

Amanda:

Yeah, absolutely.

Malcolm:

Becomes a weapon.

Amanda:

Yeah. And so it can socially isolate someone. It can gain 100% custody for child support purposes. So not just in my… Because that happened, my kids were abducted on a Saturday and on the Monday morning at 9:05 in the morning, there was a 100% child support claim put in against me by their father. So this is the stuff that goes on. I mean, my story is just one of like literally millions of people this is happening to.

Malcolm:

Men and women.

Amanda:

Men and women.

Malcolm:

It’s not just men, men and women.

Amanda:

Yeah. Well, our support group’s made up of 60% women now in our groups, since I’ve been advocating, we’ve had women coming out of the woodwork. And what happens is you get a lot of people that might get the term incorrect. They’ll say, “Oh, I’m alienated.” But their children aren’t actually rejecting them. They’ll come running to them, they see them every other weekend, but they claim that they’re alienated. And they might get contact denial, contact denial is an alienating tactical behaviour, but it’s not parental alienation in its entirety. Because the children aren’t being condition, or brainwashed, or punished and reward systems and stuff like that. So it’s important for people to understand that even though you are being denied contact, it’s not parental alienation in it’s entirety.

Malcolm:

Okay.

Amanda:

Yeah. Because the children are [inaudible 00:45:55].

Malcolm:

Have you finished your list on that one?

Amanda:

No, I haven’t.

Malcolm:

Keep going, I love those lists.

Amanda:

Give them a reason to tell the children that the other parent is so dangerous that they had to get a restraining order to protect themselves, give the applicant justification to badmouth the other parent all over town to make them look like the child protector and saviour, and the best parent which supports the image of parent of the year.

Malcolm:

Yeah.

Amanda:

And to keep everything in the house once the other parent is removed, to allow the complainant to get a new boyfriend or girlfriend of the picture and the other parent out. It’s just these tactics that people use by making false allegations.

Malcolm:

So, let’s just check my understanding. Sometimes the parent who’s doing the alienating of the other parent can be harsh and direct with the child to alienate the other parent. Sometimes the parent who’s doing the alienating can be subtle and implicit, and sometimes they can be doing unintentionally because they just want to get some form of control. Actually, all of these are forms of control. Control of the child, control of the other parent, control of the situation. Always beneath control, in my experience, there is fear. So the person doing the alienating is actually afraid and using it as a means of [inaudible 00:47:16] their own inadequacies.

Amanda:

Well, I guess what we’ve got to look at is coercive controllers at the heart of parental alienation. And so, the coercive controlling behaviour, looking at it, would pressure the child to feel allegiance or loyalty to them. Pressure or reward the child to reject the targeted parent, make the child afraid of the target parent in the absence of a real threat. And coerce the child to be defiant towards target parent. So they will teach them to undermine their rule, things like that. “Oh, you don’t have to do that.” Or they’ll teach the child that that parent all they’re there for is money. So the child will demand things from that parent, but yet the parent might want to see them, spend time with them, but they will reject that and they just want, “Oh, well I need a new pair of shoes.” Or, “I want the latest iPhone,” and things like that.

Malcolm:

So, kids can play the game?

Amanda:

Absolutely. But it’s because they’re being coerced to do it and it’s not even their fault. They’re being manipulated to do it. Yeah.

Malcolm:

Your foundation is calling, Amanda for legislative change to acknowledge parental alienating behaviours. How do you see that working?

Amanda:

Well, I guess we need to recognise parental alienating behaviours as child abuse and family violence. And it needs to be clearly defined what those behaviours are. And then we need a legislation that basically… Yeah.

Malcolm:

So you want to basically identify the parental alienation behaviours, because that’s been your term. You’re not talking about parental alienation, you’re talking about parental alienating behaviour.

Amanda:

Alienating behaviours. Yeah.

Malcolm:

So you identify them and get them ingrained as symptomatic of child abuse?

Amanda:

There’s certain tactics that are used like I guess it’s, yeah, not really… Yeah, what they are is they’re parental alienating behaviours. And we’ve got a huge list of on our website of all these behaviours. We just want to get them recognised as child abuse because the research that we’re doing is showing the outcomes of the impact of what these [inaudible 00:49:32] talking about… Its been a long day, I’m getting my moods fixed.

Malcolm:

You’re doing fine. So where can people find that website? Can you tell us?

Amanda:

Yeah, well, we’ve got EMMM, which is emmm.org.au. That’s M for Mary.

Malcolm:

So that’s Eeny Meeny Miney Mo, E-M-M-M.

Amanda:

.Org.au. And we’ve also got a Facebook page because we are a advancing education and health services charity. We’re not funded. And we also have a Facebook page that we have a support group that’s associated to that [inaudible 00:50:10].

Malcolm:

How would they find that? Eeny Meeny Miney Mo?

Amanda:

From EMMM Foundation on Facebook, type in @, and then EMMM Foundation. I actually manage the intake of that group because I screen the people that come into the group, and I managed all that myself to make it a safer space for people to be able to talk about the situation.

Malcolm:

Because you want people to be open and honest about their circumstances.

Amanda:

I’ll be able to reach out for support.

Malcolm:

Yes.

Amanda:

And talk about how they’re feeling and things that they’re going through, and get support from others who are going through. We have grandparents in the group as well. And we have some stepparents in the group who are supporting the alienated parent. We also run workshops with the University of Tasmania that are psychoeducational. So it teaches parents about what parental alienation is and what it isn’t and how to manage the situation better.

Malcolm:

We’re getting close to the end of the show. So there are a couple of things I want to get through. I want to make sure that people are introduced to your Eeny Meeny Miney Mo Foundation petition that’s running. You’ve already got 20,000 signatures and now aiming for your next target of 25,000. Where can people find the petition and where to from there?

Amanda:

Okay. Well, on our website, on the homepage, we’ve actually got the petition on there. So if you follow the links, sometimes ask you to donate to Change. Just ignore that little prompt.

Malcolm:

Thank you for that. I almost did, because I think your cause is well worth donating to, and I almost donated to change.org. No, no.

Amanda:

No, no. Don’t do that. Just sign the petition and if you’re able to share, it would be greatly appreciated because-

Malcolm:

Oh, so when you showed me on the phone, that was your website.

Amanda:

Yeah.

Malcolm:

Oh.

Amanda:

Oh no. No, that was a Change website.

Malcolm:

Yeah.

Amanda:

Okay. Yeah. So, but after you sign the petition, it sometimes wants to push you to sign other petitions or to donate to them.

Malcolm:

Yeah. So be careful if you’re wanting to sign the petition that you don’t end up donating to change.org, is it?

Amanda:

Yeah. Yeah.

Malcolm:

Okay. All right.

Amanda:

Yeah. Absolutely.

Malcolm:

One final thing for a couple of minutes. Could you tell us about the research you’re doing in the area of parental alienation behaviours with the University of Tasmania?

Amanda:

Yeah, absolutely. The first studies that we did was the targeted parent perspective that has gathered so much. Oh, sorry. [inaudible 00:52:33].

Malcolm:

No, no, you’re right. I’m just getting a warning that we’ve got two minutes left. That’s all.

Amanda:

All. Okay. We’ve done the targeted parent perspective, we’ve done the alienated child perspective, and recently we’ve done the grandparent perspective. And it definitely fits the definition of child abuse and family violence. And with the grandparent, it fits the definition of elder abuse. If they’re on the receiving end of parental alienating behaviours. And we have continuing… We’ve got more studies that are coming out. And I’m hoping to do a study with veterans who are experiencing parental alienation. Because not only are they experiencing things like PTSD and physical injuries and stuff, then they’re cut off from the children as well, which compounds their mental health. And so I think it’s critical that we get some research happening in that area.

Malcolm:

Well, I know we are right near the end. So as a child, you were hijacked to America.

Amanda:

Abducted.

Malcolm:

Abducted. Yeah, that’s the word. You abducted to America and you suffered from parental alienation.

Amanda:

Yeah.

Malcolm:

Then as a married mother, you were alienated from your child. So the other person that’s not involved. Sorry, that is involved and hurts is the grandparents. So we got 30 seconds. That seems to be someone who always left out the grandparents.

Amanda:

Oh, absolutely, grandparents. So I have a lot of people who follow my page now who always say, “What about us grandparents?” And so I’ve started our grandparent page on our website now, so we can actually share our research and provide some videos on there as well.

Malcolm:

I want to thank you so much, Amanda Sillars for doing what you’re doing. Eeny Meeny Miney Mo. Fabulous lady. Get behind it.

Amanda:

Thank you.

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

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

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

Transcript

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Cody Beck:

Good to see you again, Malcolm.

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Cody Beck:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

But we can have plenty of gendered female services.

Cody Beck:

Yeah. Yep. That’s all fine.

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Cody Beck:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Cody Beck:

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

Cody Beck:

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

Cody Beck:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Cody Beck:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

Good on you.

Cody Beck:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Cody Beck:

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

Cody Beck:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Cody Beck:

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

Cody Beck:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Cody Beck:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Cody Beck:

All right. Thanks for having me. Cheers.

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Lisa Young:

Hi, Malcolm. Good to see you.

Rick Young:

Hi, Malcolm. Thanks for having us.

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Lisa Young:

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

Rick Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Lisa Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Lisa Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Lisa Young:

Oh, you can jump in here.

Malcolm Roberts:

Follow instructions now.

Rick Young:

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

Lisa Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

Absolutely ashamed.

Malcolm Roberts:

… brings tears-

Rick Young:

The stigma.

Malcolm Roberts:

… to my eyes. Yeah. The stigma.

Rick Young:

The stigma that goes with it.

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

And a lot of cash.

Rick Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

Yeah. Just muscle cars.

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

Yeah, absolutely.

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

Endangering others.

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

Yeah.

Lisa Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

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

Rick Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

Yep.

Rick Young:

So it’s-

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Lisa Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

That sounds like what women’s shelters do.

Lisa Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

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

Lisa Young:

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

Rick Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

Absolutely.

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Lisa Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Lisa Young:

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

Rick Young:

Short leash.

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

What?

Lisa Young:

Yeah, or it’d be used against them.

Rick Young:

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

Rick Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

My pleasure.

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Lisa Young:

We sure do.

Malcolm Roberts:

It’s wonderful.

Lisa Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

The stigma of PTSD?

Rick Young:

Being a veteran with PTSD.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah.

Lisa Young:

Yeah.

Rick Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

Two days ago was Long Tan day.

Rick Young:

Yeah, it was.

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

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

Rick Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

So most people would be saying, Stanley who?

Rick Young:

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

Lisa Young:

ScoMo wasn’t at his funeral.

Rick Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Rick Young:

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

Lisa Young:

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

Rick Young:

Might not go away.

Lisa Young:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

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

Lisa Young:

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

Skip to 30m30s for Senator Roberts’ interview

I joined Maria Zeee for an important conversation about the Digital Identity Bill and how it is feeding into more control for the globalists.

Transcript

Maria Zee:

Now, one of the other problems that’s plaguing our country at the moment and has been for some time is the increased government surveillance that we’ve seen over the past two years under the guise of COVID 19 measures. They claim that it’s for the safety of the people to be surveilling them, but now all of a sudden, we’re talking about the trusted digital ID that’s going to be implemented in Australia. What does this actually mean? Well Senator Malcolm Roberts is a person that’s been speaking up a lot about how this lines up with Klaus Schwab’s plan for the great reset. You will own nothing, and you will be happy. Yuvil Harari, the Lead Advisor of Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum says we can now track and trace individuals and even manipulate them the way that we want. What do they mean? Well here’s a clip from the UN about what they say digital is.

Speaker 13:

Digital Transformation is changing the way we manage our data, our information, our interactions, and our identities online. The United Nations is ready to digitally transform how it deals with identity, with a system to streamline information sharing, daily workflows, access to platforms and buildings, operating across agencies by providing its personnel with a universal system-wide identity solution. Introducing the UN Digital ID, a unique and digital identity for UN personnel from the day you join to the day you part. All of your personal, HR, medical, travel, security, payroll, and pension data in the Palm of your hand, giving you full control on what you share and with whom. With blockchain and biometrics, the UN Digital ID makes verification efficient, secure, transparent, immutable, portable, and universal. It’s been piloted by different agencies and the UN Pension Fund where they’ve replaced current manual processes with certainty for who and where pension recipients say they are at any given time.

Speaker 13:

Imagine a regional field officers just joined the UN. She uses the mobile app to obtain a digital wallet stored securely in her smartphone and only accessible to her with biometrics. Even better than a physical wallet, she can store all her credentials issued by any UN organisation in her digital wallet. She has immediate access to core certificates, travel clearances from UN DSS, medical records from allergies to vaccinations, also making any transfer to another organisation a breeze. As innovation transforms the world, we can improve the way we manage our identities online. UN Digital IDs, a building block for digital corporation, unlocking the promise of the SDGs.

Maria Zee:

And of course, we had to see a picture of the world just then, because this is linked to the wellbeing of the planet, right? Digital ID, improving your security, all of your things in one place, all for the sake of convenience, just like most things that we’ve been told are for the sake of our convenience when they’re actually to increase surveillance. Now, Senator Malcolm Roberts has a different take on what the digital ID means, and here’s something the mainstream media won’t show you.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

The United Nations has a problem. How can they control the carbon footprint of the world’s citizen? Very soon, government will tell our farmers what they can grow and punish Australian consumers if they buy the wrong things. The dream of micromanaging individual carbon emissions hinges on the soon to be past 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.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

It is only through the relentless digital stalking of citizens that the liberal nationals 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, “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.

Maria Zee:

There is no such thing as a free lunch. That is seriously alarming stuff. That is taking steps towards a police state where you are monitored for every single thing that you do buy, sell, even think. And it’ll of course affect your social credit score, which is what the digital ID could very well lead to and some say it will. And of course, we know the World Economic Forum has these plans as so said Senator Malcolm. He talks about the great resist recently in parliament. I want to show that clip before we go to Senator Malcolm Roberts.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

If this parliament gets its wrong, every day Australians will suffer through inflation or worse stagflation for decades. And instead of working together to push Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum plan based on United Nations policies, work together instead for our country. Klaus Schwab life by subscription is really surfed him, its slavery. Billionaire globalist corporations will own everything homes, factories, farms, cars, furniture, and everyday citizens will rent what they need if their social credit score allows.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

The plan of the great reset is that you will die with nothing. To pull off this evil plan, Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum will need to take more than just material possessions from Australians. Senators in this very chamber today who support the great reset threaten our privacy freedom and dignity. Yes, they’re in this Senate Chamber. One nation vehemently opposes the great reset, the digital identity bill, theft of agricultural land use forcing farmers off their land, and all of the great reset. One nation has a comprehensive plan to bring our beautiful country back to sustainable prosperity. And in the months ahead, we will be rolling that plan out. Instead of lib lab, pushing Klaus Schwab’s great reset with the tagline, you’ll own nothing and be happy. One nation advocates, the great resist.

Maria Zee:

The great resist, which is essentially what everyone should be doing if they knew just how much government control a digital ID would lead to yet, the mainstream media is not warning you about what the new propaganda around climate change actually means and how the digital ID could be weaponized against every single Australian citizen. Well, Senator Malcolm has been speaking about this regularly and he joins us now for an update. Here’s Senator Malcolm. Thank you Senator Malcolm Roberts for joining us today to discuss a range of very, very important topics.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Well, you’re welcome. And thank you for the invitation, Maria. And I’ve got to say how much I appreciate what you do because it’s people who are independent broadcasters like you that really are going to bring Australia back.

Maria Zee:

Well, just earlier in the show, we spoke about all of the information the mainstream media has either been withholding from Australian people or misrepresenting over the past two and a half years. So I think it’s absolutely crucial that we continue to do this. Now, the main things that we want to discuss today really are this climate change bill that’s just passed in the lower house in Australia. And obviously, we need to discuss digital ID and how this all ties in. And my questions to you, Senator Roberts are we had an ice age, not so long ago. Now it’s global warming and now we’re pivoting to manmade climate change, human beings, being at fault for climate change. Can you weigh in on this for us?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Sure. There’s climate variability. It’s naturally varies every day just like you are taller than I am. You’re a woman, I’m a man and we’ve got people all around varying in nature. We’ve got trees varying in nature. Everything varies. The weather varies, the climate varies and the climate comes and goes in cycles. And so, what’s happened is that they have fabricated this, a man called Maurice Strong, he died in 2015 just before the Paris Agreement. And he concocted it. He was a Canadian billionaire. He was a crook, a criminal who the American police wanted in investigations of some pretty serious crimes. He was also connected with the UN’s Food for Oil scam in the middle east. The man was exiled in China so that the authorities couldn’t get him. It was a complete scam that was concocted by Maurice Strong from Canada.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

He formed the United Nations Environmental Programme in 1972. Six months later, he became the Head of the UN Environmental Programme. He was sitting amongst a very senior level, one down from the secretary general, the top dog in the UN. And because he was surrounded by basically failed politicians, failed bureaucrats and academics and other glory seekers in the UN who just have no accountability, when it came to matters of environment, they all turned to Maurice Strong. So he wrapped everything as an environmental issue and he got control of so many things. He fabricated the global warming scam, he created the intergovernmental panel on climate change. He created the UN framework convention on climate change, which oversaw the circle scientific body, the IPCC. He’s done the lot. And he created the IPCC with his influence.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

The man was very bright, very, very bright, but he is also twisted. And he was a very, very good networker Maria. Butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth. He was just a phenomenal mover of people. He created the whole ground swell at meetings like the Rio De Janeiro, what do they call that? The Rio De Janeiro conference in 1992, where we signed Agenda 21. He created the fanfare around UN Toyota Protocol in 1997, which then John Howard implemented. Now, he’s concocted the lot. But the other thing is that, we’ve asked the CSIRO for their evidence of climate change and they have come back and admitted that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented. The temperatures were warmer in the 1880s and 1890s in Australia then today. The temperatures, according to NASA’s global satellites are pretty much flat. If you take away El Nino and La Nina variation, it’s pretty much flat since 1995.

Maria Zee:

So what we’re essentially dealing with is change of weather. CSIRO cannot produce the evidence of climate change and yet Australia has just passed the climate change bill of 2022 in the lower house. Now I’ve read that bill and it continues to make reference to the Paris Agreement of 2015, which I’ve also read. Now, there’s a lot about how climate change affects women and girls with their domestic activities apparently, but it doesn’t actually specify any solutions as to how to deal with this so-called climate change, which you are saying isn’t even a real thing.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Correct.

Maria Zee:

So what is the government actually proposing? Because the climate change build doesn’t have any solutions. How are we going to, other than maintaining the world temperature at pre-industrial levels and reducing carbon emissions, which now we’re being told CO2 is harmful human beings breathe out CO2. What solutions is the government actually saying that we need here because they have not specified anything, either in this bill or the Paris Agreement of 2015?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Well, if you remember just a few things. First of all, government in our country and in many Western countries has now become a huge means of transferring wealth from the poor and the middle class to the wealthy elites. That’s what it is all about. The second thing it’s all about is control, controlling what we do. And you want to talk about the digital identity bill later, that’s what is the mechanism enabling them to control us. So they want control and they want to extract money. That’s what they’re all about. Just remember those two things. So the Paris Agreement has, by the way, the Paris Agreement is not an agreement. What they did was, because they couldn’t get agreement at the previous Conference of Parties in Copenhagen, and it was an embarrassment for the UN and all the global leaders. What they decided at Paris was that the global leaders would come in at the start, not the end.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And they would leave, create the fanfare, getting the media. Then the bureaucrats would hammer out an agreement. Now the agreement was, China basically said stuff you, India said, we’re not doing it. And so China’s commitment to the Paris Agreement is, we won’t do anything until 2030 and then we’ll think about it. And India pretty much the same. So what we said was, we’ll destroy our economy and hand it all over to China. And that’s our part of the UN agreement. I mean, we didn’t literally say hand it over to China, but what we’re doing to electricity prices, we are handing it over to China.

Maria Zee:

Well, what I’ve read in that agreement is a lot of, we’ll work it out as we go it seems as per whatever, the committee or the members, there’s a lot of confusing language in that document, Senator Roberts.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

It is confusing. And the other thing that the Paris Agreement calls into play is net zero by 2050. Now, the only way you can do that is using unreliable solar and wind, which jacks up the price of our electricity, which sends our jobs overseas because electricity is now the biggest component of manufacturing, not labour.

Maria Zee:

So well, here’s the thing about solar and wind as well. Sorry to cut you off there. But the whole thing about solar and wind is, if the climate is so unpredictable, wouldn’t that mean that solar and wind would be an unreliable source of energy?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Maria, we have spent up until roughly 1870, 1880, we have spent hundreds of thousands of years scratching around in the dirt at the whim of mother nature’s floods and droughts and temperatures and storms. We get hydrocarbon fuels, coal, natural gas, and oil. We suddenly are independent of nature, well, not completely, of course, but we’re basically our food… We don’t have famines anymore. This is remarkable. We don’t have famines because we’ve got the technology now to overcome them. Dams, irrigation, fertilisers control, not control of but control of weather forecast, not control of the weather, but we can forecast when things happening. We build buildings in ways that protect us against nature’s extremes. So the deaths due to natural disasters are plummeted all around the world because of our savvy. The food production is skyrocketed because of our savvy.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Now these bastards want to destroy that and take away a hydrocarbon fuels and give us unreliable solar and wind. It’s also unstable, it’s not secure, it’s very expensive. The price relationship between the amount of renewables and the amount of solar and wind and the cost of electricity is like that. It just increases. So if you’ve got all cost of electricity up here, the amount of renewables here, the further out you go, the higher the price of electricity. We are doing ourselves out of our industry. We’re killing jobs in this country, killing our security and as you pointed out, we’re handing ourself back to mother nature, just absurd, especially at a time when they say, oh, the climate’s becoming more variable. Why would you go to wind and solar?

Maria Zee:

Precisely. So this then leads into the second part of our conversation, which is digital ID and the whole global surveillance being pushed by the World Economic Forum. I’ve just before played a clip of you speaking in parliament recently about this, the great reset and what Australia needs to do, which is the great resist. And I love that slogan, I think it’s fantastic. This entire climate change narrative is going to be used to control people even further. Can you talk to us about how Australia’s trusted digital identity bill leads into all of that?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Sure. It’ll take some time. And I’ve got some notes from a briefing paper, my staff produced. And by the way, we were the first in Australia to reveal this. And we’ve given copies of it to a couple of in liberal senators, who are sympathetic and they’re awake. Very few senators are awake.

Maria Zee:

Oh, sorry. I just lost you. You’re back now. Nope, I’ve lost you again. There we go. There we go. You’re back. A very few liberal senators are awake.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yes, we’ve given this to two liberal senators at my briefing paper that our staff developed and they’re across it. Now, what we want to do is wake people up because my office is the one that’s that’s scratched the, or what do you call it? Discarded the cash ban bill. We did that with the help of people on the ground with the help of the cross band standards. We woke people up and trashed it and got rid of the cash band bill. Now what the digital identity bill is about, is about bringing back again, a ban on cash and about controls on people. So it’s a huge potential for corporations to get control of our data. What it means is that, the government can sell your data to a company, that company can be foreign, and they can store your data overseas, which no longer protects your security of your data, your privacy.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Then they can sell that data to whoever they want to sell it to. So, in other words, if you want access to your medical records, you’ll have to pay a foreign corporation to get access to your medical records. That’s how bad it could be. But that’s the thin end of the wedge. They also want to have digital currency. And we know that the Reserve Bank of Australia has been working on this for many years. So they get a digital currency in place, and that’s ultimately where they want to go. And then, if you do something that the government doesn’t like, you make the wrong comments on social media, you buy a four wheel drive instead of a little tiny eco box, then they say, if you want a house loan, stop making your comments on social media. You want a house loan? Swap your four wheel drive for a little eco box.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

See what they do? They control you. And that’s what happens. And if you don’t, then what we’ll do is just scratch your digital identity, which means that you can’t access your bank accounts, which means you can’t access food. You can’t buy anything. This is how they control. And the real thing they’re after is control of you. So if they see you’ve gone to a protest, your digital identity is cancelled. You can’t get food, you can’t go to the bank.

Maria Zee:

Well, there are a lot of people that might be watching this broadcast and I hope they are that wouldn’t normally attend a protest, but I want people to know that this is not just affecting those who you’ve seen over the past couple of years, who are standing against the immense control that the government gained through the COVID 19 measures. We’re talking about this affecting every single person and their family. Do go on.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah, right. So it affects your medical history, the shopping and spending preferences, they’ll know all this. Who you associate with, judging whether your choices are in compliance with the government’s wishes, whether they’re so-called green, social security, veteran services, travel and movement records, whether you will be allowed to travel, whether you have access to travel, surveillance, website viewing, they’ll track what websites you’re going to, employment status, wealth measurement, that’s bank records, social media comments, everything you do will be recorded and converted into digital form, and then used against you to control you. And that’s what they really want. They want control. All of this is about control. And it started with the COVID measures, Maria. We saw those. They were despicable. Anti-human, immoral, unlawful, but they started with them and they practised a lot of their tricks for controlling people on COVID.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And they got in place some of their measures. You saw the QR codes and scanning in at various places and checking in, that’s what they’re doing with this. And by the way, the World Economic Forum is the source of our digital identity bill. Parts of our digital identity bill were copied and pasted from World Economic Forums, digital platform policy I think it’s called, digital project. And I just asked for an update from one of my staff.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And he said that, the same bill or virtually identical bill has been rolled out in other countries around the world, New Zealand, Canada, Britain, Singapore, Thailand. That’s where bills are before the parliament right now. The EU European union has a bill for the whole of the European Union. Malaysia has it in place past already. It’s already at 64% uptake then. So it’ll be needed once they get a hundred percent uptake or very close to a 100% uptake, then they will just make it compulsory for anything to do with the government or banking. In the Philippines, it’s similar. And in Indonesia, it’s across government only not banking yet. So they’re moving this out throughout Asia and throughout the European Union and through Canada in North America.

Maria Zee:

Klaus Schwab recently, and proudly stated that they have infiltrated over 50% of governments worldwide.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yep. I thought it was just Sarah Hanson-Young from the greens who was a graduate from the World Economic Forums, Young Leaders Programme. But we also learned that liberal Senator Andrew Bragg is a graduate. We found that Clare O’Neil is a graduate from the labour party. We found, I can’t remember the other name, Scott Morrison’s a graduate. I think there are three or four others senators and MPS who are graduates of that same programme from the World Economic Forum. And what they’re doing is, they’re putting people in places of power in governments to control those governments. So they don’t need to get votes, they just need these people to be in charge. Canada has I think seven, no sorry, Republican Party in America has seven graduates in its ranks and the Democrats have dozens of members in their ranks, Canada similarly. And I think in Canada, they’ve actually got control of the government. So basically, the World Economic Forum is taken over. And then this is not new stuff. This is stuff that the World Economic Forum itself has said, as you pointed out Klaus Schwab has said.

Maria Zee:

So their entire plan is, obviously they’re talking openly now about the great reset, the new world order. They’ve made the statements. We had public health officials last year talking about this is the new world order. This is now essentially no longer even hidden in plain site. They’re openly speaking about it. So what does Australia do to resist this? You called this the great resist. What should Australians be doing right now and what should people be making others aware of?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Listening to you in this interview and spread it around. That’s the first thing we need to do. And then calling your member of parliament and saying to him or her, you want a meeting and you don’t want this because you control your member of parliament. They don’t control you, you control them. We need to get the power back in the right area there. And then, if you can’t get a meeting with them, then talk to them on the phone. If you can’t do that, then send them a written letter saying you’re against it. Most of the members of parliament have no idea what you and I are talking about right now. I’m mean that sincerely.

Maria Zee:

These are some of the most important issues facing the entire world right now, and the fact that they are ignorant to this is beyond me.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yep. Well, there’s so many things. They’re ignorant to the climate change scam. They’re ignorant to the cash band bill. They thought it was something else. This is liberals and nationals thought it was something else. And when you tell them straight, they then follow the party power brokers anyway. But see, we beat the cash ban. Labour and liberal, both put it through the lower house, but we got such good publicity on it, and so much pressure on it politically that labour sent it to a committee and then it languish in the committee for months, and then I moved a motion to get rid of it off the Senate books.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And we passed it to get rid of it off the Senate books. So the cash plan bill is gone. But what we know is, cash is really important. So that’s another thing people can do. If you have no cash, you’ve got no alternative. If you’ve got cash, you’ve got an alternative as to how you buy something. So use cash wherever you can. That’s what I do sometimes. I used to just use a card, no more. I carry cash with me to use cash. So buy with cash wherever you can.

Maria Zee:

Senator Malcolm Roberts, we thank you so much for bringing awareness to Australians about these crucial issues that face all of humanity all around the world. But most importantly, Australia has been through so much over the past two and a half years, we have literally destroyed our economy. And as much as they want to tell us that we haven’t, and I know that we have. How many small to medium size businesses weren’t able to continue, weren’t able to recover from all of this, not to mention the mental health impacts and the long term impacts and we’re already talking about this climate change, which we don’t even have the system set up, the infrastructure set up for what they are wanting to achieve. And yet-

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

They’re already transferring billions of dollars through your electricity rates into the hands of billionaires who are making money out of solar and wind. Most of the companies installing solar and wind turbines are foreign owned multinational, including some from the Chinese communist party. So this is about a transfer of wealth and about control, and you’ll only be allowed to use power when the government says you can. So at the moment you go home at night, you’d flick on a switch and take it for granted. You won’t take that for granted in the future because they’ve got it all wrapped up. You’d have to beg and scrape to get your food, to beg and scrape to get your air conditioner. They want us down on the knees, they want to bring you to your knees.

Maria Zee:

Just like we’ve seen in China recently. Some footage emerged out of China of people literally being forced onto their knees to be tracked and traced for COVID by people inspecting them. Again, Senator Malcolm Roberts, thank you for sharing this important information and coming on to speak with us today.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Well, thank you for what you’re doing. Keep doing it for goodness sake. We’ve got to have some honest media and you’re one of them. So thank you very much, Maria.

Maria Zee:

Thank you to Senator Roberts. We’ll be back right after this short break. As some of you may know, I’m a regular contributor to Red Voice Media, where you will find fellow truthers and those committed to reporting the real news like Stew Peters and Dr. Jane Ruby, and many more. You can trial their premium subscription service for just $1 for the first month and only $10 every month thereafter. You’ll love it. Link is in the description below.

Maria Zee: So you can see from this discussion with Senator Malcolm Roberts, just how far they want to take government control. And speaking of government control, maybe people have forgotten or didn’t have access to the footage during the protest when people were protesting their God given rights, their right to bodily autonomy, they’re right to their civil liberties, which this digital ID seeks to strip from you. And maybe we’ve forgotten of just what they’re capable of.

This week I talk to Ian Plimer for a full two hours and dive even deeper into the global warming fraud.

Transcript part 1 (click here to go to part 2)

Speaker 1:

This is the Malcolm Roberts Show.

Speaker 2:

On Today’s News Talk radio, TNT.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, good afternoon or good morning or good evening or good night, wherever you are around this marvellous world of ours, this is Senator Malcolm Roberts on Today’s News Talk radio, tntradio.live. Thank you for having me as your guest. Whether it’s in your car, your kitchen, your shed, or your lounge room, wherever you are right now, whichever continent, whichever country, whichever region, whichever state, thank you so much for having me as your guest. We are going to continue in a minute with continuation of last week’s show.

Malcolm Roberts:

We had two hours with the fabulous professor, Ian Plimer. He is back, as I promised, and we’re going to try and finish it. There’s so much material to cover. We may not get through it all, but we’re going to have some fun doing it. I’m just going to remind everyone that there are two themes to my show. Firstly, freedom, specifically freedom versus control, the age old human battle. And secondly, personal responsibility and integrity.

Malcolm Roberts:

And this man, Ian Plimer, Professor Ian Rutherford Plimer shows both, and he’s been a passionate defender and protector of freedom and shows personal responsibility and integrity. He’s a marvellous guest. Both freedom and personal responsibility are fundamental for human progress and people’s livelihoods. Before welcoming Ian back, let’s just recap some of the things that happened this week. First of all, the Great Barrier Reef. I’m going to ask again about this.

Malcolm Roberts:

We see now that the Australian Institute of Marine Science is telling us that, sorry, the Central Barrier Reef and the Northern Barrier Reef have got record levels of coral cover, record levels of coral cover. And he won’t be surprised, I am not surprised. And the Southern Barrier Reef, the Southern Region, there are three regions, the third doesn’t have record, but it has very high coral cover. The only reason it’s not record is because there’s a cyclical crown of thorns, starfish infestation. These come and go. We’ve known that for a long time.

Malcolm Roberts:

The other thing I would mention is that despite all the raving on about bleaching for the last few years rather, bleaching is entirely natural event response to, sorry, low cold temperatures and high warm temperatures, entirely natural. And people who understand barrier reefs understand that perfectly. And I remind people that Queensland had record cold temperatures, not in 1888, not in 1988, in 2008. And in that record, cold temperatures in 2008, the Southern Barrier Reef bleached in places. It’s a natural response.

Malcolm Roberts:

And then we have the lunatics in Canberra, and I’m part of that bloody zoo. We’re doing our best to try and turn the zoo around, but they passed in the lower house. It’s got to come to the Senate now, the labor’s climate change bill. Or should I say, the labour Greens coalition’s climate change bill, along with the tills. What a disgrace that is. Currently, unreliables, that’s wind and solar, are at 9% and 9% each. Both wind is 9% and solar at 9%. That’s 2020 and 2021.

Malcolm Roberts:

Labour wants to shoot that target up to 43% and unreliable’s solar and wind will make up 43%, more than doubling our solar and wind. Electricity prices have already trebled in the last three decades. We’ve gone from having the lowest electricity prices in the world to among the highest. Why? Because of wind and solar. The noted economist, Dr. Alan Moran, tells us in a especially commissioned report and he gets these figures, by the way, from government reports, government budget statements, state and federal. They can’t be argued.

Malcolm Roberts:

You cannot put a sensible argument to refute his figures. The levelized prices per megawatt hour of electricity hydrate is the cheapest. But the capacity in this country is very limited because we’re wasting the water up north. Let’s get onto the viable alternatives. Coal, $50 per megawatt hour. Gas, currently because of high gas prices, it’s around $80 to $100 per megawatt hour. It has been usually around $60 per megawatt hour. Nuclear, $70 to $80 per megawatt hour.

Malcolm Roberts:

And by the way, the coal prices are legit because there was recently another coal fired power station built in Vietnam to burn our coal. Wind, $100 per megawatt hour. Solar, $120 per megawatt hour firm. And of course, they need the batteries for wind and solar, and the batteries are impossible. Coal is half the price of wind and about 45% of the price of solar. That’s why our electricity prices skyrocketed. Now, what Ian Plimer and I are going to be discussing is my letter to the four amigos. That’s what I call them.

Malcolm Roberts:

The former prime minister, when he was prime minister, my letter was sent to Scott Morrison on the 27th of October 2021. It was sent at the same time and address to Barnaby Joyce, the deputy prime minister, head of the national party at the time. And also too, at the same time, the one letter went to these four people, went to Anthony Albanese, the then leader of the opposition and now the prime minister. And the fourth of the four amigos was Adam Bandt, the leader of the Greens. The letter can be found at the website, my website, malcolmrobertsqld.com.au, M-A-L-C-O-L-M-R-O-B-E-R-T-S-Q-L-D.com.au. And we’ll be discussing that letter. Ian has a copy of it. It’s not kept secret, but we’ll be going through that. Welcome, Ian.

Ian Plimer:

Good day to you. How are you?

Malcolm Roberts:

I’m very well, thanks, mate. How are you?

Ian Plimer:

Oh, struggling through life with the greatest of ease.

Malcolm Roberts:

Can you struggle with ease? Well, tell me something you-

Ian Plimer:

Oh, that was a pretty good [inaudible 00:06:18] about the week.

Malcolm Roberts:

The zoo, the zoo, the excellent zoo. All this is fabricated.

Ian Plimer:

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So-

Malcolm Roberts:

All this climate hysteria.

Ian Plimer:

What a week it’s been. We have known from tourist operators for a long, long time, but the Great Barrier Reef was not in trouble. And they were using one of the fundamental criteria of science, and that is to observe. And they observe time and time and time again, that the Great Barrier Reef wasn’t in trouble. And finally, we get the Australian Institute of Marine Science tells us, it’s not in trouble. It’s, in fact, at best that’s been for a long, long. Now, how dare they? Now, if you’re employed in the climate industry, how dare someone say the planet’s okay?

Ian Plimer:

Because what that really means is you put people out of work. These people who are bludging grants from the government, these people who are imminently unemployable, working in these organisations that are trying to scare us and then in return, we give them money. They are now showing that it’s a total waste of oxygen and a total waste of money to keep these people alive. The Australian Institute of Marine Science has told us what we already knew, that coral reefs come, coral reefs go. There are many, many reasons.

Ian Plimer:

But the two major reasons I had been promoting, and that is runoff from agriculture and climate change just don’t affect coral ridge. And every time it warms up a little bit, a coral reef, you can hear it. You can hear it cheer because coral loves warmer water. The corals saying the Red Sea or Papua New Guinea growing much, much warmer water than the Great Barrier Reef. Coral likes it warm. Right from day one, you could not argue that warmer waters will kill off a coral reef. Now, blind Freddy knows that.

Ian Plimer:

But we have to wait till some official organisation can put their stamp of approval on it. For years, we’ve had to put up with the hypocrisy and moaning of these people. Thank God we’ve actually had a report that demonstrates that they’re tightly is this. They should go home.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, mate, can you … I normally start the show with something my guest appreciates. For something you appreciate, what is it? Anything at all? Maybe you appreciate the barrier reef, the truth being told.

Ian Plimer:

I appreciate living in a country with fresh air, with no pollution, with fresh water, something that so many countries where I work, such as in South America, Africa, Middle East, that they have got. We can actually breathe the air. Now we had the Minister for the Environment, Tanya Plibersek, a week or two ago in a national press club announcement, tell us how dreadful the pollution was in Australia. And then she finished with a tee-wee little emotional statement about how she loves to fly into Australia and see all the forests surrounding the city of Sydney, that crystal clear sparkling water and how she can see for miles.

Ian Plimer:

What she’s saying is that it’s absolutely beautiful, there is no pollution. If you want pollution, go to China, go to parts of India, go to parts of Africa. But you don’t see it in Western countries. Why? Because we have generated enough wealth to be able to clean up our act. If you want to stop pollution, get wealthy.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well said, I’ve got to just adjust my microphone here because I’m coming across too loudly. We’ll see if that makes any difference. But thank you very much, Ian.

Ian Plimer:

All of the political issues, you have to come across loudly.

Malcolm Roberts:

We’ve been trying it. Now speaking of politics, the key issue in this whole climate scam is shoddy governance. And the key issue there is the lack of integrity. And that’s what we’re focus on. Now listeners who listened to Ian and myself last two weeks ago know that we devoted the two hours to exposing the fact that there has been no one anywhere that has in politics that has provided the logical scientific points. By logical scientific points, what I mean is empirical scientific evidence, hard data, hard observations within a causal structure, a framework that proves cause and effect. No one anywhere. Not only that-

Ian Plimer:

Oh, Malcolm, that’s so many words. That’s so many words. It’s really simple. No one has ever shown too many emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. Those emissions are 3% of total emission. If you did show that human emissions drive global warming, then you’d have to show that 97% of natural emissions don’t drive global warming. It’s checkmate.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah, exactly. Now what we then started on was the cross examination that I have done of the CSIRO, the Australian Federal Government’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. They’ve been given the responsibility for the last 48 years, almost half a century, to come up with the evidence. Now, these people in the CSIRO … By the way, CSIRO has a fabulous reputation over many, many years for some marvellous inventions, made life easier for people around the world. However, in the climate area, they are absolutely disgraceful.

Malcolm Roberts:

I refuse to call them scientists because they’re basically academics who are activists. Anyway, I’m the only person anywhere in the world, I’m not saying this to brag. I’m saying it to highlight a point in a minute, I am the only politician anywhere in the world, an elected representative in congresses, in parliaments to have held a government science agency accountable. And we’re going to go through that right now. Two weeks ago that we pointed out that the first thing I did when I entered the Senate, as an elected representative of the people on 2016, was to send a letter.

Malcolm Roberts:

As soon as I got sworn in, I sent a letter to the head of the CSIRO, Dr. Larry Marshall, the chief executive, requesting a presentation. Now they ducked and dodged and bobbed and weaved and tried desperately to get out of it. But we eventually pinned them down with the help of two government ministers and senators. What we found, the first question I asked was, I want a presentation on the empirical scientific evidence, the hard data that shows that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger to humans.

Malcolm Roberts:

During the two-and-a-half presentation, when we eventually nailed them down … And by the way, they could bring any evidence they wanted, anything. They gave us one paper on carbon dioxide and one paper on temperatures. After more than 40 years of research, one paper on temperatures, which was published in 2013, and we dismissed that paper, completely tore it apart. Not only that we quoted the lead author of that paper himself saying, you can’t rely on the temperature construction that they made for the 20th century.

Malcolm Roberts:

I mean, the own author was dismissed within two weeks of that paper’s released in 2013. But in the course of that cross examination, CSIRO admitted that they have never said that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger, never. We asked them, “Who has? Why do the politicians are saying that they rely on CSIRO?” And they said, “We better go and ask politicians.” Then I mentioned that we asked the chief scientists, the federal government’s chief scientist. And I think we got onto this, Ian, from memory, who at the time was-

Ian Plimer:

Yes, we did.

Malcolm Roberts:

… Dr. Alan Finkel. And we asked for a presentation from him. We opened the presentation in a little room in the science minister’s, Arthur Sinodinos’ office. And Dr. Alan Finkel started rabbiting on for about 20 minutes. And after 20 minutes, we’d had enough. And we just asked one simple question, I can’t remember what that question was. And he looked at us, he was stunned. He was suddenly realising that he couldn’t feed us crap. And he suddenly realised that we knew what the hell we were talking about.

Malcolm Roberts:

And he looked at me, and I will always remember these words, Ian. He said to me, “I am not a climate scientist and I don’t understand climate science.” And yet that man, funded with taxpayer money, was spreading the word around the countryside, advocating cuts in carbon dioxide from human activity. Ian, what do you say to that?

Ian Plimer:

Well, Malcolm, there’s couple of things here. There’s a couple of things here. You don’t have to be a climate scientist, whatever that is, to be able to see that this is total [inaudible 00:15:07].

Malcolm Roberts:

Thank you.

Ian Plimer:

All you have to do is to adhere to the scientific method. And science is married to evidence. That evidence must be reproducible, it must be validated. It must be in an accord with everything else that’s been demonstrated. Now, in science, we have a body of evidence from which we construct a theory, and that’s just a way to try to understand things. And if the theory doesn’t work, you throw out the theory. What the climate activists are wanting us to do is to say, this is a theory. We, humans, drive global warming and we’ll juggle the evidence to fit it.

Ian Plimer:

Any evidence that doesn’t agree with the theory, such as my science, geology, then you just throw that out. It’s the exact inverse of how science works. And they are corrupting the scientific process. These people are not climate scientists. They are activists who are chasing your money, chasing power, chasing fortune. Yet they don’t chase an electorate as you have to do. It is not science. And it’s something that I get thrown at me quite often, because I’m an earth scientist. I’m not a climate scientist.

Ian Plimer:

These people do not realise that we have 200 years of geology textbooks where half the space of the book is arguing about climate. We, geologists, were onto climate change 200 years ago. This was from people working in the Paris basin, seeing that there was tropical flora and fauna in the Paris basin where it isn’t tropical. People in England realised from fossils that we had to have had much warmer climate. And Charles Lyell in 1833, pursue this even further. He very nearly got onto the idea of continental drift.

Ian Plimer:

We, geologists, have been struggling for centuries about how you can have tropical flora and fauna in fossils in high latitude European countries, that with climate change. The textbooks are full of it. And all of a sudden, when there’s money to be made and when people want to frighten us with this, we get a group of atmospheric mathematicians and physicists who argue that it is only a traces of a trace gas in an atmosphere that drive a whole planetary process.

Ian Plimer:

They don’t seem to realise that in the past, we’ve had huge processes where the atmosphere, the oceans, the rock and life have worked hand in hand. And that’s happened a number of times in the past. To be what is called a climate scientist, you have to basically ignore all the evidence from other sciences, ignore the scientific method, and promote your alleged science on the basis of feelings and beliefs rather than evidence.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well said. And we’re going to go to an ad break now. But when we come back, I’m going to tell you what the chief scientist did on the second presentation that we arranged. We’ll be right back for more from Professor Ian Rutherford Plimer.

Malcolm Roberts:

And this is Senator Malcolm Roberts, broadcasting from Australia with Professor Ian Plimer. And Ian, we arranged at that first presentation from the chief scientist. We said to them, this is not good enough, we want a proper presentation, and we want that to be at least four hours in length and a proper discussion. And he responded to me and he and the science minister, both agreed, we set a date for a couple of months’ time. And then as we wound up, he said to me, “Can I bring a scientist?” And I said, “You can bring anyone you like.”

Malcolm Roberts:

Ian, the second presentation, just before it was due to be held, was cancelled because Dr. Alan Finkel was overseas. Now he since come back. But anyway, that’s neither here nor there. We suddenly had the CSIRO arranged to give a second presentation to us. And at this presentation, we said, “You failed the first one, so let’s have a simpler task for you. We want evidence, empirical scientific evidence of anything unprecedented in climate in the past 10,000 years and due to human carbon dioxide.”

Malcolm Roberts:

And in the course of that, they presented another paper, which we ripped apart as well and had no evidence. But in the course of that presentation, Ian, over two-and-a-half hours again, from the CSiRO’s climate science team, they looked at me and admitted, “Today’s temperatures are not unprecedented, not unprecedented.” Yet the whole climate scam started on claims of unprecedented, unusual, catastrophic, disastrous global warming. Are we warm at all, Ian?

Ian Plimer:

Well, we hear that porn word, unprecedented. There are a couple of things unprecedented in the history of our planet. The first time it rained, the first time we had life on earth, the first time we had a climate change. They were unprecedented. They didn’t happen before. They only happened once. And after that, everything is a reflection of climate cycles, which seem to get ignored. We have cycles of climate related to the pulling apart of the continent and the stitching back together every 400 million years.

Ian Plimer:

Cycles of climate related to having a bad galactic address every 143 million years, cycles of climate based on orbital cycles of the earth, which get us closer or further from the sun, cycles of climate derived with changes in the sun. And these changes are based on sun spots, but they’re also based on long cycles, 1500 years and 10,000 years. These cycles are well documented and they then affect ocean cycles, which turn out to be about every 60 years. And we also have lunar tidal cycles, pushing warmer water into the Arctic.

Ian Plimer:

And every time that happens, the Northwest Passage is open. Every time we don’t have that warmer water pushed into the Arctic, it’s closed. We’ve known this for a long time. The Chinese have known it for thousands of years because they once had a calendar based on the 60-year ocean cycles, which was related to the productivity of their crops. We never hear that we have cycles of climate and we never hear that in the past, we had very carbon dioxide rich atmospheres. This atmosphere had cyclical changes.

Ian Plimer:

And in today’s atmosphere, we have traces of carbon dioxide and humans are adding traces and traces to that atmosphere. And all of a sudden, we have to forget all the previous cycles and being that traces of a trace gas are driving all of climate change. To forget all of past science and to try to blame humans on driving a massive planetary system is just bonkers. Yet this is what we get told. Now, the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology, they do not talk about cycles. They talk about carbon dioxide as if this trace gas drives the whole climate. They are demonstrably wrong.

Ian Plimer:

And I don’t have opinions in my science, I have facts. I don’t let emotions get in the way of my science. Well, yes, I do. I tell a lie, I get excited. And what excites me in my science is not what I know, but what I don’t know. What excites me is when I see something and I find out something and I think, well, that’s interesting. I’m curious about that. And it’s curiosity that drives science. It’s evidence that drives science. It’s not politics. You’ve only got to look at what Lysenko did to agricultural science in the Soviet Union, ending up in 30 million people dying because the science was wrong.

Ian Plimer:

Now we are in a similar situation where the science on climate change is demonstrably wrong. It is sending countries bankrupt. It is killing people. It’s not warm weather that kills people, it’s Jack Frost that kills people. The science is to demonstrably wrong. Governments are able to skin people alive in Western countries because they’re wealthy. And when these Western countries have ultimately fritted away, large amounts of money and have ended up economically like Argentina. Some clown is going to ask the question, how did this happen?

Ian Plimer:

We’re once wealthy, we once had reliable electricity and cheap electricity. What has happened? I mean, that’s when questions like the ones you are asking in the Senate and programmes like this become important. No one has ever pursued scientific organisations in parliament on those fundamental question. You’re the only person that’s done it, and more power to you. Keep doing it.

Malcolm Roberts:

We will. We will, Ian. We’re going to bust this rubbish. Now you raised-

Ian Plimer:

Well, I’m happy to talk with you in the trenches.

Malcolm Roberts:

I’m going to ask you something about that. Maybe on air, but maybe after, it depends. We’ve got a lot of ground to cover. Can you explain-

Ian Plimer:

Well, it’s better if everyone can hold be accountable. I don’t mind being accountable.

Malcolm Roberts:

No, no. I mean, I’m lining up to a range of presentation, an offer of a presentation from the best scientists in the world to some of the tills and some of the other climate alarmists. And I was wondering if you’d be available for that.

Ian Plimer:

I’m certainly available for it, but it’ll takes [inaudible 00:27:52] to quiet me down. But I’m more than willing to use evidence to charge and persuade people that opinion and feelings don’t count. It is evidence and it has to be reproduced. It has to be valid.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yes. And the whole thrust of the programme two weeks ago for the two hours and these two hours is to do one thing, to put the onus onto the politicians who want to cut a human activity producing carbon dioxide and taxes all into oblivion, put the owners on them because they have never held onus.

Ian Plimer:

Yeah. If you come up with an extraordinary idea, you need extraordinary evidence to support it. That hasn’t been done.

Malcolm Roberts:

Correct. Tell everyone what a trace gas is because it’s a scientific term, trace gas.

Ian Plimer:

We once had an atmosphere with a very large amount of carbon dioxide. Our first atmosphere on planet earth had ammonia, methane, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and helium. That didn’t last long. And we got into our second atmosphere, which had nitrogen and a huge amount of carbon dioxide, maybe 20% carbon dioxide. Our third atmosphere-

Malcolm Roberts:

Roughly, when did that change occur? I mean-

Ian Plimer:

On a Tuesday and-

Malcolm Roberts:

Resident mother earth.

Ian Plimer:

Now, that was in the geological period called the Proterozoic from about 2.5 billion years ago to about 500 million years ago.

Malcolm Roberts:

Right, thank you.

Ian Plimer:

We had huge amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And we’ve sequestered that into the limey rocks. And the third atmosphere, which we currently enjoy, is nitrogen and oxygen dominant atmosphere. That oxygen comes from life. That oxygen comes from life consuming carbon dioxide, using the carbon and excreting the oxygen. And so, we have gone from an atmosphere that had 20% carbon dioxide in it to 1.04%. And we are worried about a slight increase in carbon dioxide. Now, during that time, we have had six great ice ages.

Ian Plimer:

Each one of those ice ages started when there was more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now. You can’t try to tell me that the traces of small amounts of carbon dioxide being added to the atmosphere, which has only got 0.04% carbon dioxide in it, can drive global warming. Because it didn’t happen in the past. The physics and chemistry of the way the planet works hasn’t changed because you are alive. It is a trace gas in the atmosphere. It is plant food. It has very slightly increased over the last 50 years. Now we actually don’t quite know why. Because we know from ice cold drilling that once you get a temperature increase, then anything from 600 to 6,000 years later, you get a carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere. We’ve had-

Malcolm Roberts:

So hang on there. That means the temperature drives the carbon dioxide, not the carbon dioxide driving the temperature.

Ian Plimer:

Yes. And we’ve only known that for 200 years in chemistry. But if you don’t know any chemistry, then, of course, that doesn’t fit your policy.

Malcolm Roberts:

Henry’s Law, right?

Ian Plimer:

Henry’s Law. And so, what we can see in the past is that once we have cold periods of time, then we get natural warming, later carbon dioxide increase. Now our last cold period finished in the minimum, just over 300 years ago. We’ve been increasing in temperature for that last 300 years. So that increase in carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere might not be due to humans emitting carbon dioxide from industry. It might be due to natural exhalation of carbon dioxide with the warming of the oceans.

Ian Plimer:

The jury is out because the methods which are used to try to tell us the proportion of human carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are dodgy at best. And I go in my latest book, Green Murder, I go into some of those calculation. And I’m arguing that it could have even be only 1% of atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions every year from humans, not the 3% which we commonly get told. There’s a whole lot of uncertainty in this science. But when we have an atmosphere that was once 20% carbon dioxide and life thrived, we had glaciations, we had climate change.

Ian Plimer:

And now we’ve got an atmosphere of 0.04% carbon dioxide. We’re having connections about a couple of parts per million increase of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere. Now we can see the effects of that because we’ve been measuring our planet from satellites since 1979. And we’ve seen that in the last 40 years or so, we’ve had a slight greening of the planet. That’s due to a very slight increase in carbon dioxide and maybe 10 or 20 parts per million carbon dioxide increase. That slight greening has done the planet good.

Ian Plimer:

The second thing is we’ve seen an increase in crop yield, partly due to increase carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, partly due to genetically modified crops, and partly due to better fertilisers. If we go the other path, you just go down the path of Sri Lanka. Carbon dioxide is good for you. It is plant food. If we didn’t have plants, we’d be dead. If we have the atmospheric carbon dioxide content kiss some part of your body and say goodbye, you’re going to be dead.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well said. We could talk for hours, and maybe we’d come back to carbon dioxide at the end of the show. But the trace gas carbon dioxide, as you pointed out, is 0.04% of Earth’s atmosphere right now. And the proportion could … Well, that’s basically 4/100ths of 1%. It’s trivial. It’s minuscule. And that’s why it’s called a trace gas. And it’s not Professor Plimer or myself is calling it a trace gas. It’s a scientific category. It’s a trace gas. You also mentioned … Well, let’s go to sticking with the second CSIRO presentation.

Malcolm Roberts:

The first one, they presented after 48 years of research, they presented one paper and temperatures, which we showed was complete crap, complete crap. They presented one paper by Harris. And that first paper on temperatures was by Mark Adam. I’m putting these on the record, 2013. And the second paper was Harris et al that was on carbon dioxide, and that was shown to be completely faulty, completely faulty. The covert spoke about those two papers again.

Malcolm Roberts:

And at the second presentation, they gave us Lecavalier 2017 on temperatures and Feldman on 2015 on carbon dioxide. Again, faulty and proven to be faulty by pre-reviewed scientific papers that we presented to the CSIRO. At their third presentation, they presented five vague references. None of which specified any location where there’s proof that human carbon dioxide is affecting the climate, nothing at all, nothing scientific, nothing specified. And some of the references in the last five they gave us contradicted the earlier references.

Malcolm Roberts:

I mean, Ian, you can’t make this stuff up. They provided us with no evidence at all and then contradicted themselves and showed an abysmal understanding of science. Is that typical of the CSIRO? It doesn’t seem to be, but they’ve gone rogue.

Ian Plimer:

Well, in that particular case, they were treating you with disdain. Feed this man a bit of bullshit and he won’t understand it. He would go away. Now, that’s not the way it works. The CSIRO has been a great organisation, creating new strains of wheat that can survive our lower rainfall and high solidity soils in Australia. They’ve done some wonderful work. They’ve done some wonderful work with mineral exploration, but many of these divisions of the CSIRO now have been reduced or closed. CSIRO now has a sociologist in each division.

Ian Plimer:

And these people are there to help promote the social benefits of what the CSIRO do. And they were fobbing you off. They actually made a fundamental strategic error of warfare. They underestimated how strong and how good you work. And they said, oh, we’ll just give this clown a few papers full of gobbledygook and he’ll go away. Well, firstly, he’s like a rabid dog. He won’t go away. And the second thing is, you understand the science, you’ve got a background in engineering, you’ve practised engineering. You’ve actually seen the practical side of doing things. And that contempt that they had for you, you have exposed. And you’ve got to keep doing it.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yes, and we will. And I’ll just point out something. While I’m an engineer by training and qualification, I have other statutory qualifications that also depend upon my understanding of atmospheric gases, including carbon dioxide. I’ve had to keep people alive, underground in minds, based upon my knowledge of atmospheric gases, including carbon dioxide. I’ve had to do that. I’ve held accountable under the most rigorous scrutiny of possible. But the work that we did holding the CSIRO accountable involved a wonderful man who’s highly objective.

Malcolm Roberts:

I won’t give you his name out at the moment. He has an order of Australia medal for his services to research in this country. And he is not only a phenomenal brain and one of the highest intellects that I’ve ever experienced, he has a complete objectivity, no emotion, whatsoever, attached to his statements. He just says it like it is and he holds people accountable. He is also a genius in statistics, a genius in computing. He wrote programmes to legally go into scientific bodies around the world and scrape off 24,000 datasets.

Malcolm Roberts:

That’s what CSIRO was up against, this man with 24,000 datasets on both climate and on energy. And that’s how we smashed them. But the key thing we were doing, Ian, was putting the onus on them. They failed the first time. They failed the second time to provide any evidence that we need to cut anything at all in our output. Let’s move on to Senate estimates. Sorry, they-

Ian Plimer:

Just come back-

Malcolm Roberts:

Yes.

Ian Plimer:

Just come back to that. We are having people create policy and make statements, such that pensioners say in the UK, need to make a choice that whether they eat, have a hot shower or heat a room. These policies are-

Malcolm Roberts:

That’s happening in Australia, Ian. That’s happening in Australia.

Ian Plimer:

Yeah. These policies are killing people. Now, while you were an engineer working underground, and I go underground very regular now, we measure gases. We measure carbon monoxide. We measure carbon dioxide. We measure methane. We measure sulphur dioxide. We measure nitrogen oxides. We measure oxygen. And if you, as an engineer, underground and someone dies with a methane gas dust explosion or someone asphyxiates from carbon monoxide, it’s not only that you are responsible in the state where you worked as a mining engineer, you are criminally responsible.

Ian Plimer:

You go to a trial where there is no jury and where there’s no mechanism of appealing. You go to jail with a very hefty fine. That is the industrial law that you worked under as a mining engineer underground. We have no such industrial laws for those people who might set up a wind turbine that send people absolutely bonkers with the ultrasound that they have to suffer. We have no industrial law to make people responsible for killing people because they haven’t got enough energy to stay warm. I think that point of the consequences of your action and responsibility is an extremely important one. And this is why I called my latest book Green Murder, because these green policies knowingly kill people and there is no responsibility for that.

Malcolm Roberts:

Hear, hear. Well, we’ll go to another ad break and we’ll be right back for more with Professor Ian Plimer. And we’ll continue putting the onus on these people who are destroying humanity.

Malcolm Roberts:

And this is Senator Malcolm Roberts, coming to you from Australia, wherever you are in the world right now, with my special guest, Professor Ian Rutherford Plimer. Ian, we then had a third presentation from the CSIRO that they requested, because they were so embarrassed with what we’d done to their so-called science, their third presentation. And that’s-

Ian Plimer:

Oh, you [inaudible 00:43:12] for punishment.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yes. And then we had Senate estimates hearings. I was knocked out due to dual citizenship and came back in 2019. And I held these people accountable in Senate estimates. And I asked them for a really … They failed to provide anything that was any evidence of danger. They admitted that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented. They failed to provide any evidence, whatsoever, that we need to cut carbon dioxide from human activity. I asked them a really simple question. “Okay, okay.

Malcolm Roberts:

All I want from you in Senate estimates is the empirical scientific evidence, the hard data showing that there has been a statistically significant change in climate, anything, temperatures, snowfall, rainfall, drought length, severity, frequency, a flood, lengths of frequency, severity, tides. Anything at all, away you go.” And they said, “We’ve already done it,” which was a fundamental lie, which is a fundamental misrepresentation by the CSIRO’s director, one of his directors, Dr. Peter Mayfield.

Malcolm Roberts:

They have never shown us even that there’s statistically significant change in climate. In other words, Ian, there is no change of process, there is no change of climate, just as you pointed out at the very start of your contribution today, natural cycles interacting.

Ian Plimer:

Well, yes, you can’t show that human emissions drive global warming. Because you have to show that the oceanic emissions don’t. It’s checkmate. It can’t be done, and it hasn’t been done. And the arguments always fall apart with what you are doing. Really simple questions. And I think for any listeners that want to battle their local green activist, don’t argue with them. Don’t present them with facts. Ask them really simple questions. Put the owners on them to say, oh, well, that’s an interest concept. Where can I find the evidence? And wave your mobile phone around.

Ian Plimer:

And you can say, look, for the 30-second search on this phone, I can show you that the hurricane intensity hasn’t been increasing. With the 30-second search from this phone, you can see that the Great Barrier Reef isn’t being destroyed. With the 30-second search on this phone, you can actually see that sea levels are not rising catastrophically, that land levels go up and down as well as sea levels go up and down. The information is out there. Your choice is to whether you want to actually look at information.

Ian Plimer:

And for me, the most exciting thing is to put together all of the information. Some of which might grade a little bit, but put it all together to try to get an understanding. And that understanding is a model. Models are not evidence. Models are a really, really naive way of trying to understand how the world works. However, it is models that are driving the scare campaign. It is models that are telling us that in 50 or 100 years’ time, we’re going to fry and die. Yet those people promoting those models are going to be dead anyway. What value is that? There is no responsibility.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, speaking of responsibility, I take responsibility for the executive summary of the report that I wrote along with my Senate office team and our colleague with the Order of Australian medal. We published this in a report entitled, Restoring Scientific Integrity. And I’m going to read out the executive summary. And then what I’d like you to do, Ian, is to give me a comment on the 10 … Overall comment, whatever you want to say. This is the executive summary. The CSIRO has never stated that carbon dioxide from human activity is dangerous.

Malcolm Roberts:

Secondly, they admitted that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented. They withdrew, effectively withdrew by not discussing anything after we discredited the papers that they had provided as evidence of unprecedented rate of temperature change, and then failed to provide supporting empirical evidence. The CSIRO has never quantified any specific impact of carbon dioxide from human activity. That’s the fundamental basis for policy. Fifth, they rely on unvalidated models, as Ian just said, that give unverified and erroneous projections as so-called evidence.

Malcolm Roberts:

They relied on discredited and poor quality papers on temperature and carbon dioxide. They admit, they admit to not doing due diligence on reports and data from external agencies that they use. They revealed little understanding of papers they cited as evidence. They showed us papers, in fact, later that contradicted their earlier papers. These people have no clue. Second last, they allow politicians and journalists to misrepresent CSIRO’s science without correcting the journalists and the politicians. And last, they misled parliament. What a dog’s breakfast, Ian?

Ian Plimer:

Well, it is. And we have some problems here that this is a bandwagon, this is a fad. This is a fashion. This has nothing to do with science and everything to do with controlling you taking money out of your wallet and being unelected and controlling the way in which this world operates. For me, the important aspects are the lack of due diligence. Now, I spend a lot of my life doing due diligence on various projects. If I get it wrong, I actually lose my job. If I get it wrong in a public organisation, a public company, I can go to jail.

Ian Plimer:

But that doesn’t happen with these scientific organisations. And our journalists, I mean, I don’t think we have many journalists left on planet Earth. We have now people who have chosen to be activists and claim that they are journalists and are in the mainstream media trying to change people’s opinions. And most of that attempt is done by omitting information rather than providing information. The good old fashioned crusty journalist who started life as a 16-year-old cadet in the newsroom has ended up writing balanced stories. Those people don’t exist.

Ian Plimer:

There are a few newspapers around the world and a few media networks where you can get this balance. This is why I think a lot of people now are not buying newspapers, they’re not looking at commercial television. They are getting their information from other source because they have realised that the art of journalism has almost died. And journalists now are trying to use a very, very limited dumbed down education to actually push their own political barrier. This is tragic. And we see them also trying to influence politicians, most of whom cannot answer simple scientific questions that when I was 12 years old, I could have answered.

Malcolm Roberts:

Okay, Ian, one fundamental point. We’ve got about five minutes before the top of the hour and we go into our news. And we’ll be back after that, everyone, by the way, with Ian Plimer. One really fundamental question for politicians, scientists, and voters. The CSIRO has never presented any robust scientific evidence underpinning their policy, the government’s policy, labour and liberal. The proper basis for policy, and this is what I’d like you to comment on, please, the proper basis for policy, as I understand it, is a specific quantified impact of human carbon dioxide on any temperature factor, whether it’s temperature, rainfall, drought, snow, ocean, alkalinity, anything at all.

Malcolm Roberts:

You have got to show that for a certain unit of carbon dioxide from human activity, this is the consequence in temperature or rainfall or whatever. That’s the first thing. That is fundamental to policy. Because you cannot assess any cost benefit analysis by saying, if we put in place a mechanism for minimising that impact, what it will cost compared with the cost of doing nothing. That’s fundamental. And the third point about this is that if you haven’t got that specific quantified effect from human carbon dioxide, you cannot track, cannot measure how you’re going with implementing your policy. This is fundamental, isn’t it?

Ian Plimer:

Well, very much is. Now our politics is not driven by building the nation. It’s a populist view derived from surveys to try to guarantee that a particular politician is going to get reelected. It’s got nothing to do with making the planet a better place. It’s got nothing to do with helping people in need, and it’s not based on any knowledge, any science, or any data. Policy is to get reelected. That is what drives political views. And this is why I’ve often argued that the best politician is a frightened politician. They have to face an election.

Ian Plimer:

I’ll give you example of a true journalist in this country, Alan Jones, who asked the Minister for the Environment, Tanya Plibersek, what the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide was. She couldn’t answer it. Now, that is a question that if you are going to get into discussions about climate, you should actually know how much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere, which allegedly drives climate change. We had a minister for the environment couldn’t answer that really simple question. What hope have we got?

Ian Plimer:

These people, listeners, you have to make your politicians scared. You have to frighten them. You have to let them know that if you follow this policy, you will not be reelected. And this is the only reason we have politicians create certain policies. It’s got nothing to do with the environment. It’s got nothing to do with saving the planet. It is to get reelected.

Malcolm Roberts:

Hear, hear. And that leads to a very simple point before I continue with another list. The simple point is this, we will never have frightened politicians in this country whenever people blindly vote for labour, liberal, nationals, or greens. Just blindly vote. We have to scrutinise politicians. We have to scrutinise their words, their behaviour, their actions, their policies, and then vote for whoever is correct, whoever aligns with you, not just go with the title party.

Malcolm Roberts:

Here are some conclusions, Ian, that I’ve got from my restoring scientific integrity as a result of our cross examination of CSIRO. CSIRO’s evidence for unprecedented change was easily refuted, and a major breakdown of the peer review system was revealed in Marc or in Lecavalier. We’ll have to come to a summary of this after the break, your comments after the break. Oh, no, no. Let’s leave that till after the break. What I’d also like to mention, Ian, is that they rely on claims of consensus. Isn’t that an admission? Just briefly, isn’t that an admission that they don’t have the science? Whenever they claim a consensus, that’s an admission they don’t have the science. Because if they had it, they would’ve presented it to me.

Ian Plimer:

Oh, yes. Science is married to scepticism. Science is often conducted by lone wolves. Science is not conducted by committees. Consensus is a word of politics, it’s not a word of science.

Malcolm Roberts:

And with that, we’re going to the break. And we’ll be back straight after the break with the news, with Professor Ian Plimer, to continue exposing more of the government’s bullshit on climate.

Transcript part 2

Speaker 1:

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

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

This is Senator Malcolm Roberts from Australia and I’m with Ian Plimer, Professor Ian Rutherford Plimer. So Ian, I’ll read the conclusions from my study, Restoring Scientific Integrity, that summarises what CSIRO has failed to do.

                “First of all, CSIRO’s evidence for unprecedented change was easily refuted and a major breakdown of the peer-review system was revealed in both Marcott and Lecavalier papers. Secondly, CSIRO provided no quantified evidence that humans are responsible for any particular amount of change in any climate factor nor any climate variable, nothing. CSIRO would not attribute danger to carbon dioxide from human activity. And have not provided evidence to allow any politicians, including ministers, to attribute danger. CSIRO stated that the determination of danger was a matter for the public or for politicians.

                Australian climate policies have never been based on empirical evidence and logical scientific reasoning. After reviewing the peer-reviewed papers that CSIRO cited, it is inconceivable that government policy should be based on the unverified assumption that a peer-reviewed paper is accurate and contains the best available research. That’s particularly so when key data has been unscientifically fabricated, as was the case in the first paper and second paper that CSIRO presented on temperature. As Australia’s premier government-funded climate science agency, CSIRO’s gross deficiencies need to be investigated to establish reasons for CSIRO’s deterioration. The fact that CSIRO abrogated claims of danger to government ministers, reveals that it has been afraid to speak out about obviously politically driven deviations from science. That includes journalists driving deviations from science.”

                Ninth point. “Integrity and accountability need to be restored for both research and for presenting scientific conclusions, as well as for scrutinising political claims and policies supposedly based on science. Next, the CSIRO climate group’s pathetic and inadequate case does not justify spending tens of billions of dollars, nor does it justify the destruction of trillions. And I mean that word sincerely, trillions of dollars of wealth as a result of climate policies that hurt families, export Australian jobs and erode our national security.

                Our ability to defend and secure our borders. The onus. Lastly, the onus is now on the federal government to scrap climate policies, unless CSIRO can provide accurate, repeatable and verifiable empirical scientific evidence. Within a logical scientific framework that proves carbon dioxide from human activity detrimentally affects climate variability and needs to be cut. The proposed cuts need to be specified in terms of the amount, the impact and effects, together with the cost of making and not making the cuts.” What do you think, mate?

Professor Ian Plimer:

Well, we get told that the science is settled. Now, if the science is settled, we say, “Thank you very much, we are now going to disband you. We’ll disband the climate division of the CSIRO. We’ll disband all the climate institutes at the universities. We’ll disband the climate group in the Bureau of Meteorology, but we sincerely thank you for all the work that you’ve done and demonstrating that the science is settled.” I think that’s the easiest way to solve the problem.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Well said, let’s continue on with their claims of consensus and their claims of that they haven’t provided the science. So what we then see from the government is that they claim they rely upon 97% of scientists claiming that they have the science. Yet not one of them has produced the science. What I’ve done, Ian, as you know, is I’ve interviewed world leading scientists on my findings of the CSIRO. And they have all justified and endorsed my claims about CSIRO.

                I’ll go through a list of them. Professor John Christie, Climatologist, Mathematician, University of Alabama Analyst and presenter of Global Temperature Data from NASA satellites. The man who does that. Professor David Legates, climatologist and statistician. Dr. Craig Idso as climatologists. These are state climatologists in the United States. They have been appointed climatologists for their state.

                Dr. Nils Mörner world’s number one C-level expert. The late Dr. Nils Mörner. Professor Nir Shaviv, atmospheric physicist from Israel. Professor Will HHapper, physicist. Dr. Willie Soon, atmospheric physicist. Yourself, you’ve done this. Steve McIntyre, mathematician and statistician who tore apart Marcott within two weeks of its release in 2013. Bill Kinmont, a former senior bureau of meteorology official and meteorologist. Emeritus, Professor Garth Paltridge, former CSRIO senior researcher. Dr. Howard Brady, geologist, another one of your kin Ian, and an Antarctica researcher. Dr. John McLean, a climate scientist who did the first audit on the global historical climate network, temperature data.

                It had never been audited, never until John did that. And he found glaring problems with it. And that’s the temperature data that the UN relies upon. And the CSIRO rely upon. Tony Heller, geologist and engineer auditing NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies data. Susan Crockford, polar bear researcher. Professor Lou Milan, Brazil Bureau of Meteorology and Dr. David Evans, who had been working as a climate modeller, and then has realised that it’s all rubbish. I mean, do we need anyone else? They haven’t provided the evidence and we’ve got the scientist.

Professor Ian Plimer:

You used a very interesting word, audit. Now, all public and private companies are required by law to have an audit. Are the books wrong? Is someone tickling the till? Is the company operating while in solvent? Now an audit, a scientific audit should look at very similar things. Are the claims being made, supported by evidence? Are people over icing the cake in order to get their next research grant? Are the people making these claims qualified to make those claims? So if, for example, you in the minerals business make a claim that this mineral deposit is that big or this big, you have to have certain qualifications to make such statements. So the normal due diligence processes that we have operating any other business, besides government, has an audit. Yet these government businesses are dealing with trillions of dollars and no one audits them and says, “Wait a minute folks, we might have got the fundamentals wrong.”

                And this is why I urge you to continue this line about, show me the evidence that human emissions drive global warming. Because if there is no evidence, then the whole white shoe brigade industry of subsidised solar and wind coming off that, shouldn’t be there. Then the next great subsidy stage of having subsidised hydrogen from subsidised wind and solar, shouldn’t be there. And we find that the emperor has no clothes. This to me is by far the best approach, ask simple questions, don’t make statements, ask questions. And that’s what an auditor does. And with my various roles in life at present, I’m constantly dealing with auditors under US law, Canadian law, UK law, and Australian law.

                They ask questions and you have to satisfy the auditors with your answer. If not, you have broken the law and you can be fined or go to jail. And I can’t see why the laws should be any different from someone making an extraordinary scientific claim, which requires a taxpayer to spend trillions. We need an audit and we need audits every year as every company has to have. And I can’t see why we can’t have scientific audits all the time. Now, Professor Peter Wild, did a scientific audit of what the coral reef scientist were stating. And he showed that it was wrong. There was a lot to be desired. Those audits should happen every year. We taxpayers are putting billions every year into science research. Where are the audits?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Right. Now, I’m going to feed you a really a tender morsel Professor Plimer. We have had two natural real world experiments on these climate claims. In 2009, we had the global financial crisis. In 2009, the following year, we had a recession around the world, a very severe recession in most countries, Australia, wasn’t in recession. Thanks to our amazing exports of mineral products from this country. Every other country just about, was in a major recession, not a minor recession, a severe recession.

                When that happens, people use less hydrocarbon fuels, coal oil and natural gas, which meant that the production of carbon dioxide from human activity decreased. In 2009, there was less carbon dioxide produced from human activity than in 2008. And yet the level of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere continued increasing in 2020 we had COVID, almost a depression around the world. Again is very severe recession, most countries around the world. And when that happened, we again used less coal, oil and natural gas. And so the human output of carbon dioxide in 2020 was less than in 2019. And yet the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued increasing because nature alone determines the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Isn’t this a perfectly natural real world experiment professor Plimer?

Professor Ian Plimer:

Well, what it does is it shows us that the common figure that’s thrown around of 3% of all emissions or of human origin might actually be wrong. It might actually be 1%. And I argue this in my book, Green Murder, I argue from volcanic emissions. I argue it used, 2007, 2008 and 2020 to the present COVID crisis, that we have got these natural experiments. And it may well be that human emissions have absolutely no effect whatsoever on global climate. And if it is, it’s probably close to the order of accuracy of measurement. And if it is abled to be measured, then the effect that Australia has in emitting 1.3% of the world’s annual admissions, which is 3% of the total planetary emissions. Is nine parts of one 11th of bugger all. So why are we having conniptions about a fractional amount of carbon dioxide emitted by humans?

                Why are we having conniptions when we cannot show that this has any effect on global climate. And shouldn’t we be spending our hard earned dollars on other things rather than spending billions every year on climate research. Trillions on putting in infrastructure that we know already will fail. So I think once you get a populist idea like this, it takes a long time to grind through the system before people realise it’s wrong.

                Populous politics, isn’t very sensible. And we see that ultimately this culotte mania, which we’re undergoing, leads to tears. We’ve seen it before, South seen [inaudible 00:12:41] Dutch culotte mania, and we’re right on that path again. And there’s something rather fundamental about our opposition, our position won’t argue data. As soon as we raise a point, they attack us with hatred and with venom. And why do they do that? They do that, I think for two reasons, the first is that they’ve been beneficiaries that have dumbed to down scientific education whereby they haven’t got any science. And they can’t argue because they haven’t been taught critical thinking. So the only response they’ve got is to be angry. And the second thing is, there’s no evidence. So we are seeing all these clues that we are being fed, probably the greatest policy damaging process for a very long period of time. The one before that was communism.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Here, here, and just think about this too, everyone at home. Hard earned dollars is what professor Ian Plimer just mentioned. Our hard earned dollars. If we cannot by cutting our carbon dioxide production, human production of carbon dioxide, severely as in two major recessions in the last 14 years. If that had no impact on reducing the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, why the hell do they want to steal our land, raise at taxes, impose gut wrenching regulations on us. That’s what we have to ask. The natural experiment in 2009 and 2020 showed that our massive cutting of carbon dioxide from human activity had no impact whatsoever. Neither will taxes. Neither will regulations. Neither will continue to steal. Neither will the continued stealing of farmers’ land.

                Let’s move on. This was this climate sham was first raised by a liberal politician, Baume, in federal parliament in 1975, he was the first one to raise the possibility that human or the claim that human activity, carbon dioxide from human activity affects our climate. The first prime minister to raise it was Bob Hawk. He raised it sometime after 1983. And he first raised it himself as an MP in 1980. And then we had John Howard go on the bandwagon. And what they quite often claim is that it based upon UN intergovernmental panel on climate change results. Ian, I’ve analysed the UN reports.

                1990 was the first, 1995 was the second one, 2001 was the third one, 2007 was the fourth one, 2013 was the fifth one, 2000 and… Just recently 2020 was the sixth one, sorry, 2022 was the sixth one. In each of those papers. They have one single core chapter that is supposedly showing that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate. In 2001, it was chapter 12. In 2007, it was chapter nine. In 2013, it was chapter 10. In those so chapters and in the latest one, the same applies. There has never been any evidence presented that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate. But instead, what we have is a summary for policy makers. That’s dumbed down for politicians and journalists that is full of crap. It has no evidence whatsoever in it. What about the UN IPCC, Ian?

Professor Ian Plimer:

Well, the UN IPCC is not a scientific organisation. It is a political organisation. It’s brief is to show that human emissions drive global warming. That brief comes out in a report, which has two parts to it. One is a summary at the beginning, and that’s the journalists and politicians, most of whom are ill educated. And it’s written in a very alarmist language. And that summary is normally totally unrelated to the scientific text, which in the latest one was just short of 4000 pages. And that is again, baffling people with bullshit. And there’s just so much information there that it’s very hard for the average person to work out what’s going on. So they have to actually trust it. Now I don’t, because there is a huge amount of information out there that has the contrary view. The book that I put out 10 years ago, Heaven and Earth. I had three and a half years-

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Oh, marvellous. Marvellous book.

Professor Ian Plimer:

… of scientific papers, which show that human emissions don’t drive global warming. And the latest book, I’ve only got 1700 scientific papers that show that humanly emissions don’t drive global warming. Those papers are not listed in the IPCC reports. Those IPCC reports omit any contrary information whatsoever. And so it is very much a partisan view, fulfilling the requirements of their brief. And that is to show we’re all going to fry and die. And it’s very much the view of an anonymous group of rather shady people who love their joints and conferences and write a few words every few years. And for that, there’s fame and fortune and there’s power. And there’s these faceless people who are creating a power structure whereby we pay.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Here, here, we’ll go to an ad break now, and then we’ll come back and we’ll listen to more from Professor Ian Rutherford Plimer.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

This is Senator Malcolm Roberts. Welcome back. And I’ve got my special guest, Ian Plimer. Before I move on with Ian, this is TNT radio. Where the only thing we mandate is the truth and you’ll get the truth from professor Ian Plimer. Ian, we have a fabulous researcher in Australia, an IT specialist, also a climate scientist with peer-reviewed papers published. And he pointed out that in an analysis of the UN IPCCs own data, only five reviewers endorsed the claim that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger and it needs to be cut. Only five and there’s doubt they are even scientists. Yet we are told there are thousands of scientists what’s going on?

Professor Ian Plimer:

Well, we’re not told the truth. And I know who you’re referring to. That was a magnificent piece of work he did for his PhD. We’re not told the truth. Many of these reports are written by activists. Many of them are written by green peace officials. Few of them are written by scientists and very, very few indeed are written by eminent scientists. So this is propaganda at best, at worst it may well be indeed are written by eminent scientist. So this is propaganda at best, at worst it’s may well be part of a great reset. So you used the word truth. Now you are regarded as controversial. I am regarded as controversial. Why? Because we use facts and speak the truth. And if you speak the truth, you never have to remember what you said. And this is why when you challenge those activists, they get very, very angry because they have to argue from first principles and justify their statements, which they cannot do.

                They don’t have the methods of argument, logic analysis, and they certainly don’t have any repeatable facts. So you get called controversial because your facts do not agree with their emotional opinions and the use of language. And the capture of language now has been a major weapon in attacking the average person to make sure that they do not use certain words. Unfortunately, and I must have a lot of Broken Hill lead in my blood. And I worked at Broken Hill for decades. Unfortunately I don’t abide by those new social constraints. And I will use the vernacular to describe things that we have used those words for half a century. So part of cancelling you and cancelling me and shutting us down, is control of the language. And calling us nut cases or controversial or extreme or right wing. This demonstrates that our opponents cannot argue.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Exactly. And another thing that demonstrates our opponents cannot argue is their claims that there’s a 97% consensus of scientists who claim that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger and needs to be cut. When you look at their figures and you analyse it, and there’s been a peer-reviewed papers led by Dr. David Legette with scientists and statisticians. Who analyse this claim by John Cook, a false fabricated claim, misrepresenting science, misrepresenting nature. David Legette’s and his co-authors analysed John Cook’s 97% consensus claim and found out when you go through the actual data, there is a not a 97% consensus. There is a 0.3% smattering and not one of those 0.3% smattering has any evidence that carbon dioxide from human activity as bad.

Professor Ian Plimer:

Yes, you’re being very kind. That worked by was fraud. There were 10,000 people who were sent a survey. These are people who put bread and wine on the table from frightening witness about climate. Out of those 10,000, who received Cooks survey, only 3000 replied. He chose 77 of those 3000 replies to publish. One reply wasn’t really in agreement. And that’s was the 3%. So this was a very, very selective survey, picking out certain information and then telling us that 97% of scientists believe this or that.

                Well, belief is not a word of science. It’s a word of religion and politics. The second thing is that science is not like politics, where we all put up and say, “Yes, we believe that the earth is flat. And we believe that the sun rotates around the earth.” Science doesn’t work like that. It works on reproducible evidence. That was fraud. Now, Australia exports, a lot of black stuff. That’s called coal. A lot of that comes from your state Queensland, but John Cook was in Queensland and we exported not black coal, but he’s black soul went to another country. We’ve got rid of him. Thanks be to the Lord.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Well said, then let’s move on to the NASA’s Goddard Institute Space Studies. It’s a tiny group within NASA. And then there’s a tiny, tiny group within the Goddard Institute Space Studies that is responsible for climate studies. We’ve heard so many times that NASA is saying that this climate claims, that climate sphere is all justified. And yet I had correspondence when I entered the Senate as a Senator in Australia. And I held director Gavin Schmidt accountable for some of the work that NASA was doing in corruptly modifying temperature data to raise temperatures artificially. And in his first response back, he made a slip and he showed that inadvertently, he made serious contradictions.

                So when I held him accountable for these contradictions. He stopped writing to me. And then later they reversed their claims about Iceland, temperature data tampering, and reduce them down again. I mean, NASA itself has never said that the climate is a problem. A tiny group of people, activists within the NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies has said that. And these people need to be held to account. It’s just fraud again, that NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies led by Gavin Schmidt and the previous alarmist James Hansen have spread this nonsense. We’ve got letters from NASAs senior administrators, astronauts who’ve had to rely on science, stating that these guys are speaking bullshit.

Professor Ian Plimer:

Well, we once used to have respect for an institution. Be that the CSIRO, be that a university, be that the church, we once had respect for an institution. We now live in a society where anything goes, this is the attack on Western civilization and climate change is only part of it. But we are attacking Christian religions. We are attacking parliament. We saw that recently in the Senate in Australia, where one Senator being sworn in, gave a Black power salute and wanted to insult the queen. This respect for institutions is disappearing. They are always under attack. And in some cases like NASA, they do it to themselves. In some cases and I would argue, it’s part, the churches have done this. They’ve done it to themselves. So we are living in a society where anything goes, where all opinions are equal. There is no informed opinion. There is no respect for anything or anyone. Yet the same people want to be respected. I think respect has to be earned. I don’t think because you are an oxygen thief that you automatically qualified to get respect.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Here, here. Let’s move on now. Some people I know you have heard about the Stern report. That’s a fraudulent document that was developed in Britain for the government to push this climate rubbish. We had our own equivalent version of the Stern report in Australia. It was the Ghana report, which from memory was released in 2008. I think it was initially a state initiative but then when Kevin Rudd entered power as a prime minister in 2000 late, 2007, he adopted it as well. And I think he pushed it. And I’ll just go to that because a lot of people in our country think that the Ghana report had scientific proof that we need to cut human carbon dioxide. So I’m going to read from chapter two of Ghana’s report, which was used to push the narrative that we need to cut carbon dioxide from human activity. Chapter two is titled, Understanding Climate Science.

                It states, key points. “The review takes as its starting point on the balance of probabilities. And not as a matter of belief,” I’m sorry, I can’t help laughing. I’ll start again. “The review takes as its starting point on the balance of probabilities and not as a matter of belief, the majority opinion of the Australian and international scientific communities that human activities resulted in substantial global warming from the mid 20th century. And that continued growth in greenhouse gas concentrations caused by human induced emissions would generate high risk of dangerous climate change.” No evidence anywhere and yet the media, the politicians run around saying the Ghana report is scientific proof. Ian, what the hell is going on?

Professor Ian Plimer:

Oh, it’s very simple. We’ve had every major institution taken over by activists. We have activists in the church. We have activists in universities. We have activists in schools. The public service is absolutely full of activists. These people are driving the ship because politicians get reappointed every couple of years. These people can outlive them. These people can outstay them. So we’ve had the march of the left. It’s been a 40 year march into all of the institutions. The biggest damage they have done is to dumb down the education system, such that all of the people now in middle level, be they in government be, they in business, have undergone this activist education. So we’ve totally been taken over by activists. And for me, it’s not a war that you can fight. You can fight as we are doing as guerrilla fighters, but we have to wait for the inevitable. And the inevitable will be a financial crisis.

                And then ultimately people will say, “Well, wait a minute. What used to be a very wealthy nation? What happened?” So this is why it’s extremely important to keep fighting the fight. We’ve lost it. We haven’t infiltrated the system 40 or 50 years ago. The left did that, but ultimately there is a price to pay. And the price to pay is going to be very, very nasty indeed. So we have to keep these arguments on the record. We have to keep arguing. We have to fight everything. Now, for example, we have this absolute trivial argument now about the burping and farting of cattle. So just heal out a very simple argument. Grass grows by using carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, that cattle eat that grass and burp and fight out. Some of the carbon is methane and carbon dioxide. And the rest of the carbon ends up in the meat, in the skin and in bones. We eat that meat that’s sequestered for a little while. The bones, the carbon is sequestered for a little while and in the leather that we have, it’s sequestered for even longer, in say our footwear.

                So if cattle are so bad and eating this grass and farting out methane, belching out methane, what happens if we took the cattle off the ground? If we took the cattle off the field, then the grass would rot. And the grass would give out methane when it rots. And the same number of atoms of carbon that went into growing that grass, the same number of atoms of carbon, that either are extracted by cattle or extracted by rotting of the grass.

                Now that is a total furphy that we’re being fed by our climate activists. So what’s happened is the vegans have got in to the climate activists groups. And they’re trying to tell us we shouldn’t be eating meat and we’re destroying the climate. So we’ve got all these sorts of crazies now, have attracted themselves to the vegan groups in the climate groups. Now I’ve had a bit to do with vegans, when I used to take university field excursions. These geological field excursions were interesting because the meat eaters were the first ones to the top of the mountain. The vegetarians were about halfway up and the vegans were still trying to work out how to get out of the vehicle.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Okay, I want to continue that line in a minute, but first I’m going to go to the InterAcademy Council. If I can collect my thoughts after that, the InterAcademy Council. You’ve heard of that as a noted scientist Professor Plimer?

Professor Ian Plimer:

Yes, yes. Well, I’m in one of the major academies. But they represent my view and don’t listen to my science.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yes. Well, we could talk about the Australian Academy of Science, which is completely lost the plot on climate science. But anyway, the InterAcademy-

Professor Ian Plimer:

Those academies stay alive by government funding. And they have to play in the same key from the same musical script as the government, otherwise they don’t get funding. So this is not fearless and free information that the academies are giving. It’s already contaminated.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Right. And so we’ve been told many times that all the major science academies around the world support this rubbish about climate being affected by carbon dioxide from human activity. None of them have ever provided the evidence. But the InterAcademy Council, which is the combination of many of these national bodies, put out a damning report about 10 years ago. An absolutely damning report about the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel and Climate Change. It is the UN’s climate science body, was just shown to be completely incompetent and dishonest and unscientific. And no one raised an eyebrow. Now, I also want to talk about what I call the rats nest of climate alarmist academics. These people in my mind are not scientists at all, but they’ve been paraded as scientists. They’ve been funded by government taxpayers. Funded by us to misrepresent the science. I’m going to read their names out, because these people will be very familiar to some. Tim Flannery, many faults forecasts, which have caused enormous damage, including costing people’s lives.

                Professor Will Steffen, a chemical engineer. Professor David Karoly, a former meteorologist. Ova Goldberg. And I’ve challenged Ova Goldberg and Tim Flannery to debate. And poor old Tim didn’t know which way was up. And his publisher just dragged him away from me. Ova Goldberg, would not debate me. John Cook would not debate me. Another one of these academics. They’re not scientists because they don’t follow the scientific principle. A scientist is someone who follows a scientific process. Matthew England, a climate modeller, mathematician, I believe. Leslie Hughes, Kurt Lambeck, Andy Pitman, Ross Garnaut.

                And then we have a man called Stephan Lewandowsky. And Stephan Lewandowsky is a, I think he’s got something to do with the behavioural scientist. And he made claims that if you don’t agree with these people, then you’re a nut job. So, I mean, these people have been funded by government. They’ve been appointed to the climate commission by the Gillard Government. They’ve been fated by the liberals. They have been funded to spread misrepresentations of climate. I’m trying to find a comment. Would you, if you could make a comment while I’m looking for a summary assessment of Tim Flannery’s report.

Professor Ian Plimer:

Well, just the very brief comment. These people are funded to put us out of work. Therefore, the amount of revenue collected by taxation will be less. So why not save ourself the pain and not fund them now? And then we do not decrease taxation by having people put out of work by their processes. Now, can you imagine trying to run a foundry and you are trying to pour some bronze and the power goes off. If that freezes, then you have a real problem. Can you imagine how your electricity bill, which you have in an electric arc furnace, you have an electricity bill that’s just gone through the roof. Ultimately you are going to close that business and put people out of work, or you might shift the business to Thailand or somewhere like that. This is what’s happening. Those climate policies, which are catastrophic for the average person are driven by the elites, funded from the taxes of the average person. It is time to say, enough.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Right. And I’m going to read some figures before we go to the break, we’ll have the ad break the last of the hour. And then I’d like you to, when we come back, Ian, if you could talk about the fact that Australia is already at net zero and beyond it, because our sinks of carbon dioxide absorb more carbon dioxide than all of our production. But I want to read these figures, Dr. Wes Allen wrote, what is the first known detailed review of Tim Flannery’s book entitled, The Weather Makers. Dr. Allen’s review reveals that 307 statements in Tim Flannery’s book created 577 problems with some of Tim Flannery statements, creating multiple problems. This Dr. Allen as a meticulous researcher, and he’s put it out there in public, listed them, shown them.

                And what he’s done is he said that, “Baseless, extreme comments in Tim Flannery’s book 14. Baseless, dogmatic comments, 103. Suspect sources of his points, 51. Half truth, 85. The claims that there’s absolute no uncertainty in what he’s saying, 48. Misrepresentations seven. Misinterpretations, 26. Exaggeration, 78. Factual errors, 70. Confusing or silly statements, 43. Contradictory statements, 31. Fail predictions, 11. Mistakes, 10. A grand total of problems, 577 in a book that’s about 200 pages long. This is what passes for science amongst the labour party, the liberal party, the national party, the greens. And amongst these climate activists who are masquerading as scientists, when they’re really academics and not scientists.” So we’ll go for the break and then we’ll come back and listen to Ian Plimer.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Over to you, Ian Plimer. We’re with Ian Plimer and this is Senator Malcolm Roberts in broadcasting from Australia. We are now going to hear one of the best scientists in the world, discuss why we are already at net zero and beyond.

Professor Ian Plimer:

We are very lucky in Australia to have a continent with very, very few inhabitants. We have a large area of grasslands, rangelands and forests and a lot of crop land. And the few people that live in this country live in a coastal fringe and mainly in cities. We are not a country of Crocodile Dundee’s out in the bush. We’re a country of people who absolutely live in cities. So when we look at the amount of carbon dioxide that we release from heavy industries in Australia. And we smelt a lot of the world’s aluminium and zinc and lead and copper, that puts carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The bulk of our energy comes from hydrocarbons, be it diesel, be it coal for electricity. And when we look at the amount of energy that we create, we could not run this country without coal.

                However, when we look at how much of a carbon dioxide is absorbed into these grasslands, rangelands, forest, crops and the continental shelf, we absorb about 10 times as much carbon dioxide than we emit. We should therefore go to Paris and say, “Pay up. We want countries like Mauritania and Chad and poor countries of the world to pay us because we are absorbing their carbon dioxide emissions.” The whole system of net zero is bonkers. Net zero is a vocabulary invented by people who want different ways of taxing you. It’s got nothing to do with the environment. It’s got everything to do with power and money.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And that leads on to something that I want to raise. The core problem here is shitty governance, comprising gutless politicians seating our sovereignty. There is no scientific data or framework on which they base these policies. The policies today in Australia are based on looking good, not doing good. Looking after vested interest and globalist predators. And Ian, I think you are well aware that the man who started this climate fraud was Maurice Strong from Canada. I haven’t got the time to go into the details. He was a criminal who exiled himself. Wanted by American authorities, the police law enforcement agencies. He was exiled in China. He came back to Canada to die in Ottawa in 2015. His policies, his scam that he initiated. He was a part owner and a director of the Chicago Climate Exchange, where billions of dollars of carbon dioxide emissions trading system credits would be funnelled through. Al Gore, the company he owns, Generation Management Investment is also a part owner of the Chicago climate exchange.

                We are taking money from poor people asking age pensioners to make a choice between staying warm and eating. And these bastards are stealing money to live like Riley. No science, enormous crippling costs imposed on people. And the people pay with their wallets, with their jobs, with their lifestyle, with their lives. For no benefit to the environment, no benefit to humanity and these grubs steal billions of dollars. And then we’ve got other billionaires who are sponsoring people into parliament, so they can keep their subsidies for solar and wind going. This is a complete scam and it is an inhuman scam. What do you say to say Professor?

Professor Ian Plimer:

Well, that’s exactly right. This is probably the biggest scam we have seen in the history of time. In terms of science, it’s probably the greatest delusional science that we’ve seen since the times, just before Galileo. In terms of morality, we have sunk to new depths and in terms of responsibility, there is none. In my scientific career, I have been working in universities and outside universities. When I was outside universities, I was funded by industry.

                If I got it wrong, I lost my job. When in a university, if I got it wrong, it didn’t matter. I was able to publish and move on. In science, if you get it wrong, there are no consequences. In sociology, if you get it wrong, you get promoted. So we have lost the ethical basis of science. And I think this structural breakdown of institutional ethics is one of the reasons why your Maurice Strong and these others have been able to thrive. And there’s a whole army of acolytes there feeding off those who pay them. And eventually they are going to kill those who pay them. This is why I called my latest book, Green Murder. This process has taken 40 or 50 years to get there. And the only way I can see we can get out of this mess is to have a deeply destructive recession.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And that’s a very sad thing to say, because I’d like to finish on a positive, which you’ll come to in a minute. I’m with Professor Ian Rutherford Plimer, one of the world’s best scientists, highly awarded, a prolific author. We have been discussing my letter to the four Amigos on climate, the previous prime minister, the previous deputy prime minister, the previous opposition leader, and the then and current Greens leader, Adam Bandt. You can find that letter at Malcolm Roberts, qld.com.au, just scroll down to the climate fraud icon, click on that, and then scroll down to letter to the leaders, the climate change scam. And you can see what we’ve been talking about. I want to mention Professor Plimer, some from Professor Plimer’s books, these cover of huge gamut of interest, everything from serious scientific to discussions about humanity. To basic books like mineral collecting localities of the Broken Hill district, for people who are interested in rocks.

                Now I’ve got another book, Telling Lies for God. Let’s just think about the diversity of this man’s ability. Next one, A Journey Through Stone, Mineral Collecting Localities of the Broken Hill, Tibooburra and White Cliffs areas. This man gets down into the details. Milos: Geologic History, A Short History of Planet Earth, Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science. How to get expelled from School, now that is a ripper. So is that Heaven and Earth. Not for Greens and then Ian has taken up the cut of protecting humanity. Heaven and Earth again, Climate Change Delusion and the Great Electricity Rip-off, Green Murder, a life sentence of net zero with no parole, go to Connor Court Publishing. They have been your publishers, I think all the time, Professor Plimer, anything to add to that because I find your books fascinating.

Professor Ian Plimer:

Well, I’ve published a number of best sellers in the past, through major international publishers, like Random House. And I had also published stuff through the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. And when I had the manuscript of Heaven and Earth ready to go, no publisher would touch me because I was questioning human induced climate change. It was eventually a very small husband and wife publisher that took it on. It made them a fortune. It was an international bestseller.

                So for those of you out there who are thinking of publishing your ideas, it’s quite often not the major publishers that will touch you. They’re not interested at all in the issue. They’re only interested in making money. And when Heaven and Earth was really humming away and selling very well. I had a publisher ring me and say, “Look, we’d like to republish your book, A Short History of Planet Earth.” And I said, “Well, that book came out 20 years ago. And the science has moved on. That some of these science that I wrote there now has been replaced by better science and there are better ideas. I’m not prepared to republish something that is knowingly wrong.” And they were persisting telling me I’d make a fortune. I wasn’t interested in that. I’m interested in facts and speaking the truth. That makes me controversial.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And we appreciate you so much because there are so few scientists these days. So few politicians who will do that. I’m going to lead the final word to Professor Plimer. But before I do that, this is Malcolm Roberts, Senator in Australia. I am staunchly pro-human and a believer in the inherent goodness in human beings. Please remember to listen to each other, love one another, stay proud of who we are as humans. Take a minute to appreciate the abundance all around us. Ian, over to you. You have one minute to tell us why we need to get back to basics and be so positive about Australia. We have the people, the resources we have the opportunity, the potential. Mate, what do you want to say? And thank you so much.

Professor Ian Plimer:

There are very few people, very few people on this continent. We are blessed with resources. If we look at history countries or nations with very few people and a lot of resources, inevitably got invaded. Go and talk to the Carthaginians or the Thracians, go and talk to those that Alexander the Great invaded. The only way this country can be strong is to use its resources and its humans to have a vibrant economy, a big defence system and people who are great lovers and supporters of their country. And when I finally shuffle off, I just hope someone will in the eulogy say, he gave the cage a bloody good rattle.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Thank you so much, Professor Ian Plimer, well done.

The Senate this morning has voted in favour of my motion requiring Senator Murray Watt, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to explain how he hasn’t misled the Senate in answers regarding foot and mouth disease.

The Minister must attend the Senate at 9:30am Thursday to explain.

In a hand delivered letter which he did not respond to, I asked the Minister to consider how his answers were not misleading the Senate. Official Government biosecurity measures state that vaccination of affected and proximate livestock should occur within 2 days of an outbreak.

Despite this, Minister Watt appears to maintain that holding 1 million non-mRNA cow vaccines in the United Kingdom, which would take 7 days to get here, is good enough. It isn’t.

It begs the question, why does it seem to be easier to get a human vaccinated in this country than a cow?

We also have to ask, why is the Government colluding with the Greens to keep a non-mRNA vaccine for Foot and Mouth disease out of the country? Why is Labor being so slow to act on keeping Foot and Mouth out of the country?

Do they want a Foot and Mouth disease outbreak in the country to destroy our livestock industry so we all have to eat the bugs?

In the election campaign Anthony Albanese promised Australians he would cut power bills by $275 a year. Not only did he say he hoped to do that, he said he knew it would happen. Now he’s walking away from his election promise.

Feelings will not keep the lights on, supermarket freezers cold or hospitals open. Feelings will not warm Australians in winter or cool us in summer. Evidence based policy will. Energy deficits in several areas of Australia have already caused blackouts. The 43 per cent target will cause many more blackouts.

The average spot price of $264 per megawatt hour last quarter is more than triple the average spot price of $85 per megawatt hour this time last year. Prime Minister Albanese knew this when he made his promise, and clearly economics is not the Prime Minister’s strong suit. If the cost of an item is up 300 per cent, the chances of being able to make it cheaper without the government paying for it are zero.

All I’m hearing so far is, ‘Build more wind and solar.’ Building more will simply add more capacity when we don’t need it, during the day, when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. Solar and wind will need to be paired with some form of battery technology to move that generated electricity from the day, when we don’t need it, to the evening, when we do.

Coal sitting in hoppers ready to generate power on demand is the battery we have used successfully for 120 years. Alternatives to coal are thin on the ground. Battery storage costs are staggering and unsustainable: $1.5 million per megawatt hour. We need around 60,000 megawatt hours of energy in storage to ensure any 24-hour period is not subject to blackouts, yet batteries need 20 per cent above rated capacity to achieve full charge due to heat loss, which is why they catch fire a lot.

This means we need 72,000 megawatt-hours of storage, at a cost of $108 billion every 12 years, the life of a big Tesla battery. That is $9 billion every year. The Snowy 2 big hydro battery currently under construction will provide 1,000 megawatt-hours daily for 365 a year at a cost of $5 billion.

This means that pumped hydro will cost $300 billion to carry enough power for just one day. Of course, adding electric vehicle charging to the mix means a whole lot more blackouts and a whole lot more electricity price increases.

Net zero is an unaffordable fairy tale that will destroy our standard of living and destroy our lifestyle.

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

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

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

Transcript

Andrew:

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

Malcolm:

Good morning, Andrew. How are you?

Andrew:

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

Malcolm:

Sure.

Andrew:

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

Malcolm:

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

Malcolm:

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

Malcolm:

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

Andrew:

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

Robbie:

Yeah. Good morning. Sorry I was running late.

Andrew:

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

Robbie:

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

Robbie:

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

Andrew:

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

Malcolm:

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

Malcolm:

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

Andrew:

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

Robbie:

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

Robbie:

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

Robbie:

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

Malcolm:

If I could jump in there.

Andrew:

Yeah, sure.

Malcolm:

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

Malcolm:

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

Andrew:

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

Malcolm:

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

Andrew:

Surgical.

Malcolm:

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

Andrew:

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

Robbie:

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

Robbie:

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

Andrew:

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

Andrew:

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

Andrew:

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

Malcolm:

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

Andrew:

Yeah, sure.

Malcolm:

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

Malcolm:

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

Malcolm:

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

Malcolm:

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

Malcolm:

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

Malcolm:

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

Andrew:

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

Robbie:

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

Andrew:

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

Malcolm:

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

Andrew:

Absolutely.

Malcolm:

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

Andrew:

Yeah. Robbie, when you…Go on, Robbie.

Robbie:

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

Andrew:

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

Malcolm:

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

Malcolm:

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

Malcolm:

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

Andrew:

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

Robbie:

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

Robbie:

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

Robbie:

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

Malcolm:

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

Robbie:

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

Robbie:

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

Malcolm:

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

Malcolm:

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

Malcolm:

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

Andrew:

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

Peter:

Robbie’s muted.

Andrew:

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

Malcolm:

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

Malcolm:

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

Andrew:

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

Robbie:

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

Robbie:

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

Andrew:

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

Malcolm:

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

Andrew:

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

Andrew:

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

One Nation’s Equal Pay for Equal Work Bill 2022 ensures the rate of pay for casual labour hire workers are the same as or better than full time workers doing the same job.

Senator Roberts said, “The exploitation of casual workers stops here and now, and my Equal Pay for Equal Work Bill will ensure casual workers are remunerated fairly.

“Companies need to re-invest in traineeships and apprenticeships for their future labour requirements, rather than contracting casual positions on lower wages.”

My Bill applies to the Black Coal Mining Industry Award 2010 and the Aircraft Cabin Crew Award 2020, both of which have a history of claiming flexibility requirements but undercutting wages.

This Bill will include the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Enterprise Award 2016, the Fire Fighting Industry Award 2020, the Maritime Offshore Oil and Gas Award 2020 and the Seagoing Industry Award 2020.

Senator Roberts said, “While some of these industries do not have a history of casualisation, they all inherently need to maintain high and consistent standards of safety using a stable workforce.”

One Nation accepts the need for casuals to cover sudden spikes in labour demand.

Senator Roberts said, “We need to make sure casual workers are just that, a short-term requirement to address business demands, and that employers in these specific industries shift their perspective to an investment in longer term workforce planning and permanent employment.

“The overuse of casualisation has driven down wages, making it a struggle for a sole breadwinner to provide for their families.”

One Nation has achieved many positive changes for casual workers in the black coal mining industry, along with introducing casual to permanent conversion rights and protecting small business from red tape when implementing casual conversion. “This Bill is award-based and allows for wage negotiation between the employee, union and employer, which is an investment in the employer and employee relationship,” added Senator Roberts.

Andrew retired from being a GP in 2019, he is married, a parent and a grandparent.

He is a graduate of Queensland University and spent the first two years after graduation as Resident Medical Officer at Princess Alexandra Hospital in Brisbane.  Andrew was appointed Medical and Paediatric Registrar at Toowoomba Base hospital and had a small group General Practice in Brisbane for eight years.  He also spent two years in solo practice in Central Queensland mining towns, Moranbah and Dysart, following which he returned to Brisbane where he was appointed Paediatric Registrar at the, then, Royal Children’s and Royal Women’s  hospitals in Brisbane.  Andrew returned to solo practice before retirement in 2019.

Related:

Transcript

Speaker 1:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

Welcome back to Today’s News Talk Radio, tntradio.live. Last hour, we spoke with a wonderful, courageous woman who’s standing up for our society. This hour, we’re going to talk to a man, so we’re diverse. We talk to both sexes.

Malcolm Roberts:

So I want to welcome my second guest, Dr. Andrew Orr from Brisbane, Queensland, who actually lives not far from where my wife and I live, between Ipswich and Brisbane. Andrew Orr retired from being a GP in 2019. He’s married. He’s a parent. He’s a grandparent. He’s also a graduate of the University of Queensland and spent the first two years after graduation as resident medical officer at Princess Alexandra Hospital in Brisbane. Andrew was appointed medical and paediatric registrar at Toowoomba Base Hospital and had a small group general practise in Brisbane for eight years. He spent two years in solo practise in Central Queensland mining towns, Moranbah and Dysart. Oh, that’s another thing we share in common. I’ve lived in Dysart.

Malcolm Roberts:

Following which, he returned to Brisbane where he was appointed paediatric register at, well, as it was known then, the Royal Children’s and Royal Women’s Hospitals in Brisbane. Andrew returned to solo practise before retiring in 2019. He’s a male, yet he understands women. Maybe that’s a good question I could ask him. But he certainly understands biology. Welcome to TNT Radio. Great to have you on, Andrew.

Andrew Orr:

Thanks, Malcolm.

Malcolm Roberts:

Do you understand women?

Andrew Orr:

Do I understand women?

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah.

Andrew Orr:

Well, I guess, yeah, I probably shouldn’t say anything about that publicly, should I? I might be in trouble. Yeah.

Malcolm Roberts:

You want to stay married and your wife might not exactly validate your claims, hey?

Andrew Orr:

Exactly.

Malcolm Roberts:

Okay. Something you appreciate, Andrew, anything at all, what do you appreciate?

Andrew Orr:

What do I appreciate in my life? Goodness me. Well, firstly, I remain aware and grateful. I’ve shared my life with a competent life partner, with whom we’ve had three sons, all of which have done the same, same sort of thing. They have married really top girls. And I’d like to think that my wife, Mary, and I have had a bit of a hand in that outcome because family is everything in life and it’s the basis on which you exhibit and build your own values and hopefully can pass them on.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, I complimented our-

Andrew Orr:

It’s a core value thing.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. I complimented our previous guest, Katherine Deves, for standing up for Australian values and human values really, and I want to do the same with you. You’ve approached it in a different way, but you’ve been in quite a battle. So let’s talk about gender dysphoria, Andrew. You’re a retired doctor. You’ve worked as a children’s hospital-based paediatric registrar. What’s gender dysphoria?

Andrew Orr:

Gender dysphoria is a sense of discomfort that an individual is feeling subject to a sense of what’s been called gender incongruity. I suppose the terms used is born in the wrong body, as some people like to explain it. It’s a basis of feeling discomfort. Many individuals have a variable degree of gender expression but may feel no discomfort with it at all, but a small number … Well, I shouldn’t say small. It’s a significant number are suffering with a degree of discomfort that they feel is because of what they call birth assigned … What their gender assigned at birth, what you and I would call your physiological or anatomical sex, doesn’t align with how they feel inside. And a significant number of these individuals are children. And of course, they come to the attention of medical practitioners, both the adults and the children. And we can talk later why I think our approach to minors, children should be different to that how we approach adults. I think adults should be-

Malcolm Roberts:

No, keep going.

Andrew Orr:

Adults should be free, path their own life course. But I think children who are in this position, Malcolm, it’s such a huge issue. It’s hard to know quite just where to start. I think it comes down to really an ideology that’s been called gender identity/fluidity, which it comes straight from the humanity, social science, specifically gender studies within that school of thought. And that has supported the idea of what’s been called queer theory. And of course, that’s given birth to the idea that we should respond to individuals who are suffering like that based on … Well, when you go with this with kids, what do you do with this? And these children who come to the attention of medical practitioners have been, the word that’s used is affirmed of their assertion because the child is deemed the ultimate arbiter of their gender.

Andrew Orr:

So they’re in a situation where they’re subject in many cases to medical intervention, which is the application of medicalization and the administration of puberty blocking hormones and cross-sex hormones, which is a contentious issue. It is contested. It is controversial. The outcome of this as to whether it does within the long term or not, we can talk about that.

Malcolm Roberts:

Okay.

Andrew Orr:

So maybe I’ve said enough for the moment. Maybe I’ll respond to the questions.

Malcolm Roberts:

Let’s be clear about a couple of things here to clarify my understanding at least, Andrew. You’re not opposed to people changing their sex if they’re an adult and they’re wanting to do that and they become well informed and that’s something that’s needed.

Malcolm Roberts:

And I gave an example of a person close to my wife and myself in another country, who we love very much, and she was going down the path, she married another lady. They’ve had a baby. She was going down the path to a sex exchange, and that was her choice. She’d been very much a tomboy. I’m not trying to simplify it, but that’s the way she felt for many, many years. There are people like that. They’re very few and far between, but there are people like that. And as she was starting to embark on the hormone treatment to become a male, she pulled back and she had reconsidered.

Malcolm Roberts:

Now some people go continue right through that process and they change their sex and that’s fine by me. You’re not opposed to that. That’s an adult decision. They’ve had many decades in that body and they realise they need to be someone else. I know someone else, a wonderful person who changed from being a male to a female and still a wonderful person. So they’re happy.

Malcolm Roberts:

But what you’re talking about with gender dysphoria, you used the word feeling discomfort. So if you dare question that, then I’m sure you’ve been labelled transgender, transphobic. But what you’re saying is that this is a statement of distress potentially, especially in children because they haven’t had the experience to make that life changing decision, so they shouldn’t be affirmed. They should be listened to, counselled, given good advice based on medical science on just being a human. Is that somewhat on the right mark?

Andrew Orr:

I think so. I think there is evidence, and I’m not going to sit here and tell you that I’m an expert in this. All I can do is say to you, in answering your questions, I’ll make reference to other authorities and I’ll answer them because I think they can articulate some of the things that you’re asking about better than put them in words better than I’ll be able to. But I think the medicalization of … Well, there’s been a tsunami, a virtual tsunami of biological girls who’ve appeared all over the world, expressing this gender incongruity. Much has been written about it. Much has been said about it. So I guess that’s what the issue we should be talking about, what to do, how to respond?

Andrew Orr:

Because the evidence is if you intervene prior or if you defer intervening until a child experiences their own puberty, and most of those children will desist from the expression of being incongruent, and they’ll either express as being homosexual, which is a much kinder path to life than as a transgender individual.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yes. I appreciate the human body. It’s absolutely amazing. Not just as it is right now for me, as anyone is right now for them. But the growth of the human body, we popped out, at some time, we were just a cell then we became larger foetus and then we started our heart beating in mother’s womb and the brain started forming, and we had all of these inputs. Then we enter the real world or outside our mother’s womb and we continue to grow and we go through planes of development that are not understood by most people. And just that sheer … It’s so amazing. It’s so beautiful.

Malcolm Roberts:

Think of a flower, bud, a little bud. It grows from just the end of a stem and then it unfolds. It’s compressed in that little bud. Next thing, it unfolds into an amazing flower, sometimes a huge flower, sometimes a foot or more across, 30 centimetres or more across, but then that’s nothing compared to the evolution of the unfolding, the blossoming of a human, the mental development, the social development, the physical development, the skills, the complexity. It takes 25 years to build a human being, and it takes 95 for some to mature.

Malcolm Roberts:

What you’re really saying is, as I understand it, correct me if I’m wrong, I’m not trying to put words in your mouth. I’m just trying to explore this. Gender dysphoria is this statement of distress about gender, people not really understanding. And I’ve used the words, it’s a distorted reality, and I don’t mean that in an unkind sense. I mean we all have distortions of reality at times. We’re not feeling so well. Those feelings are driven because we’re not feeling comfortable in something. When we start getting worried, we start having these feelings.

Malcolm Roberts:

So it could be, and that’s the evidence that I’ve seen, that a girl or boy, who is entering puberty, is not happy with their birth sex and they emerge. And if we just give them some gentle reassurance and some love, by the time they emerge from adolescence, they’re perfectly happy with their birth sex.

Andrew Orr:

Yeah. Well, it’s part of adolescence, isn’t it, finding yourself of who you are? And I think that we’ve all been … certainly all remembered well.

Andrew Orr:

To give you some idea of the size of the issue, my understanding is the Queensland Children’s Hospital Gender Clinic is the largest now, the largest clinic of all the clinics, outpatient clinics. So the numbers are rapidly expanding. The big clinic, of course, is in Melbourne. And of course, this whole phenomenon is a Western society observed observation. It’s massive in parts of America, in California, England, and we’re experiencing the same thing. And of course, what tends to happen with us is we tend to follow the Americans a bit. And I guess I’ve been concerned about the medicalization issue with children. I think if you look at what happens in America, you’ve got children who are presenting … or first, I should go back a step.

Andrew Orr:

When we go back a few decades ago, children who were expressing gender dysphoria were mainly biological boys, who were often preschoolers even, who were confused about who they were and this went on into adolescence, continued. And there’s another demographic, which is overwhelmed. That’s relatively a small group. And these are biological adolescent girls, who’ve never said a word about it as a preschooler, never said a word about it growing up until they start to enter puberty. And many of us feel that the social media effect has had a big impact in magnifying the whole thing with kids talking together. And I’ve got a bit of an idea about why, and I’ve never heard this mentioned, I’ll just put this to the audience as a thought, this is just a thought that I’ve had, what could explain this phenomenon of mainly 12, 13, 14-year-old girls who’ve suddenly come up with this idea that they’re not girls? They’re something else.

Andrew Orr:

If I put myself in the shoes of, say, a 13-year-old girl and I’ve got my smartphone and out of normal natural human curiosity like most of us, you look at everything you can look at. And these kids come across maybe by accident the dreadful stuff on the internet they’ve all got access to, the hardcore pornographic stuff. I can imagine if I was a 13-year-old girl, I’d look at that and say, “My God. Is that what I’m in for when I’m an adult? I don’t want any part of that.” So the natural reaction might be to run away from that as far as possible. Maybe I’m not a girl. Maybe I’m something else. Maybe I’m a boy. Maybe I’m not a boy. I don’t want to be a boy. The thought of being a lesbian might be acceptable to even contemplate. So maybe they’ll say, “Well, maybe I’m something in between.”

Andrew Orr:

Look, I don’t know, Malcolm. This is just a thought that’s come to me as to try and understand what has been behind this, as I say, tsunami, massive numbers of these kids. There’s an investigative journalist called Abigail Shrier, who has written a book called Irreversible Damage. And she quotes figures like up to 10% of preadolescent girls in schools in California, who are all expressing the same idea. So it’s quite intriguing as to what’s causing this phenomena. Obviously, social media augmented, magnified. Just a thought. That’s all.

Malcolm Roberts:

We know that it happens within groups. When one influential person in the group starts speaking this way, the peers take it on, and it seems to be peer pressure. But as I said a minute ago, we are very complex creatures. It takes 25 years to assemble our body, give or take a few years for variety amongst our species. But then you add the social aspects. You add the environment, the cultural aspects. You add the feelings that come in. And adolescence becomes very, very confusing. You add the physical changes and the things we’re bombarded with, with advertising, with social media, and then the crooked, corrupt, incompetent United Nations trying to break the family, pushing some of these things. We see all of this going on. It’s no wonder people are unhappy or have dysphoria and distress and somewhat distortion of reality.

Malcolm Roberts:

I’ve had distortions of reality. We all do. They’re called being incredibly angry, being overwhelmed, being stressed because of something. We all do that. But what we’ve got now is a group of agencies and even governments pushing kids down the line to have bits of their bodies chopped off, surgically altered, hormones going in there at critical parts of their life and they’re maturing, and these hormones disrupting the natural processes. This is not healthy.

Andrew Orr:

No. Of course, the question is why have medical practitioners become involved in this? The whole thing, as I said, it comes from a social science background. It comes from this gender identity/fluidity ideology. What else can we call it?

Malcolm Roberts:

Ideology, yes.

Andrew Orr:

So it’s just confusing as to why doctors, who’ve had their training, why they would include a small subset of my profession as elected and why would-

Malcolm Roberts:

Why?

Andrew Orr:

Maybe out of compassion. We might argue in this place, compassion to participate. Now that level of participation involves hormonal interventions. In Australia, it’s not possible to obtain surgical reassignment or affirmation surgery, they call it euphemistically, until you’re no longer a minor. But throughout the world in places, girls have had their breasts removed at the age of 13 and that sort of thing, and it would be dreadful to think if that intervention crept into Australian society. The hormonal intervention itself is not without its risks in the long term. It’s associated with unacceptable risk of infertility and loss of sexual function as an adult. So it’s not reversible the way it’s been claimed by some of the activists. So you wonder why there has been this collusion.

Andrew Orr:

And the other group that have puzzled me even more, not so much the ones who’ve been actively colluding and participating out of let’s call it misplaced compassion, but the ones who should know better, the senior ones who said nothing. And you wonder why. You can understand why many young ones who have said nothing, they have the threat of career retribution. That’s always looming large because as you say, you’re immediately branded as transphobic as soon as you’ve come up with an alternative idea. But the truth of the whole thing is irrevocable. I think it was Winston Churchill who gave that great quote about truth saying, irrevocable truth is denied by ideology. It may be denied by alternative conviction. And of course, it may be distorted by malice, but in the end, truth stands, irrevocable.

Andrew Orr:

As Thomas Sowell, the American philosopher, said, it’s like the north. It’s going to be there and the winds will blow and the snow will fall and the sun will be bloody. Everything will collapse. And when it’s all settled, there it is. It’s still north. So truth is something, I think as a medical practitioner, it’s something we always should be striving for. And I think what’s happened, I think … Yeah.

Malcolm Roberts:

That compass-

Andrew Orr:

We’ve gone on into this cul-de-sac.

Malcolm Roberts:

That compass in you is strong. I can sense that. So let’s come back and talk about being branded transphobic and maybe explore some of the issues you’ve just raised in a comprehensive introduction to this topic. We’ll go for a break now and then we’ll come back and hear your views on some of those specifics that you have raised with so much care.

Andrew Orr:

Okay.

Malcolm Roberts:

We’re with Dr. Andrew Orr and we’ll be back after the ad break.

Malcolm Roberts:

Welcome back and we’re with Dr. Andrew Orr. This is Senator Malcolm Roberts.

Malcolm Roberts:

So being branded transphobic, whenever I see someone using a label to condemn someone, pigeonhole them, I see an absence of defence, which usually indicates that what they’re pushing is ideologically driven and not fact based. But so many parents are now becoming labelled transphobic when they just want to talk with their kids who are just entering adolescence at a difficult period, and so their parents shut down. Isn’t that abandoning children?

Andrew Orr:

Well, there’s a fair bit of pressure. If you’re familiar with the term anti-conversion therapy, which has come into legislation in various legal jurisdictions in Australia, it started off in Victoria and the ACT announced in Queensland, anti-conversion therapy is deemed anything other than a clinician affirming a child’s assertion. In other words, you go along with what the child is saying because they’re the final arbiter about what their expression, what their opinion is about themselves in terms of gender. So a number of child and adolescent psychiatrists and paediatricians will be feeling a level of disquiet about how vulnerable they might be unless they refer the child to the clinic. The clinics are totally overwhelmed. I might say the numbers are just ridiculous. There are long waiting periods so you’ve got children who are left dangling, waiting for appointments.

Andrew Orr:

But a lot of clinicians are feeling that they can’t really … Well, they’re vulnerable if they don’t follow the party line as it were. So that’s an issue. And of course, that extends beyond just clinicians. That extend to counsellors, psychologists, and even parents are being felt vulnerable unless they act on the child’s assertion. They may well become vulnerable legally, which I can’t think of any other medical condition that’s subject to just one legally obligatory treatment protocol, in this case that of an affirmation model.

Malcolm Roberts:

So can we discuss those terms because I feel very confused about them? Can you tell us what affirmation model is? Can you tell us what anti-conversion therapy is? I think that’s being mandated now in law, isn’t it, in some states in this country?

Andrew Orr:

Yes, it’s in Queensland. Yes.

Malcolm Roberts:

So what’s affirmation model and what’s anti-conversion therapy?

Andrew Orr:

Affirmation model is you’re accepting what the child says unquestioningly because they are the final arbiter.

Malcolm Roberts:

So we affirm what the child feels.

Andrew Orr:

You’re affirming what they’re saying. You’re not trying to dissuade them in any way. And of course, that’s part of counselling when one … I’m not a trained psychological counsellor, but my understanding is what you do when you have a patient in that situation, regardless of the nature of the complaint, you listen and you try and let them talk their way through. You don’t influence them one way or the other. Many, many decades ago, conversion therapy was described as when homosexuality was a crime and homosexuality was totally socially unacceptable. Clinicians would use all sorts of dreadful physical methods to dissuade people out of their homosexual ideas.

Andrew Orr:

Now, that term has been appropriated to apply to a counsellor or a clinician, who is not affirming a child’s assertion. That’s been deemed as likely to be conversion therapy. And of course, there are significant penalties that apply to that, jail terms and there’s significant fines, and of course de-registration. So people who are faced with children like this are going to feel quite vulnerable, unless they either refer the child to the clinic, that’s really their only option. Unless they’ve had … And I’ve had it said to me that Medical Defence Association have indicated there is a level of protection one could gain by following certain guidelines that’s been published. It’s not quite the same as affirmation, but it’s halfway. It’s one foot on each side of the barbed wire fence, if you know what I mean?

Malcolm Roberts:

Mm-hmm.

Andrew Orr:

So I think a lot of people do juggle these kids. And of course, it’s a matter of where all these kids end up. As I said, the clinic is full, and a lot of the clinicians are feeling a bit wary about what they’re going to do. It’s a real predicament. It is a predicament.

Malcolm Roberts:

So my understanding then, if you could just tick me on this or correct me, confirm or correct, affirmation model says whatever the child says is right. And then if we dare counsel our child or counsel, if you’re a doctor counselling someone else’s child, then you’re trying to do anti-conversion.

Andrew Orr:

Yes.

Malcolm Roberts:

And that is deemed illegal in some states already.

Andrew Orr:

Yes.

Malcolm Roberts:

And yet, my basic understanding of medicine has been smashed by what they’ve done with the response to COVID where we don’t get a consultation with a doctor. We get a doctor giving us orders on what they’ve been told they must do. But my understanding of the way I use a doctor is I go to a doctor presenting with some symptoms, some problems, some concerns, some fears. I listen to that doctor. The doctor tries to prescribe something. I then engage in a dialogue to understand better and get the risks and the advantages, and then I make up my mind with the doctor’s guidance. That’s correct?

Andrew Orr:

Yeah, that sounds reasonable. Yeah.

Malcolm Roberts:

But we can’t do that when a child presents with gender dysphoria, even though maybe a very confused 12-year-old, entering adolescence, normal confusion. That can’t happen, so the doctor is under enormous pressure to not be seen to be anti-conversion.

Andrew Orr:

Yes. Malcolm, back in 2018, the Federal ALP at the Federal Conference enshrined the principle of affirmation.

Malcolm Roberts:

What?

Andrew Orr:

Yeah, with the change of federal government. I would just suggest to you that predictably, the various state governments may well be encouraged because they would have federal backing on this to more carefully look into what’s happening, and maybe various clinicians might be feeling doubly vulnerable. I’m just predicting what could reasonably be assumed might happen just because of the change of government. That was just one aspect that occurred to me that might make me think that if I was a child and adolescent psychiatrist, I’d be especially doubly feeling more vulnerable than I was six months ago, maybe. Just a thought.

Malcolm Roberts:

This is Senator Malcolm Roberts and I’m with a wonderful retired doctor, who’s been very concerned about gender dysphoria and what it’s doing to our children. So, Dr. Orr, where did the therapeutic professions, the psychiatrists and psychologists stand on this issue? They’re the ones who are supposedly counselling these children and families.

Andrew Orr:

Yeah.

Malcolm Roberts:

But if you’re the mother or the father, then you can be labelled transphobic, so you don’t get involved. If you’re the doctor, you could be afraid of anti-conversion therapy. So this just seems to be abandoning our children at a time when they most need us. Where do the psychiatrists and psychologists stand on it?

Andrew Orr:

Well, that’s a very good point. And I’ve been canvasing an idea to anyone who’d listen, making the following suggestion. It’s been suggested that the whole idea is controversial, the idea of treatment outcomes, the idea of affirmation treatment. I should add to you that affirmation is adopted to children once they vocalise this dysphoria, their symptoms, significant distress. It’s really once they’ve gone on this period of six months. That’s my understanding from what the clinicians at the gender clinic have told me.

Andrew Orr:

So that’s what’s supposed to be the criteria for affirming or offering affirmation, which can lead to hormonal intervention. The child has to have expressed this thing for a significant … persisting for at least six months, something like that. So it’s not like come in today and we’ll put you on the drugs tomorrow. Obviously, the clinicians at the clinic are compassionate and wanting to do the right thing. I should have made that point clear. I think that’s significant.

Andrew Orr:

So getting back to the child and adolescent psychiatrists as a body, they have a college, and the college has recently expressed an opinion about what their members should do. That policy basically is pretty much you make up your own mind about whether you refer the child to the clinic or not, but whatever you do, just be careful that it’s not likely to be deemed anti-conversion therapy. So you really need to examine carefully what you think the motives are for the child making these assertions.

Andrew Orr:

And because the outcome of all this is not known, we don’t really know the long term. It hasn’t been going long enough to know what the outcome of all this intervention is going to be. So it is controversial and it is contested. I would have thought-

Andrew Orr:

If you took that-

Malcolm Roberts:

So the doctors-

Andrew Orr:

Yeah. The doctors as a body, all the child and adolescent psychiatrists, were they to be canvased in let’s say a secret ballot like a voluntary plebiscite, do you support the idea of obligatory affirmation of a child’s assertion? Do you think that’s a good idea that we should have legislation for that?

Andrew Orr:

And the other point I’d like to put to them as a body would be ask the members of that group, secondly, would you support the deferment of hormonal intervention in minors until they reach a mature age decision about it? And intuitively, I would’ve thought most of them would be on board with thinking, no, we don’t agree. It’s legally obligatory that it should be affirmation. And yes, we would probably as a group, I would think an overwhelming majority would say, “We’d like to see hormonal intervention made legally obligatory that had been deferred until the child is no longer a minor.”

Andrew Orr:

So I think that’s the focus. I think that’s got to be the direction in which the profession goes. And I think if you’ve got that information, then it might go some way to convincing legislators that the whole thing is not as controversial as the activists, the protagonists declare, if they can be convinced that most of the serious clinicians, mainly the psychiatrists feel that way. That may influence legislators to say, “Well, maybe this legislation for anti-conversion therapy should be withdrawn. And maybe we should introduce legislation that makes medical intervention, hormonal intervention, not surgical intervention, hormonal intervention, make that deferred while the child is a minor.” So they’d be the two optimal outcomes one would like to see happen to my mind.

Malcolm Roberts:

So this could be yet another case of someone pushing an ideology, as a few groups pushing an ideology, the doctors being afraid, the parents being afraid. The fact that the media has got this into a stage where it’s now politically incorrect to oppose it, so everyone is afraid of saying anything. Then we have AHPRA, the Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Agency, and the AHPPC, the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee. They are putting enormous pressure on doctors. The doctors are now terrified of the media. They’re terrified of being labelled transphobic, just as our parents. They’re afraid of being, what, sent to jail, fines, de-registered.

Andrew Orr:

Yeah.

Malcolm Roberts:

And then they see legislation in some states talking about, just saying something to counsel a child to think maybe consider, anti-conversion therapy. So the doctor then, what you’re saying, I think, is that there could be a lot of fear around this and a lot of uncertainty. And what you need is that plebiscite of psychiatrists and psychologists and their views also on deferment of treatment to minors, whether it be hormonal treatment or surgical treatment.

Andrew Orr:

I think that might go some way, Malcolm, to convince legislators because at the moment, all they’re listening to are the activists, and they’ve been quite powerful, and they’ve had the ear of legislators to be able to obtain that legislation. So I think they need to listen. The legislators need to listen to people. That might come up with a reason to change their mind. That’s just a thought. That’s all.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, that makes sense to me because legislators are put up on little pedestals and praised as little tin gods so often around the country. I’m continually asked, “Oh, what’s your view on this?” How the hell would I know? It’s just a new topic to me. What’s your view on that? What’s your view on that? I’m treated as if I’m an expert on everything, and I’m simply not. The difference between me and others is that I’ll admit that, but the legislators are largely ignorant and they’re easy prey to activists who are pushing an agenda through the media, and so legislators respond to the media.

Malcolm Roberts:

So this is just an ideologically driven campaign that is hurting our kids. And ultimately, when our kids go through adolescence, confused and have hormonal treatment, which disrupts, destroys their development or they have bits and pieces cut off their bodies, and then they don’t have a full sex life later on, they have disease coming in later on, they have heartache. Then they’re really in trouble psychologically. We’re leaving these kids out to dry because we haven’t got the courage to say, what the hell is going on?

Andrew Orr:

Yeah. Well, in the United States, and as I said to you, I think as we all have observed, much what happens here, we follow the American themes, don’t we really, in so many different areas. Well, in the United States, what worries me, I’m just thinking in terms of participation of paediatric endocrinologists, across the United States is a network called Planned Parenthood, whose function was basically pregnancy termination services and contraceptive advice and services. But they’ve increased their business model now to dealing with children who are presenting at the clinics sent by counsellors, and these clinics or Planned Parenthood include paediatric endocrinologists, whose function is almost last cab off the rank, to provide the child with the hormones because the psychologists, who sent the child there, aren’t prescribing clinicians. They’re not qualified to do that.

Andrew Orr:

So they’ve got to involve medical practitioners significantly, specifically the endocrinologist, to supply the hormone. So the endocrinologists there supply the hormones, and the child goes, and there’s a complete abrogation of any sense of ongoing clinical responsibility. They’re basically just one little cog in the wheel. That sort of thing as of my reading, if that’s absolutely true and I have no reason to think it’s not true, when you see that sort of thing that it’s progressed to that level in a place like the United States, you wonder if we can expect that behaviour here. I would like to think it wouldn’t be possible, but there you go. You just got to look at what happens over there and think, goodness me, if that would’ve happened here.

Malcolm Roberts:

Can we take an ad break now, Dr. Orr, and be right back with you straight after the ad break and continue this?

Andrew Orr:

Thank you.

Malcolm Roberts:

Okay. We’ll be right back with Dr. Andrew Orr to continue discussions on gender dysphoria.

Malcolm Roberts:

Welcome back. This is Senator Malcolm Roberts, and my special guest is Dr. Andrew Orr, and we’re talking about gender dysphoria. TNT Radio, the only thing we mandate is the truth, and that’s what’s so important here, and it’s taken a while to get me to understand this. Pardon my ignorance, Dr. Orr. So we’ve now understood that this is a problem that’s driven by activists, exacerbated by peer pressure at a very sensitive age for kids. It’s out of touch. How could you say it? Medical bureaucrats, who are giving orders. Can we have an idea of just how big this problem is? How prevalent is gender dysphoria in Queensland? How many children are affected and how worried should we be, Andrew?

Andrew Orr:

Well, as I said to you, my understanding is that the clinic at the new Queensland Children’s Hospital is the largest outpatient clinic at the hospital. I understand there’s something of the order of 750 children currently this year. Well, I think it’s doubled over the last year or two, who are enrolled at the clinic, who are seen by the clinicians at the children’s hospital. So their waiting times are significant, so a lot of children who have been referred cannot be seen. And I think the same things happen down in the big clinic in Melbourne, I think. That’s my understanding. So it’s a big problem.

Malcolm Roberts:

750 children at a clinic. What about all the children not at the clinic? That would be a far greater number. So this is almost an epidemic of this.

Andrew Orr:

Yeah, that’s a misunderstanding. I’m not talking about 750 kids with their moms in one room.

Malcolm Roberts:

No.

Andrew Orr:

I’m talking about outpatient clinic to be clear.

Malcolm Roberts:

Okay. Yeah. No, but if they’re the ones who are getting clinical treatment then they’d be the tip of the iceberg.

Andrew Orr:

Yeah, of course.

Malcolm Roberts:

So we’ve got something that’s out of control and that is really affecting and hurting not just the children who are the key focus here, but also families and therefore communities, parents worried sick and doctors under pressure.

Andrew Orr:

Yeah, absolutely.

Malcolm Roberts:

So from your perspective then, your medical perspective, what’s your take on FINA’s decision to ban transgender participants for elite competition? Should it stop at just the elite sports? I think you’re involved with a rowing club, I won’t mention the club’s name, but which has community ramifications.

Andrew Orr:

Yes. Well, Malcolm, can I just refer to something I’ve dug up, which your listeners might be interested in? This comes from Margaret Somerville, a professor of bioethics at the National School of Medicine at the University of Notre Dame Australia. She was a founding board member of the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport and a member of the World Anti-Doping Agency’s Ethical Issues Review Panel.

Andrew Orr:

So what I thought I might do is I know you’re going to ask me about that, I had a look at some resource material, and I think let me just read this. “It merits noting that Sport Australia’s guidelines for the inclusion of transgender and gender diverse people in sport, human rights informing principles call for equality but not fairness.” So basically that’s the Sports Australia’s guidelines.

Andrew Orr:

So go back a step. The World Anti-Doping Agency was founded back in November 1999. It lists drugs athletes are prohibited from using, but it also has the term therapeutic use exemption guidelines, TUE guidelines that allow the use of prohibited drugs for necessary medical treatment. In 2017, it produced a document called The Therapeutic Use Exemption Physician Guidelines, transgender athletes, which states, “The exclusive purpose of this medical information is to define the criteria for granting a therapeutic use exemption for the treatment with substances on the prohibited list to transgender athletes. It is not the purpose of this medical information to define the criteria of the eligibility of these athletes to participate in competitive sport, which is entirely left to the different sporting federations and organisations.”

Andrew Orr:

So that’s the important thing. It is left to the different sporting federations. So you’ve seen FINA come out with their opinion. So in short, this World Anti-Doping Authority deals only with what the medical evidence requirements would be for an exemption permission to use cross-sex hormones. It actually ducks the issue of whether trans athletes taking these drugs should be allowed to compete in their transgender category.

Andrew Orr:

The authority was founded to prevent the use of performance enhancing drugs, however, the issue faced in cross-sex hormone treatment for trans women, biological males, is where the performance dis-enhancing drugs to reduce natural testosterone levels should be allowed as an exemption in trans men, biological women. The question is whether performance enhancing testosterone should be allowed.

Andrew Orr:

So it’s acknowledged that these were only recommendations and the decisions about inclusion of transgender athletes was up to the individual sports federations. Now we’ve heard what FINA said with regard to swimming. Rowing Australia I think has made a similar exclusion, except when it comes down to social rowing where they’ve adopted the line suggested by the Sport Australia where you include transgender and gender diverse people. So in that case, they’ve forgotten about fairness and they’ve gone with the work idea of laissez-faire.

Malcolm Roberts:

And so now, all the pressure from the ideologists, the activists is now pushed on to community sporting groups like rowing clubs, like cricket clubs, like football clubs, and they have to make that decision, and they are bombarded by the same woke media, pushing the activist line, the same bombarding by ignorant and gutless politicians. So that’s why we’re going to have to wrap up pretty soon. So I just want you to repeat your solution, and we’ve got about two minutes, if that, your solution is a voluntary plebiscite of psychiatrists and psychologists and de-affirmative treatment to all minors.

Andrew Orr:

Yes. And also de-affirmative treat … That’s right. Well, an abolishment of anti-conversion therapy, which will take away the threat of legislation to clinicians and the legally obligatory de-affirmative hormonal intervention in minors. And I think that’s the goal I would see my profession as pursuing.

Malcolm Roberts:

Thank you. Where can parents, families, people within our communities, people in the medical health, where can they go for more information? You mentioned that book. Perhaps you could mention that book, the title again, and then mention any sources, any websites that you could steer people to.

Andrew Orr:

Yeah, look, Malcolm. There’s so many, but let me just mention two. There’s a book by Helen Joyce called Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality. That’s a book. It’s Oneworld Publication. It’s just called Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality.

Andrew Orr:

The other thing I think that’s worth reading as an interested listener might be, the wonderful Douglas Murray, who you might know, who’s the assistant editor at the London Spectator Magazine, who’s frequently interviewed on YouTube. He’s written a book called The Madness of Crowds, which very interestingly-

Malcolm Roberts:

Oh yes. Yes.

Andrew Orr:

He’s written about the different movements that have occurred through society, the civil rights movement, the women’s rights movement, the gay rights movement. And then lastly, the one, as he says, we least understand is the trans movement. If you got that book, The Madness of Crowds, I just read the last chapter, that is excellent.

Malcolm Roberts:

Okay. We’re going to have to go, but I’m going to say before we go, thank you so much, Dr. Andrew Orr for what you have done, what you continue to do and for a fabulous discussion today. This is Senator Malcolm Roberts, staunchly pro-human and a believer in the inherent goodness in human beings.

Andrew Orr:

Excellent.

Malcolm Roberts:

Please remember to listen to one another and to love one another. Stay very proud of who we are as humans. Thank you, Andrew. Thank you all for listening.

Andrew Orr:

My pleasure.

Malcolm Roberts:

Catch you again in two weeks’ time.