Podcasts from Senator Malcolm Roberts

Join me with Anthony Dillon as we talk about his history and why he believes the Voice will not help Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.

Is Australia the New World Order’s testing ground? I discuss this and more with Maria Zeee on the Alex Jones Show.


A pleasure to join the Regional Wrap again to talk about unlocking Queensland’s huge potential. Thanks for having me.

Join me with world renowned climate realist Tony Heller as we go through the actual data on temperature and climate.

Phillip Altman joins me on TNT radio for a special 2 hours on the Time of COVID.

This man is described as having the best court affidavits in the country. They’re objective, they’re factual. They’re not based on opinions. They’re based on data. There’s no exaggeration. There’s no emotion. This is a wonderfully emotional, sensitive man, but he doesn’t use emotions in making arguments.

He uses logic and data. He has a calm voice. He has a deliberate well-chosen words. This man is accurate. Now, we brought him into the COVID fray to help with getting ivermectin approved some months… well probably 18 months ago.

When I say we, one of my staff recommended him, and we assigned him to a doctor. And he was very helpful there. Then he started to realise what was going on. Now, this man is one of the leading players in this country, fighting for freedom, raising people’s awareness, fighting for the vaccine injured, fighting for the relatives of those who’ve died as a result of the COVID injections. I shouldn’t call them vaccines or injections, unproven gene therapy-based treatments.

Transcript

Part 1

Speaker 1:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, good day and welcome. This is Senator Malcolm Roberts broadcasting from Brisbane in Queensland Australia. Thank you for having me, wherever you are, whether it’s your lounge room, your bedroom, your bathroom maybe, your garage, your men’s shed, your back deck, front porch, wherever you are, whichever country you are on this beautiful little planet of ours. As usual, we will be talking about two themes, freedom and responsibility, the key to human progress and personal happiness in security. We’re going to have two hours today. Both hours are going to be with a very special man who has had decades of experience working with big pharma and with Australian medical bureaucrats.

He will provide the most extensive coverage of COVID to date. Before getting onto that though, we need to acknowledge the news that’s going on in the last week, two weeks since I was last with you. The queen has passed. I want to acknowledge my appreciation, my gratitude for her service. This woman has served remarkably for decades, the longest serving head of state of our country, of Britain, of the longest serving Monarch in Britain’s history. I want to also acknowledge that we are a constitutional monarchy. In that, we are effectively a Republic because the Republic is run by rule of law. It’s a system of governance that requires laws that are supreme.

It’s very important to understand that our constitution is the our governing document of our nation. The queen, unless she’s passed and now the king does not rule us. We are not ruled by these people. They provide a role in there that’s a medium, but we resort to them for clarification on certain decisions. They do not rule us. Unlike in Britain, where they effectively can rule, but in essence, don’t. We are a constitutional monarchy. The constitution recognises the queen or the king, but the constitution is the governing document. Now we’ve got talk, stupid talk about a Republic that people want to dissolve our constitution, and put in place a politician’s constitution.

This country is wonderfully unique I understand, if not unique entirely on its own than with a handful of countries in which the people voted for the constitution, the people voted for the document that governs them. Now, that’s why I remember back when I was in my 20s, there was a movement led by Malcolm Turnbull to replace the constitution with a politician’s constitution. I was in favour of that initially, because I was ignorant of our constitutional monarchy and our constitution. And I supported it, until I heard three justices from the high court, including the chief justice speaker to conference in Brisbane. And I switched because I realised instead of having a people’s constitution, Malcolm Turnbull and his Republic movement wanted a politician’s constitution.

I don’t know about you, but I’m far better off I believe under a people’s constitution. And some people say, “What about Prince Andrew and all the others that have been making headlines for the wrong reasons?” Well, point to me a family that does not have its issues. What we’ve got remember above all is that we have got a constitutional monarchy. The monarchs from Britain do not rule us, the constitution rules us. We’ve also had another topic that’s really serious, probably the most far reaching legislation, very innocent in its call, but taking us to supposedly net zero. The minister pushing it in the Senate just last week could not provide me with any evidence that we need this.

And in fact, she gave me 20 papers supposedly as evidence, but they were papers like the topic, titled something this. The effect of climate change on a tropical mountain. I kid you not, These people do not even understand because and effect. The papers she gave me almost universally assume climate change is real and being caused by us, and then talk about the consequences. That’s not what I want. What I want is proof that we are causing climate change, and we need to do something about it. We also in the Senate, I asked questions about COVID death and birth data. We got an order for production of documents, and we saw some of the ABS data that has been withheld slowly coming out as a result of my effort in the Senate, my staff effort in the Senate.

We got a long way to go, but it’s initially very, very revealing, deaths are up and they’re not aligned with COVID. They’re aligned with something else. We all know what they are, and that’s the huge number of adverse events and adverse effects, and deaths due to the COVID injections. The Mouthpiece Media shuts it up. They’re silent. The Mouthpiece Media misrepresent climate. The Mouthpiece Media misrepresent what’s happening in the Ukraine. Now, we’ve got the US imposing sanctions on China supposedly because of Taiwan. We have got this same people driving all of this agenda, but another thing I’m very proud to have been a part of. My staff and I have been working on the Iron Boomerang project which is billions of dollars’ worth of investment.

And people already lining up major steel companies wanting to set up steel mills in the east coast of Queensland, the west coast of Western Australia, taking the iron ore from Western Australia on a transcontinental railway, especially built for the purpose bringing iron ore to the east, and then taking coal to the west. And we would become a very large significant player in the steel industry. These are wonderful things, and we managed to get that now the subject of a Senate inquiry, but let’s move to my guest, and what a wonderful man he is. Last Saturday, he addressed a group of doctors and communities in Melbourne. When he finished his 22-minute speech, he got a standing ovation.

This man is described as having the best court affidavits in the country. They’re objective, they’re factual. They’re not based on opinions. They’re based on data. There’s no exaggeration. There’s no emotion. This is a wonderfully emotional, sensitive man, but he doesn’t use emotions in making arguments. He uses logic and data. He has a calm voice. He has a deliberate well-chosen words. This man is accurate. Now, we brought him into the COVID fray to help with getting ivermectin approved some months… well probably 18 months ago. When I say we, one of my staff recommended him, and we assigned him to a doctor. And he was very helpful there. Then he started to realise what was going on.

Now, this man is one of the leading players in this country, fighting for freedom, raising people’s awareness, fighting for the vaccine injured, fighting for the relatives of those who’ve died as a result of the COVID injections. I shouldn’t call them vaccines or injections, unproven gene therapy-based treatments. I want to welcome Dr. Phillip Altman. Hi there Phillip.

Phillip Altman:

Hi Malcolm. Thanks for having me.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, thank you so much for being here. We’re going to have the whole two hours with you, and then we’re going to really, really go into your speech in depth. Before we start, something you appreciate, anything at all.

Phillip Altman:

Well, perhaps I should just let your listeners know a little bit about my history, and where I’ve come from.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, before then Phillip, something you appreciate, anything at all.

Phillip Altman:

Something that I appreciate?

Malcolm Roberts:

Yes. Right now, what do you appreciate?

Phillip Altman:

Well, I think I appreciate the people around me who are fighting like you wouldn’t believe for truth in relation to COVID. There are so many heroes here, I just cannot name them all. These are people that work night and day to try and overcome the mask censorship, which prevails here and overseas. Most people have no idea what the truth of COVID really is, and there are people fighting against all odds to try and bring the truth to people. And I just admire them so much.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, I must say I’ve got a copy of your slides from last week, and you said truth and trust, casualties of the pandemic. And I wrote down the words deceit, betrayal, and potentially genocide. They’re pretty startling comments, but let’s take you up on your offer. Tell me your background please, so the listeners understand who this man is.

Phillip Altman:

All right. Well, I’ve been on TNT before and some of your listeners might have heard this story. But basically, my history is one of big pharma. I started off with a bachelor’s degree in pharmacy at Sydney University, went on to complete a master’s at the same department of pharmacy, and then a PhD in drug development. I was researching a new class of car cardio to drugs, and that really set me up for joining the industry. I joined the pharmaceutical industry in Australia. I worked there for many, many years. I think my first job in the industry was probably about 1973. Worked for several big pharma companies as a staff member. And after a number of years, I decided I knew enough, I could become a consultant. And I was a one man band for a while, and very successful.

And it grew and grew and grew, and I eventually ended up with a company which was called a contract research organisation, a CRO. Now, there are CROs all over the world now, but I started Australia’s first CRO. And I employed scientists, doctors, nurses, pharmacists, health economists, statisticians, and so forth. Drug companies could come to me, could come to my company and I could assist them to lodge and evaluate new drug applications, to design clinical trials, to run clinical trials, to write clinical trial reports. We did absolutely everything. We were basically a mini drug company, not with products of our own, but we did all the signs that was needed behind the approval for new drugs.

I was used to evaluating the quality of data. I used to evaluate data packages for big pharma. Before I would submit them, draught applications, draught reports for big pharma. I worked very closely with the TGA over four decades. I know exactly how they operate. I know exactly what their standards are. I knew the people very, very well. They knew me. I have to admit it, I have been a big pharma guy.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, I think things have changed in big pharma recently, but we all recognise sometimes, we haven’t been with the good guys. And that’s to your credit, you’ve recognised that. And you’ve now become the strongest expose of what they’ve been doing. So, around four decades Phillip?

Phillip Altman:

Yeah, yeah, sure.

Malcolm Roberts:

Okay.

Phillip Altman:

And when this pandemic first came about, I was as fearful as anyone else, right? And I was a very interested in what was going on with operation warp speed, with these so-called vaccines. This was blue sky tech technology that I had never seen before, and my first interest was picked by the way ivermectin was being attacked in the media. And it just didn’t make any sense to me, because ivermectin is a very valuable drug worldwide. It’s an incredible drug. It’s on the WHO list of essential drugs used for parasitic infections. In general, it’s considered to be a relatively safe drug, much safer than paracetamol, right? And has done amazing things in the world. The discoverers of ivermectin won the Nobel Prize in medicine. It’s that important.

And when it was being demonised, I started to talk to some doctors. And I just couldn’t understand what the hell was going on, and then my interest was peaked in these so-called vaccines. And it began to worry me, because it just didn’t seem to make a lot of sense. The spike protein which these gene-based therapies produce is the toxic component of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. And to use that is a mechanism, to produce the antibodies just to my mind did make a lot of sense. I started to get interested. And since then, I’ve been talking to lots of people. And basically because I’m the only person in Australia that has extensive clinical trial and drug regulatory affairs experience, is prepared to talk about these issues and come forward.

I’m at an intersection between scientists, clinicians, lawyers and so forth. And I’ve spent much of my time in the last year writing affidavits. I write affidavits. They’re not opinion pieces. They’re just factual pieces of evidence to assist the court in terms of vaccine mandates, in cases where you have two parents who split up and one parent wants to inject the child and another doesn’t. They go to family court, there’s that, but there’s big cases too, like the judicial review cases in Australia for the five to 11 year olds. There’s the similar case in New Zealand in the high court there. I wrote leading affidavits for both those cases, and commented on the decisions of the department of health in New Zealand and the Department of Health here, who I know well.

So, that’s been my main activity. But I must say in recent times, having looked at all the data and I follow it… I get up in the morning, and I make myself some coffee. And I sit down and plough through paper after paper that’s been published and sent to me that day. A lot of people send me papers, and I just try and educate myself every day as to what the latest information is. And I’ve really come to a point where this whole situation with COVID is now reached a level, where we know the facts. I’ve gone a little bit past [inaudible 00:18:09] of the data.

Malcolm Roberts:

Excuse me, excuse me Dr. Altman.

Phillip Altman:

Yeah.

Malcolm Roberts:

Excuse me Dr. Altman. Phillip, we need to take an ad break now and then listeners will be back. And we’ll explore exactly what this man said last Saturday, and we’ll get his own comments on it. Stay right here, we’ll be back in just a minute and we’ll be continuing and unlocking what is in Dr. Phillip Altman’s mind and experience in his heart.

Male:

You should hear what Jeremy Nell is talking about.

Jeremy Nell:

Yesterday was 911. I’m going to do a full deep dive with Joe Olson, who is an absolute engineering guru. And he has spent years on this.

Joe Olson:

They had copies of the stamped New York city approved structural plans for world trade centres one and two. The buildings are almost identical, and then they also had the stamp plans for world trade centre seven. I sat there and reviewed the plans. And it was like, “My God, there’s no way an aeroplane can knock down this building, and then they had split screen with side by side comparisons of a admitted controlled demolition on one side, and the world trading centre buildings coming down on the other side.” Both of them that free fall because you knock out all of the supports inside the building. I’m watching that and it’s like, “Jesus Christ, this is 100% controlled demolition.”

Male:

Jeremy Nell on Today’s News Talk TNT radio.

Male:

Let’s take advantage of the freedom that we have while we have them to advance the kingdom’s objective, to be Salton light.

Male:

Freedom is hard. Elections security involves you, involves the voters.

Male:

This election for people of faith, it’s vital that we see a change because the war against Christians is a all-time high. Transparency is the key not only to having honest elections, but to maintaining public trust in those elections.

Female:

Our ability to vote is not being withheld from us. No one’s trying to stop you from voting.

Male:

The one place the American people can have a say is at the ballot box. That’s why the Democrats and in the far left are working so hard to get rid of all election integrity.

Male:

We cannot let our elections be anything, but transparent. It is at the very heart of freedom and a free society.

Female:

And if we lose America, I mean it’s all over because the world has looked to America for hope.

Male:

Free and Fair at salemnow.com.

Speaker 1:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

Welcome back. This is Senator Malcolm Roberts in Brisbane, Queensland Australia. I’ve got Dr. Phillip Altman with me. He’s had 40 years working with big pharma, 40 years working with the bureaucrats. He’s got an American accent. We might talk about that later, but he’s been in Australia for decades. He understands the process of approval and every aspect of drug approval, drug testing. He understands the science. He understands how to evaluate data. He’s worked with the TGA for four decades. He’s been very familiar with the wonderful drug, the Nobel Prize winning drug ivermectin, and was stunned. And that’s what woke him coming into this discussion on COVID, because they withdrew ivermectin.

He understands clinical trials and drug regulations. He understands the Department of Health federally. He updates himself every day, and that’s what I look at, someone who can say, “Hang on a minute, there’s something wrong here. And maybe I’ve been a part of it, but I need to do my bit.” And he listens, and he gathers data daily basis, even though he’s retired because he has such care for people. Now, I’m going to go through his speech with him that he delivered last Saturday and got a standing ovation for. It was at a conference entitled Reclaiming Medicine Conference. Reclaiming medicine, that’s right because the title is because they have stolen the medical profession from doctors.

When we go to doctors these days, unless we have a fine doctor who’s courageous and has integrity, we are not getting his opinion or her opinion. We’re getting the medical bureaucrat’s orders. I understand it was organised by the Australian medical professional society, which is now starting to represent and is growing rapidly, starting to represent doctors who are honest and strong, very concerned about where medicine is not going in this country. And I understand that doctors and lawyers spoke. Dr. Phillip Altman was opened his speech with these words. “I’m not going to sugarcoat this presentation, and I’m also not going to waste your time going over the mountain of scientific evidence and statistics that show the Australian people have been deceived. We have been lied to.”

Then he went on and said, “We must face reality the COVID gene-based vaccines have undoubtedly failed to live up to expectations.” Now, this is a man Who’s an expert in this field, not only on the drugs, but in approval process and science and analysis. Then he goes on these so-called vaccines do not prevent infection. They do not prevent transmission of infection, and they are not keeping people out of hospital. These so-called vaccines are not safe. I’ll say that again, are not safe. They have caused more deaths and serious adverse effects than any drug in the history of medicine way, way more by the way. Anyone who disagrees with these simple facts just has not bothered to look.”

Going to be discussing with Phillip, his speech very, very strong, clear, unequivocal statements. Okay, the first statement that I’d like to inquire with is you said countless thousands of health professionals and scientists across the world, including myself that’s you are totally convinced these vaccines are doing more harm than good. Could you please explain?

Phillip Altman:

Yeah. These gene-based vaccines are a completely new class of therapeutic good of drug, and they were rushed to development in 10 months. It usually takes about seven to 10 years to research and develop, and demonstrate that vaccines are safe and effective. These were rushed to the market in 10 months, and they were rushed to the market without the normal safety testing. Now, what that means is that we are all reliant on the postmarketing, adverse drug reaction reporting, which is a voluntary reporting system after drugs are released, but these drugs were not just released to a small group of seriously ill people. They were released worldwide to everyone, to healthy people, to people that were not at risk, to adolescents that were not at risk, to children, to pregnant women.

And now, infants is as young as six months of age, all healthy…

Malcolm Roberts:

And Phillip, despite what the previous prime minister said in his lies, they were coerced. They were forced on people. Hideous.

Phillip Altman:

They were, and it’s just unconscionable because our chief health officers were running around the country and appearing on TV and elsewhere, saying that these things were, “Safe and efficacious” without any qualification. That is reprehensible. It’s actually against the law, because they’re not entitled to say that. They have not been fully evaluated. The safety data has not been provided, has not been evaluated. They couldn’t say that and of course, companies interpreted that statement at its face value, and gave them licence to enforce vaccine mandates. Really if you know the truth that these things were rushed to development without the normal safety testing done, no long term safety at all there.

I mean I can tell you there’s huge questions about the long term safety. They rush to market very quickly, not fully approved and an employer turns around and says, “You have to receive this gene-based therapy.” It’s not even a vaccine. This gene-based therapy this new class of drug that’s only been researched for 10 months. And if you don’t accept receiving this drug, you can’t hold a job. It’s never been done before. It leaves me speechless that this is actually still going on, and the TGA know the data. They know what’s happening in the world with what’s called excess deaths, and excess deaths all around the world now, not only Australia. It’s up about 17%, but in almost every country, excess deaths, non-COVID deaths.

I’m talking about non-COVID related deaths. These are cancer deaths. These are cardiovascular deaths, heart attacks, stroke and so forth are up all over the world significantly. And these excess deaths correspond very closely with the rollout of COVID 19 so-called vaccines and yet our TGA, USFDA, the European regulatory agency stand by and say nothing. And vaccine mandates are still being in post. I was in court last week in regard to one of my affidavits. I was an expert witness, and I appeared. And guess, what not a single question was asked of me regarding the data that I presented. The other side just wanted to attack me personally, and we never even got to a single question about the safety and efficacy of these gene based vaccines.

And I have written extensively on this topic and made submissions to the government to, which of course they haven’t responded. And it’s just-

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, thank you so much…

Phillip Altman:

… very dismaying.

Malcolm Roberts:

It is indeed, but what it shows me with that last little statement you made is that they are afraid of you. If they could counter your facts, they would. When they can’t, they smear instead and they go for the man. They play the man, rather than the ball. So, that’s very encouraging for me. Sorry to have to say that, even though they’re denigrating you, but that’s wonderful news that they cannot have a case. Let’s move on. Before we get deeply involved in these injections, let’s go on to your next statement that you made in your speech last Saturday, and here’s a quote.

“We have been misled and repeatedly lied to by our celebrity health bureaucrats over the need for lockdowns, the effectiveness of paper and cloth mask, and the completely brainless vaccine mandates, which have no basis in science. The level of confidence has been breathtaking.” Again, please explain Dr. Phillip Altman.

Phillip Altman:

Yeah, the level of incompetence has been breathtaking When you think back about. When our celebrity so-called health experts appear in the media, what do they tell you? They were telling us the number of so-called COVID deaths, which weren’t really all COVID deaths. There were only a minor of the number of deaths that were reported were actually COVID deaths, because they were determining a COVID death as anyone who had a positive PCR test and died, right? You can have a positive PCR test and have absolutely no symptoms of COVID. Also, they know the data on cloth and paper mask. There is no scientific evidence that paper and cloth mask do anything. It’s like trying to keep mosquitoes out of your backyard with a cyclone fence.

They know this. They know it, and yet they’re silent. They let people drive around in total fear in their cars, wearing a mask with their windows up. It’s really unbelievable. That’s why what I was trying to say before in my previous, presentations on radio, or to the media. I constantly referred to data to try and convince people about what was going on, but I’m past that now. The data is clear, the data is consistent from country to country. It is so overwhelming. It is undeniable, and the most astounding fact is that out well-paint so-called vaccine experts are silent. They don’t refer to this data. They’ve never referred to excess deaths. Excess deaths is astronomical.

It’s killing hundreds of thousands of people, and yet they say nothing about it. They have statisticians that record the excess deaths. The Australian Bureau of Statistics know exactly the number of excess deaths. Has the TGA come out and mentioned excess death? Has a chief medical officer come out and said, “Hmm, look, this is concerning. We’d like to look into this”? No, there’s nothing, not a glimmer of curiosity at all.

Malcolm Roberts:

It’s worse Phillip. It’s far worse because the ABS has kept back withheld data for about 18 months. One state, Victoria publishes its death data within two weeks of the end of the month, each month. Some other states do not, but they all have the ability to do so. The ABS has withheld death data for 18 months because of exactly what you just said. They have also withheld the birth data, which shows plummeting birth rates. These are really serious things. I also want to move on by saying that the Queensland health minister a few months ago reported that the number of category one that’s serious heart conditions hospital ambulance transports in Queensland has increased 40%. Then she had the goal to say, ‘I wonder what’s causing that.” So, let’s come back to your speech.

We’ll go onto your next paragraph. Here you go again, “Not only did we receive really incompetent advice, such as you can catch COVID from pizza boxes, and ivermectin is really a horse deworming medicine unsuitable for human use, but these same celebrity health experts still have their jobs. These so-called experts have given us a long list of misinformation and disinformation from the very beginning, which continues to this very day, which is resulting in serious health and social consequences. There is no reflection, no introspection, no contemplation, no apologies, and certainly no changing course, despite the clear facts. And orchestrated mask media censorship allows the disinformation to go unchallenged.

The media is complicit. It is shameful, deplorable, and disgraceful.” And Dr. Altman who the hell pays the wages of these people, these bureaucrats? And why are they doing this?

Phillip Altman:

Well, look, in the beginning, very few people knew what the hell was going on, right? I didn’t know much about it. It’s been a learning exercise for me. It has taken a lot of work. And in the beginning, I cut these people slack, because I’ve dealt with the TGA for decades. They’re not nasty people. They’re not dishonest, and they’re very intelligent. They’re very capable, and Australia had a TGA that you could be proud of. And I was proud to work with them. But as the information has now unfolded, there is no doubt that serious mistakes have been made and yet, I see no reflection on the part of these people.

And that is why in the beginning, I thought, “Oh okay, maybe it’s a noble lie thing. Maybe it is a bit of incompetence that the people at the top. I don’t know, but now that we know the data and the data is clear, and they do not come out and say look, let’s reflect on this like the Americans have done.” Both at the CDC, Director Walensky has come out and admitted it. Dr. Burkes who headed up the US response to the pandemic has admitted. They made fundamental errors and miscalculations. And it wasn’t driven by science at all. They’ve admitted that more than a month ago our TGA has been silent, and I believe they’ve been silent because Australia has been singled out with New Zealand as a pilot test case to see how far this COVID pandemic can be pushed in terms of control.

We have in Australia-

Malcolm Roberts:

I agree with you.

Phillip Altman:

… people who are power brokers from overseas, who are giving instructions to our government leaders. And they are taking those instructions, and that’s the only way I can explain it.

Malcolm Roberts:

I agree with you Phillip, but let’s go to another group of people quoting from your next paragraph last Saturday, but it is not only the vaccine experts and the media who have let us down. The heavily conflicted modelling experts, some right here in Melbourne say, “Just think how bad it could have been if we didn’t push these vaccines to be used by everyone. Millions would’ve died.” What do you say to that?

Phillip Altman:

Well, John Kenneth Galbraith, the economist had a famous saying. He said there are two types of modellers; those that don’t know and those that don’t know they don’t know, right? Yeah. The modellers, if you recall in the beginning predicted 150,000 deaths in Australia. That’s clear, that’s been documented. They were way off. The old saying garbage in, garbage out. Now, who are these modellers? When you drill down, you find out who are these modellers, where are they, what institutions are they associated with, and what is the funding of those institutions, your alarm bills start to ring because these institutions that did this modelling, whether it be from the UK, from Imperial College, or from the Doherty Institute in Melbourne are inextricably linked to the vaccine industry in one way or the other.

They don’t come out and say that, but they are. And these spokespeople that speak on behalf or refer to this modelling are also conflicted. Now, that’s why you just can’t trust them, and this modelling was a critical part of the fear campaign.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yes.

Phillip Altman:

And people were just so frightened, they wanted the government to keep them safe. And the government was saying, “Trust us. We will keep you safe. We know what we’re doing.” And most people out there have no idea about how vaccines are evaluated in terms of safety and efficacy, or the adverse drug reporting system, or what’s going on overseas because the media doesn’t tell us anything.” They believe the modelling. The modelling didn’t happen. I believe that these vaccines are killing more people than they save, and I’m not the only one. They’re people much, much, much more important than myself who say the same thing, and it’s a growing number. And they’re in their thousands and thousands overseas, but their voices are being suppressed.

Malcolm Roberts:

And we also have had some pretty significant authorities lie to us. I remember the Doherty Institute did modelling for the government in New Zealand, and that was shown publicly around about March 25th, somewhere around there. 2020 that was by the way, very early on. And that showed peak after peak of virus peaks. In Australia, the Doherty Institute provided the modelling for the prime minister, Mr. Scott Morrison at the time. There was only one peak, that is absolutely farcical, absolutely farcical. We know that viruses take off, then they’re lockdown, take off, lockdown. And that’s what the new Zealanders honestly admitted, but in Australia, not the case. And that was used to justify severe lockdowns, complete rubbish. So, let’s move on Phillip.

You went on to say incompetent health advice led Melbourne to become known as the lockdown capital of the world. These senseless lockdowns destroyed lives. Health bureaucrats played a crucial role in stoking the well-orchestrated fear campaign, which continues today. Fear, fear, fear. The fear campaign was purposely driven by the inappropriate use of PCR testing, which you’ve already mentioned, but which we all know is not diagnostic for disease, and was never intended for that purpose. Fear stampeded the trusting public into accepting new gene-based so-called vaccines, because our chief health bureaucrats and vaccine experts said they were safe and effective. The unsuspecting and trusting public said, “But why would they lie to us?” Some of us know.” Why did they lie to us Phillip?

Phillip Altman:

Well, I think we have to face the facts here that there is such a thing as a pandemic industry now. It is big business. There are powerful forces at play here to push vaccines on the population no matter what, and they’re using fear and censorship to do it. You have to have both. You have to have both the fear and the censorship for this to work, but what is happening is that the body count is mounting up, and the pressure is mounting up. Most people, if you ask people and they’re honest, people ask amongst their friends about the adverse effects of these so-called vaccines. They all know a number of people that have been severely affected, or people who for no apparent reason, had just suddenly dropped dead.

Now that can go on for just so long, but we have to get to the bottom of this problem, because they’re building a factory. In Melbourne right now as we speak, they’re planning and building a factory to produce these mRNA vaccines, to push on the public in future. And we may be forced to receive these vaccines every three or six months. Otherwise, we lose our social credits We might not be able to travel on trains, or airlines, or go to restaurants, or have a job, or go to the hospital. This is where they’re going, and they’re doing it under the Biosecurity Act, which very few people know about it. It’s a turning point in our history, and people have to wake up. This is more than just about vaccines.

The evidence about the lack of safety with these vaccines, it’s clear, it’s not arguable. I’ll stand up and debate against any chief health minister in the country. They can even bring their entire staff. I’m just a single person, but I know their facts, and yet they won’t do it. They don’t debate these things, and it sends shivers down my spine what is happening.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, you’ve just added a new dimension, and we’ll go there later, social credit system. And it’s already in place that basically threatening to… and they have been withdrawing basic freedoms, basic human rights. And as you said, this is more than just about safety and vaccines. This is about control. It goes way beyond vaccines, and so-called protecting us to control us. So, let’s continue with your speech last Saturday. Here we go again. “To those health bureaucrats who beat their chest about how well they have served us, I’d like to remind them that Niger, a poor African nation of similar population to Australia with only 12% of its people fully vaccinated has had far fewer cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in Australia.

Is there anybody among our expert vaccine class brave enough to ask why? Is there even a glimmer of curiosity?” Then you went on, “I’ve made two detailed submissions to the national COVID clinical evidence task force, where I provided details of successful national campaigns of early treatment of COVID-19 with ivermectin for hundreds of millions of people in India, Peru, Mexico and other countries. And these so-called Australian experts do not even bother to respond. The arrogance is breathtaking.” What I would put to you Phillip is their fear is breathtaking, because they don’t dare respond to you, because you’ve got the data on them. You’ve got the goods on these people. Is that correct?

Phillip Altman:

Yeah. The data is clear, and it’s everywhere. It’s fully consistent. When you’re a scientist, you don’t look at one little bit of data, right? You look at a bit of information, you say, “Oh, who did that research and who else has done it? And was it well designed? And I’d like to see it reproduced, and show me the stats behind it.” Every good scientist first and foremost must be a sceptic. You must ask questions. Nothing is proven until you provide the data, and it has to be good data. It has to be consistent.

Malcolm Roberts:

That’s music to my ears. That is music to my ears.

Phillip Altman:

There is no doubt what is happening here, there is no doubt. Look, I’d like to declare it I have no interest in ivermectin from a commercial point of view. I have absolutely no commercial interest in any of this whatsoever. Before this pandemic, I was retired guy, right? I enjoyed my tennis and my boating, and going out for dinners and spending time with my grandkids and my family, but I just cannot sit by and watch this destruction going on to Australia and other countries. It’s unbelievable. Countries like India-

Malcolm Roberts:

In human…

Phillip Altman:

… Peru, Mexico, other countries used ivermectin and saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Here, it’s been banned. I was working since 5:00 AM this morning on an application to the TGA to reschedule ivermectin, so that doctors could prescribe it off label if they wish to. It is one of the world’s most useful safest drugs. It’s far safer than paracetamol, right? And yet, it’s banned in Australia. In fact in Queensland, you could be put in jail for prescribing it. This lunacy has to stop.

Malcolm Roberts:

Isn’t that manslaughter? But let’s continue, you’ve made some very bold and I believe entirely accurate statements. I was talking a lot about ivermectin in the early days. From Monday, March 23rd, 2020, the first single day session of parliament on this corona, it’s not a pandemic. There’s no pandemic of deaths from this coronavirus in Australia. I pointed out ivermectin. I was talking about it publicly, and I got a letter from the TGA. And the letter was very threatening. It quoted one of the acts that they look after. And they said that I had to stop advertising ivermectin. Three and a half or two and a half page letter, they wrote to me. I wrote back a simple half page, three quarters of page letter. And ended, I made two clear statements.

The first, “How dare you interfere with the communication of a duly elected representative of the people of Australia with the constituents, with his constituents.” And I finished with this paragraph, something like this, “The government implicitly by withdrawing ivermectin has blood on its hands.” Phillip, I got to reply back and all it said was, “Thank you for your letter.”

So, let me continue with your speech. Our so-called experts admitted to say that these gene-based therapies were part of a completely new class of drug under early research for rare diseases, including the genetic defects and cancers intended to be used on relatively small numbers of seriously ill patients, where the benefit was hoped to outweigh the considerable risk of serious adverse effects associated with gene-based therapy. These risky blue sky drugs were never intended for healthy people, children or pregnant women, and never intended to be used indiscriminately worldwide. I’m starting to get a little bit teary. The public was tricked, tricked into believing these gene-based vaccines were approved. They are not approved, and that’s coming from Dr. Phillip Altman.

It backs up where everything we know about these gene-based treatments and their introduction, they are not approved. We’ve been saying that from the start. They are provisionally approved by the TGA, and there is a huge difference. The difference is that they have not been proven to be safe and effective as claimed. The manufacturers have been given up to six years to provide the outstanding safety and efficacy data. And now after 18 months of use worldwide, we are seeing the highest rates of death and serious adverse events ever associated with any drug released in history. It’s not just slightly, is it Phillip? It’s monumental.

Phillip Altman:

No, it’s a mammoth. It’s mammoth. There’s no comparison. There have been drugs withdrawn for just a few hundred deaths, right? We’re talking about tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of deaths associated with these gene-based therapies. And what is alarming is that when you assess…

Malcolm Roberts:

We’re one minute Phillip-

Phillip Altman:

Okay, I’ll be…

Malcolm Roberts:

… until the news comes on.

Phillip Altman:

I’ll be quick. When you assess whether an adverse effect is linked to a drug, one of the most important things is how close to the administration of the drug was the adverse event. I’ll come back to that after the break, because it’s really interesting.

Malcolm Roberts:

It is. I’ve seen you on this topic before. That’s what we’ll come back with. Stay right with us, stay right here, listen to the news and come back, and listen to Dr. Phillip Altman telling the truth as no other person in this country can.

Part 2

Speaker 1:

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

Malcolm Roberts:

Welcome back. And I’m not going to hesitate at all. Over to you Phillip, where we talk to Dr. Phillip Altman.

Phillip Altman:

So, where were we? I forgot.

Malcolm Roberts:

You were talking about the response from these so-called experts is not there.

Phillip Altman:

Yeah. So, basically, they are denying the excess deaths. They’re refusing to admit in the adverse drug reaction reporting that these deaths are caused by the vaccines. They use the word “linked” to avoid any legal liability here. And they’ve only actually admitted to 13 deaths linked to these so-called gene-based vaccines. That’s obviously wrong, but you have to look at who’s assessing these adverse drug reactions and assessing their cause and effect relationship. There are guidelines to do this. There are generally accepted rules and principles that one uses.

I know where we were. I was going to say that one of the primary reasons or justifications that you can use to say that a drug is linked to an adverse effect is the time course of events. So, if you administer-

Malcolm Roberts:

That’s right, the 48 hours.

Phillip Altman:

… a drug close to the adverse event, that is reasonably good evidence. It’s not evidence on its own, but it is very, very strong evidence.

Now, in the case of these vaccines, if you look online, a lady called Dr. Jessica Rose is just absolutely amazing at ploughing through all the data. Has presented at conferences around the world, the data showing that most of the deaths that have occurred for some unknown cause, in otherwise healthy people, have occurred within about 48 hours of administration of the vaccines. That is really strong evidence that there’s a cause and effect relationship, right?

If you have a healthy person that get injected with a vaccine, for some reason they have a heart attack within 48 hours, you have to ask yourself, “Wow, is that a one-off chance? It could be. It could be. Or is it linked to the vaccine?” If you look at enough people, millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of people, and you see a pattern that’s beginning to emerge, that tells you is there a relationship.

Now, the TGA here have just simply turned a blind eye to it. And that’s why I was saying at that meeting on Saturday that I believe our adverse drug reaction reporting system is broken because it’s not picking up these red flags. They’re obvious. They’re everywhere. They’re all around the world in huge numbers. And yet, this is the principal basis why our chief health officers can go around the country and say that these things are safe and efficacious based on, especially the safety claim, based on the lack of claimed linkage between these gene-based vaccines and the deaths.

And if that system is broken because the people involved are conflicted, who are directly or indirectly beholden to the vaccine industry, whether it be in terms of career advancement or research grant money or travel grants or promotion or whatever it is, it’s not dollar bills in brown paper bags. It doesn’t work like that. But you’re either part of the team, you’re either on the team or you’re not on the team. And if you’re not on the team, it’s a really tough road.

So, this adverse drug reaction reporting system is a closed shop that occurs secretly behind closed doors. You don’t know who’s doing it. You don’t know what their instructions are. And this is the principal, fundamental operation upon which our TGA claims that these gene-based vaccines are safe because the usual data that’s required in drug development is lacking to prove that these things are safe. And I’m saying I believe our adverse drug reaction reporting system is broken. And if it’s broken, it either has to be fixed or you have to get rid of the provisional approval system, which is allowing these gene-based vaccines to escape through the regulatory system without the normal safety data.

Malcolm Roberts:

So, let’s be clear about that. What you’re saying, as I interpret it, you’re saying two things, basically. If you want to provisionally approve a treatment, then the reporting system must be damn near perfect. Secondly, you don’t believe there’s direct money changing hands and it’s causing this corruption because it is corruption in my view. You can have a computer chip that’s corrupt. It doesn’t work properly. It’s not necessarily fraud, although I believe there is some fraud going on in this country. There certainly is in America, but it could be just group think or gutlessness. People either too vain to recognise or lacking courage and integrity to admit errors.

But before we go on with your speech, I just want to share with our listeners this figure. You presented it last Saturday in Melbourne. 30,479 deaths reported in the first COVID vaccine adverse events reports in America to date. What is really scary is that some experts are saying that represents gross under-reporting, which it could be representing just as little as 1% of total deaths. Others estimate it could be 10%. If the 30,479 is just 10%, that means we’ve had 300,000 Americans die from COVID injections. If it’s 1%, that means we’ve had three million Americans dead. And the serious effects are catastrophic in terms of Bell’s palsy, in terms of heart conditions, hospitalizations, urgent care, anaphylaxis, Bell’s palsy.

Let’s continue with your speech.

Phillip Altman:

Right, so-

Malcolm Roberts:

Thanks to a complicit media… Sorry.

Phillip Altman:

So, I just wanted to clarify that not every adverse drug reaction report simply because it’s made, means that there’s a cause and effect relationship. Each one has to be evaluated by skilled people and you have to have a lot of detailed data and follow-up on each case, especially in regard to the deaths. So, only a proportion of those would be ascribed to the deaths.

However, as you said, Malcolm, there’s an under-reporting factor. The TGA itself, every drug regulatory agency around the world recognises that there’s an under-reporting factor. Our TGA says it’s between maybe 10 and 20 times. There had been lots of papers, which actually come to the conclusion, and I believe, the under-reporting is more like 100 times. So, as you say, for every death reported, you can actually multiply that by 100. And then you have to apply the criteria for whether or not the death is actually caused or considered to be caused by the drug. So, I just wanted to make that clear.

Malcolm Roberts:

Thank you. I know you value accuracy. And in Australia, it’s significant. Now, my understanding is that when someone dies, regardless of cause of death, the death is reported by a doctor. We’ve had, in this country, 900 plus deaths reported as being due to the vaccines, the injections. The TGA has removed them and said It’s only 11, as you said, with no explanation, no detail on the guidelines. Now, if what you’re saying and what many experts are saying around the world is correct, then it’s many, many more than 900. It could be 9,000. It could be significantly higher than that. And yet, the TGA completely behind closed doors is saying, “No, no, nothing to see here. Just 11.” So, they’re mixing the doctors who are reporting these deaths.

Phillip Altman:

Yeah, the number is up to 13 now. That’s the latest figure as of this week, I believe. But there’s an important point here. People, they’re playing games here because the average age of so-called COVID deaths is in the mid-80s. Right? And it was-

Malcolm Roberts:

Right, and the life expectancy.

Phillip Altman:

Exactly. And just because someone dies and they’ve tested positive for COVID with a PCR test, which should never be used to diagnose COVID-19, we all know that, it’s put down as a COVID death. You can only ascribe a COVID death, do an autopsy, right? For these kids that have died, for example, they say no kids, no children in Australia have died due to this vaccine. I doubt that is correct. I don’t know that it’s incorrect, but everything I read, everything I read tells me that is not correct and there is a certain mortality associated with these vaccines. And the TGA would like to say, “I’m saving more lives than it cost.” I’m unconvinced of that.

And what’s more, autopsies are not being done. If you don’t do an autopsy on someone, you really don’t know what they’ve died of, right? And autopsies are being frowned upon. We have spent billions of dollars on PCR tests. Wasted money on PCR tests. We should really be doing autopsies to determine what the mortality is associated with these vaccines, because if you don’t know what the mortality is, how can you determine, how can you assess risks versus benefit?

Whenever you give a drug, whenever any doctor prescribes a drug, whether consciously or unconsciously, they’re going through their mind, their head and thinking the risk versus the benefit. Every single drug has risks and benefits, every single drug. There’s no drug that doesn’t have risks. And yet, if we don’t know the damage that’s being done by the vaccines, if it’s being covered up with an inadequate, inefficient, biassed adverse drug reporting system, how do we know that these so-called vaccines are not doing more harm than good?

Malcolm Roberts:

Phillip, I want to thank you so much for what you’ve just said, because my overarching impression of federal parliament and clearly, the state parliaments, is that policies, legislation are not based on solid data. They quite often contradict the data. You need, first of all, to have the data that demonstrates cause and effect before you can say anything. We need to apply vaccines. We need to cut human production of carbon dioxide. Any policy, that’s fundamental. Only once you have that cause and effect, can you then look at the alternatives for dealing with treating that. And only once you have that cause and effect in a quantitative, specified, numerical relationship, can you assess progress or improvement in your policy or your legislation.

The federal parliament is running this country blind. That is the overarching message that I’ve picked up in my years in parliament. What I’d like to do is pop a question on you now. Your speech is triggering wonderful revelations. Would you be willing to come back again and we’d do another two hours because we’re not going to cover your speech in the next 40 minutes. Would you be willing to do that?

Phillip Altman:

Sure. Of course.

Malcolm Roberts:

Okay, wonderful. Now, we can take it on a more leisurely place. Now, I also want to reaffirm with a story, a mother who told me personally, and she did it in public, that her daughter died from these COVID injections. The daughter was fit, healthy, vibrant, energetic, a lovely person. She had never had asthma in her life. Yet, the cause of death was put down to asthma. Complete bullshit. That is a lie.

So, let’s continue with your speech. Thanks to a complicit media-

Phillip Altman:

I have a story too. I have a story too.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yes.

Phillip Altman:

Can I tell you a quick story?

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. Sure, go. Go for it.

Phillip Altman:

Because it’s important. I’m involved in this case. There is a lady right now in Melbourne needing a heart transplant. She doesn’t want to be vaccinated for very good reasons and I understand that completely. And the hospital involved is saying, “You cannot have a heart transplant. You cannot be admitted to our hospital in Melbourne,” I won’t name the hospital, “without being vaccinated.” Knowing full well that these gene-based vaccines by their mode of action will produce spike protein, which is the toxic component of SARS‐CoV‐2, and will damage any heart, whether it’s a subclinical minor damage or major damage leading to death. They can’t predict it.

And this lady is sitting right now waiting for a heart transplant. And her doctors, her hospital is saying, “We want to inject you with something that’s going to produce spike protein, which we know is the toxic component of SARS‐CoV‐2. Yet, this is our condition for admission to the hospital because we think that’s the way things should be done to keep you safe.” Really? Honestly? I mean, I can’t believe what’s going on. It’s hard. Sorry to tell you that story, but whenever I think about it, it’s just devastating.

Malcolm Roberts:

Thank you for sharing that. It’s just inhuman, Phillip. That is the word that I’ve used more than any other, I think. The word is inhuman, that describes best the treatment of the Australian people as a result of this COVID and the fear that’s been fabricated.

So, let’s continue with your speech. Thanks to a complicit media, not only is the public not aware that these so-called vaccines are associated with thousands of unexpected deaths in otherwise healthy people within 48 hours of administration, but the public are not generally aware that non-COVID related excess death numbers, including cancers, heart attack, stroke, diabetes, and neurological disease all around the world have risen significantly. These increased numbers of deaths coincide with the COVID vaccine rollouts. Otherwise, healthy people are dropping dead for no apparent reason.

Now, we have to go to a break. But before going so, look around, you continued your speech. Look around, relatively young people, including fit athletes, are dying from non-COVID deaths in alarming numbers. Faced with the inconvenient truth of the excess death statistics, which are difficult to fudge, they are quite clear. We extracted them from the Australian Bureau of Statistics after their 18-month delay, just last week. Some national statistical organisations have responded by dropping any comparison of excess deaths for the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated or by reclassification of deaths as unknown cause.

In fact, unknown cause of death has been reported as the leading cause of death in parts of Canada. These deaths are unknown because autopsies are not being done on purpose. Not being done on purpose. The unsuspecting and trusting public were told by our most senior public health officials that these so-called vaccines were safe and effective without qualification. This was not only misinformation; this was reckless. It is illegal to make false and misleading therapeutic claims, but our chief health officers seem to be above the law.

These reckless words of assurance gave agency to employers to introduce vaccine mandates while our prime minister at the time, cabinet and premiers, stood by and allowed it to happen. I put it to you, Phillip, that they didn’t just stand by, they enabled it to happen. They drove it to happen. And what I would like to know when we come back, they’re very powerful statements that I just quoted from you. I believe they’re entirely correct with what I’ve learned in this virus mismanagement. And I would like to know, is this evidence of culpability? Or is it just evidence of gutlessness and ignorance?

We’ll be right back. We’ll be back with Dr. Phillip Altman straight after this break from our sponsors.

Malcolm Roberts:

Welcome back. This is Senator Malcolm Roberts and I have a special guest, Dr. Phillip Altman, who’s sharing his views after decades of experience with our health bureaucrats and with the TGA and with big pharma. This is the most important speech. What you have delivered last Saturday is the most important speech delivered in this country in years, perhaps decades. So, I asked you, is it culpability? Is it ignorance? Is it gutlessness? What is going on? Because the evidence is clear.

Phillip Altman:

Yeah. Look, I’ve asked myself that question over and over when I first started to look at this and I thought, “Wow, things are going wrong.” My initial reaction was to cut people slack, because I didn’t know. But as the evidence began to mount and it became more and more clear, and now, it’s absolutely crystal clear, there is no debating the evidence now. It is so consistent everywhere that, now, I have to come to the conclusion that the people who are making these decisions and fail to reflect on their course of action with our health policies, regarding these vaccines and things like ivermectin, have got themselves into such deep water, they don’t know how to get.

Malcolm Roberts:

It’s disgusting.

Phillip Altman:

And maybe, in the beginning, it was a noble lie and they thought they were doing the right thing. But as time goes on, more and more of them must realise that this is wrong. That people’s lives are at stake here. And the problem is that our top health officials have become middle managers. They’re taking instructions. They’re not the people in charge, and I think that explains a lot. And people are trapped at the moment. They’re not making the decisions. They’re not the decision-makers. We all know about the WHO and how they’re seeking to control our health policy, which once you control health policy in a country with the Biosecurity Act, you can control the country. That gets into another issue. But that’s part of-

Malcolm Roberts:

We will go there probably next time. We’ll go there for a look next time.

Phillip Altman:

Look, I tried for over a year to explain the problems on the basis of science and you just can’t. The science is clear. If it was just on the science, I would win all the time. The game would be over. But it’s not about the science, it’s about politics and power and money. And that’s why arguing just the science doesn’t do it. Right? That’s why last Saturday, I went off the reservation because I was sick and tired of repeating the same science, the same consistent science that’s popping up everywhere. It’s doing me no good just to repeat the science. You have to think about it on broader terms and people look at you…

Look, I’ve lost friends. People think… Some people that I’ve known for many years that know what I do, they don’t even want to discuss it. They’ve drunk the Kool-Aid. They’ve swallowed the blue pill. And I look at them and I try and say to them, “Look, this is the most important thing that may ever have happened to you in your lifetime. Don’t you want to know about it? Aren’t you curious? Don’t you want to know what I think because I’ve been involved in this all my life?” And yet, most of them say no.

But I can tell you, I’ve made heaps of new friends. It’s been incredible. At that conference in Melbourne last Saturday, I had 200 people stand up and sing me happy birthday.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, I can give you some reassuring news. First, some bad news, Phillip, that parliament is similar to the friends of yours who have no curiosity. Parliament is comprised mainly of sheep, but the sheep are waking up. Do you want the good news?

Phillip Altman:

Yeah.

Malcolm Roberts:

Alex Antic is another senator. He’s in the liberal party from South Australia. And I asked a very strong question about adverse effects and deaths in the Senate in question time, Monday, a week ago. And Alex came up to me afterwards and said, “Bloody good question, mate.” And then he said, “You could see the body language in the government, opposite and you could see the body language in his own party.” People, at first when I spoke, they were interjecting when I continued without giving voice to their interjections, and then when they heard the answers to my questions from the minister, their body language showed these people know there’s something wrong. They were ashamed. That means they’re waking up. They are waking up. But it’ll take a long while before these lazy-

Phillip Altman:

It’s a slow process.

Malcolm Roberts:

… incompetent, dishonest bastards wake up.

Phillip Altman:

Look, it’s a slow process. And really, I learnt that I can’t really hit people too hard upfront with everything all at once. It just doesn’t work. They just shut down. So, if you’re a responsible parent and you’ve taken the decision to inject your child or you’ve been involved in getting your grandkids receiving these so-called vaccines and now, you’re waking up and you realise, “Oh, oh, my god, what have I done?” that’s really hard. That’s heavy-duty stuff.

So, I’ve learned to be a little bit careful with people. Some people are more open than others and I usually have to wait and see if people ask the right questions. I can usually tell within 10 or 15 seconds that this topic is raised where people stand and what their tolerance is. They reveal themselves. But I tell you what, this pandemic has been an incredible stress test of society. You heard in the 2008 financial crisis, the stress test on banks. This is a stress test on our society, because some people respond in favourable ways and some people do not. Right? For example, this peddling on your neighbour, putting your neighbours in if they haven’t been vaccinated, excluding people from clubs or meetings, friendships falling down, this sort of thing. This is a real stress test.

But you know what the problem is? The real problem is the media. The media must bear full responsibility for what’s going on. There is what’s called the Trusted News Initiative, and your listeners can look that up. It’s not a fanciful thing. It’s started by the BBC. It’s all out in the open. The Murdoch News Corporation is in it up to their ears. It is this Trusted News Initiative, which doesn’t allow the truth to be told, to allow the science to be questioned is at the heart of the problem. And they must bear real responsibility for what is going on, because if people really knew, they sat down to their news at night and people were just told, not opinions, just report facts, just report the excess deaths, things like that, things would change. But they can’t change because the media is complicit.

Malcolm Roberts:

And on top of that, Phillip, we have the government complicit and the opposition, most of the opposition, complicit because they allow the Australian Bureau of Statistics to keep covering things up. Basic things like all-cause mortality, basic things like analysis of cause of death, these things are hidden.

So, let’s continue with your speech. And I want to congratulate you because you said the media bears full responsibility. It certainly does. So, your speech, despite what we now know, people are still being coerced and still being coerced into COVID-19 vaccine injections which carry the risk of serious injury and death, even if they are not at significant risk of COVID-19 due to their health status, age, or natural immunity or lose their jobs. Those responsible for this stain on humanity, wonderful words, stain on humanity, cannot wash their hands of this injustice and claim they did not know better. They must be held to account.

At no other time in history were we told not to treat a serious infection as early as possible. Early treatment with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine was banned in Australia, not because these established drugs did not work. Clearly, they do work and they can save lives, but they were banned because the use of these important, cheap and widely-used drugs might reduce vaccination uptake. You go on. Our TGA has admitted this specifically in relation to ivermectin and has refused to disclose the names of those responsible following a freedom of information request. Shameful. That is the truth.

Thank you so much for saying that. I’ve been saying it for a while now. The only reason they banned ivermectin, so that people were forced to take these injections. That is inhuman. There’s that word again. Let’s hear from you for a couple of minutes, Phillip. And then we’ll go to another ad break and then we’ll go all the way home.

Phillip Altman:

I was looking at the minutes of the scheduling committee that was considering the scheduling of ivermectin. And I’m doing that because I’m involved in writing an application to remove the wording, which will prevent the use of ivermectin being used off-label. For example, about 25% of drugs are used not for the official use but for other uses. Right?

And I was looking at the freedom of information request that was lodged and the response from that in relation to that committee that decided to effectively ban the off-label prescribing of ivermectin. Three-quarters of the response from the TGA was blacked out. You couldn’t see the names of the people that attended the committee. They even declared that there were people with a conflict of interest that were observers to the meeting who were participating in the meeting. I wonder who those people were. I mean, it was completely redacted. Huge swathes of black ink all over the response from the freedom of information.

Why is that secret? Why can we not know who made that decision? Aren’t they proud of that decision? Don’t they want to stand by that decision? If that decision was based on science and facts, wouldn’t they want to tell us the full facts. It’s just beyond belief.

Malcolm Roberts:

It is. Again, it’s inhuman. So, we go on with your… Well, no, we’ll have a break now. Then we’ll come back for the last 15 minutes or so of our programme and do a summary and then get ready for the next two hours we’ll have with you. We’ll be back straight after this message from our sponsors with Dr. Phillip Altman.

Malcolm Roberts:

And this is back with Senator Malcolm Roberts. And I’ve got my guest, Dr. Phillip Altman. Before we continue with Phillip, at TNT Radio, we never go home. We’re committed to bringing you our take on the biggest topics of our time. We broadcast live 24/7 online globally, no matter what. We’ve got you covered on TNT Radio. And Phillip Altman is now revealing so many things for the first time and emphasising and backing it up with data for the first time on this show.

Let’s continue with his speech from last Saturday. Our so-called health experts went out of their way to cherry-pick and distort published data in a desperate attempt to discredit effective early treatment of COVID-19. Disgraceful. We’ve covered that. And what is worse, the wonder drugs proposed to take the place of drugs, like ivermectin, were the old, previously-failed, big pharma drugs from Merck drug molnupiravir and Pfizer’s Paxlovid. Both have disappointing clinical efficacy. Molnupiravir is mutagenic and poses a serious cancer risk. And Paxlovid has undoubted serious kidney and liver toxicity.

The unsuspecting public has been indoctrinated to believe that vaccines are safe. They don’t know that many conventional vaccines have been withdrawn from the market because they were shown not to be safe. These COVID-19 so-called vaccines are not conventional vaccines. They were based on a gene technology never before deployed for vaccine use, and their safety and efficacy testing was compromised. Corners were cut. What could possibly go wrong?

So, what we’ve got, Phillip, is we’ve got big pharma pushing drugs that supposedly are antivirals. They’re pushing a vaccine that’s not a vaccine, has not been tested anything like properly. And they’re making money out of this, while at the same time their agents, who you described as our top health officers, have become middle managers, how appropriate? Their agents are suppressing drugs, like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, that not only have been proven in the past are proven with this virus. What a disgrace. This is serious stuff that we are dealing with.

Phillip Altman:

Yeah, it is. I mean, when you look at it, big pharma is a well-oiled machine. I didn’t really realise it until this pandemic, but I was sitting in the presentation by Dr. Pierre Kory in Melbourne on Saturday.

Malcolm Roberts:

Wonderful man.

Phillip Altman:

And he really described it. If anyone hasn’t seen it, you really have to go to amps.redunion.com.au and have a look at that presentation. And he describes how the medical literature is completely controlled by big pharma. So, any generic that’s useful, that’s cheap and widely used is completely crushed, because they can’t make money from these drugs. For example, with Ivermectin, there’s like 60 or 80 clinical trials. They vary in quality, but there’s probably more than 30 that are really good quality and they all point in the same direction. And they all say the same thing.

But yet, they compared that data to something like one clinical trial with molnupiravir, one trial, which didn’t have convincing efficacy at all and it’s a mutagenic drug, yet they favour… Our government paid 40 million to pre-purchase, 40 million of taxpayer money, pre-purchased, to buy peer molnupiravir. I mean, Merck must be beside themselves. The champagne corks are popping everywhere and that’s why I no longer cut our TGA slack and our chief health officers. They must know what’s going on.

And if we don’t correct this, it’s going to happen again. We’re living, and people have to realise it, in what’s basically a post-truth world where the media is strictly controlled and people don’t have their time. They’re looking after their kids, they want to keep their job, they’re travelling and so forth. They’re busy people. They sit down and watch the news at night and they believe what they’re being told. And the example of this pandemic and climate change are really good examples of how we’re living in a post-truth world.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, I want to re-emphasise the point you just made. The medical literature is controlled. It is exactly the same with the climate literature. It is exactly the same with the nutrition and food and dietary information and literature. I also want to emphasise your comment about $40 million has been paid by our federal government using tax-payers money.

Phillip Altman:

400 million.

Malcolm Roberts:

How much?

Phillip Altman:

400 million.

Malcolm Roberts:

Sorry, 400 million. Pre-purchasing a drug that has basically not been proven and so, you’re willing to-

Phillip Altman:

Not only that-

Malcolm Roberts:

Sorry?

Phillip Altman:

It’s a 20-year-old failed drug.

Malcolm Roberts:

I love the way you correct me. Thank you so much. That’s even more important. That’s even more important. And let’s face it, we know that we had tried to get, as senators, we’ve tried to get a copy of the contracts with Pfizer and the other providers of the COVID injections. The government has refused to give them to the representative of the people. They’re spending the people’s money and yet, they will not give us copies of what they’re spending it on. We don’t know the liability exclusions. We don’t know anything about these contracts. That is-

Phillip Altman:

I’ve seen the contracts because I was involved in the high court cases.

Malcolm Roberts:

Have you?

Phillip Altman:

Yes, but I can’t tell you what’s in it.

Malcolm Roberts:

Okay. We will get them eventually. We’re trying every means we can. We’ll get them, but let’s consider another point. We’ve only got 10 minutes left today. The risky world… We’re going to your speech again from last Saturday. And I must say, your speech is just so strong, so clear, so unequivocal. It is absolutely stunning. As I said, I don’t gush with praise usually, but this is the most important speech I’ve seen anyone deliver in a long, long time. It’s vital for our country’s future. And we’ll get onto that next time we meet because we need to go to the wider aspects of what this COVID mismanagement is ushering in.

So, let’s continue with your speech. The risky worldwide rollout of a largely experimental gene-based technology with little safety data to the entire population, including healthy individuals at little risk, children, infants, and even pregnant women, all paid for by the government has been a masterclass in marketing. Let’s correct that. You made that mistake and paid for by the government on behalf of the taxpayers using taxpayers money. It has been a masterclass in marketing, you said.

Now, let’s look at some hope here. The UK, Sweden, and Denmark, all have moved to pull back their vaccine recommendations due to safety concerns but not Australia, because we have been selected as a test case by overseas power brokers. Let’s talk next time about who these power brokers are and their agenda. Now, you go on in your speech, without the collaboration of the US FDA, Food and Drug Administration, and our once proud TGA, Pfizer could not have achieved annual learnings of 100 billion with full indemnity should something go wrong. Stunning. The world has taken the biggest medical gamble of old times. We put our faith and trust into so-called vaccine experts and health bureaucrats to advise and protect us. I believe they have let us down.

Phillip, Was it the world’s biggest medical gamble or the biggest crime?

Phillip Altman:

I can’t go into people’s minds.

Malcolm Roberts:

True.

Phillip Altman:

I don’t know what they’re thinking. And people can fool themselves very easily. You can be on a tennis court and you can clearly see that that ball was out and someone else says, “No, no, I saw it in.” And they’re absolutely adamant that that ball was in. You cannot change their mind. People, the mind plays tricks on people. So, I can’t say that they know that they’re committing a crime. What I can say is they’re refusing to dialogue. No one has called me. No one wants to discuss it. No one’s called me to Canberra. No one wants to put me on a witness stand. No one wants to discuss it.

So, in that way, they have to be culpable because what I’m saying is not opinion. I’m just quoting the data. I’m just quoting the facts. Yet, they avoid the facts. It is willful blindness. And I think willful blindness is a crime. They have a responsibility to review the latest data on safety and efficacy, and they have an obligation to constantly review that data on a daily basis. It was only two days ago, Denmark came out and said, “Oh no, no, no. People under 50 shouldn’t get vaccinated.” They’ve weighed up the risk and benefits. They have a very good drug regulatory system in Denmark. Why can’t our regulatory system be as good as Denmark? They should be.

Malcolm Roberts:

Hear, hear. And let’s re-emphasise that the Danes have said no one under 18 should get it. Full stop. That’s it. End of story. The only people who should get it are people over 55, if they want it and there’s no mandates allowed. That’s as I understand it.

Phillip Altman:

Look, the key-

Malcolm Roberts:

The same in Britain. Britain had-

Phillip Altman:

Yeah. The key to all this is informed consent, right?

Malcolm Roberts:

Yes.

Phillip Altman:

No one that’s getting these vaccines is getting informed consent. If they were offered true informed consent of what the facts are, many people would refuse. I have no objection to that. If people want to consider the facts of these vaccines and decide, “No, I want to have a vaccine.” I’m not anti-vaccine. I’ve been vaccinated all my life. My kids were vaccinated. They’ve been fully vaccinated, but this is different. This situation is different.

If someone is fully informed to the circumstances and the facts and they still want to have the vaccine, I have not an issue with that. But the doctors are not allowed to provide full informed consent. They are instructed that if you deviate from the narrative of the government, even if it’s factually based, you may be brought before a board, a health board, which can discipline you and possibly take away your right to practise medicine. That is appalling.

Malcolm Roberts:

Isn’t that a crime?

Phillip Altman:

Look, I-

Malcolm Roberts:

And I would say-

Phillip Altman:

I think it is.

Malcolm Roberts:

Sorry? I think it is too.

Phillip Altman:

I think it is.

Malcolm Roberts:

And what is also very apparent, Phillip, is that some of these heinous acts were pre-planned. This injection response, this virus response, was not done over six months. This was done with literally decades of preparation. They have been planning this. Not the details, but they’ve been putting in place a system whereby federal parliament has been white-ended, bypassed, so that we can’t hold APRA accountable because it’s made up of a combination of state legislation, not federal.

APRA is running amok, suppressing doctors, suppressing our health system, suppressing good medical advice, suppressing basic things like doctor-patient confidentiality, suppressing basic things like informed consent, which the Greeks gave us 3,000 years ago. And this has been done starting back in 2009 with the formation of APRA and prior to that, some other exercises and then Event 201 in 2019. This has been planned. Who the hell is planning this?

Phillip Altman:

Well, look, there is a vaccine industry. We know that. We know the players involved, very powerful billionaires involved in this. A lot of people have made a lot of money. They see this as a model to make money. When you can get government to buy your product, which have been rushed through an approval process within months or no approval. The most recent boosters that had been approved, one of them, the Pfizer one, has been approved on the basis of immunology in eight mice. No clinical trial whatsoever and it’s been approved. I can’t believe what’s happening.

So, they have a model where government forces you to take a product that hasn’t been proven to be safe. They have no liability and they can charge what they like. It’s a great business.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yes and-

Phillip Altman:

Great business.

Malcolm Roberts:

I’ll add something there. It’s a dishonest business. It’s an inhuman business. And I’ll add something more, and that is to say that this is the only time in history where a product failure has been blamed on those who do not use it. The product failing is the COVID injections, every one of them. The people who are being blamed are those who refuse to take it.

Phillip Altman:

What is really, really reprehensible in my mind is even suggesting that children who are not at risk at all to any statistical extent, I mean, their risk of COVID-19, of dying of COVID 19 if they’re healthy is virtually nil. Right? To force them-

Malcolm Roberts:

Correct.

Phillip Altman:

… to take a vaccine to protect their grandparents is despicable. It’s nauseating.

Malcolm Roberts:

It’s a lie. We’re going to have to finish now, but thank you so much for accepting my invitation to come back in two weeks’ time. We’ll have another two hours dedicated to your work. I want to say it again. Yours is the most important speech that we have had in this country. Thank you so much, Dr. Phillip Altman. Thank you so much for your courage, your integrity, and your clear objective data. Thank you, thank you, thank you. The people of the world owe you a debt of gratitude.

Phillip Altman:

Thanks, Malcolm.

Christine Dolan helped hunt down exploitation in the Catholic Church and has now been on the case of vaccine rollouts across the world. She has a wealth of knowledge and it was an honour to be able to scrape the surface of it.

Transcript

Announcer:

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

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Hello and welcome to the Malcolm Roberts Show. Senator Malcolm Roberts here broadcasting from Brisbane, Australia, globally. Everyone who is a regular listener knows that my two themes for the show are freedom and responsibility. Both essential for human progress and individual happiness and satisfaction. And thank you for having me as your guest yet again, whether it’s in your lounge room, your shed, your car, your living room, wherever you are, thank you for having me as your guest. And I’ve got a very special pair of guests today which we’ll introduce in just a minute.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

At first, some news. We saw a paper released this week, in fact, just a couple of days ago. And it’s titled Serious Adverse Events of Special Interest Following mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination in Randomised Trial in Adults. At last, it’s coming out, at last. They’re saying the results of this trial, this scientific trial, peer reviewed paper, I’ll quote, “The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36% higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group. The Moderna trial exhibited a 6% higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group.” 36% higher risk.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And let’s just check at the author’s declaration. The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to have influenced the work reported in this paper. Unlike Pfizer, unlike Moderna, unlike big pharma generally, there are no conflicts of interests associated with this paper. What a breath of fresh air to get some independent research. And we’ll be going into that in more detail in the future.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

But that’s so important to understand because we conducted our COVID Under Question inquiry two weeks ago where we had experts from all over the world, doctors, lawyers, people who have been hurt by the vaccines. We had Dr. Phillip Altman give us a rundown of the huge unexpected and adverse death, consequences and serious adverse events from the vaccines. They’re not vaccines, they’re experimental gene therapy treatments. And they have not been fully tested at all, not been tested. What we’ve finding now is this increasing news of the death toll coming out.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Tucker Carlson broadcast in America last week on exactly that. It’s now hard to keep it under wraps. It’s now starting to burst out and we’re going to talk to our first guest soon about exactly that. One last piece before I introduce my first guest. On Thursday night, I was a guest at Boonah, which is a little town, population probably about 6,000 people, if that, in the scenic rim about an hour from Brisbane, hour and a half from Brisbane.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And I was there to listen and to support the residents who are holding the state government accountable for their invasion of their property rights in trying to deal with fire ants. And what we saw was an amazing reaction from the farmers there. They want their properties respected, they want their rights respected, they want their individual freedoms respected. And they told the state government in very, very clear terms.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

We’re starting to see in America, the Saturday before, I listened to two American women at a barbecue near our place. And they were saying just how much they are disappointed that America is collapsing, thanks to Obama, Clinton, G.W. Bush, and now this scourge, Joe Biden. But they say that the Americans are waking up to the stealing of their country by the globalist predators, the elites. And what we are seeing is… and they were very, very encouraged. It’s coming here. We’re always a little bit behind America, but it’s coming here. And one of the ladies who is helping us to really start opening people’s eyes is my first guest. I’m not going to tell you her name until the end.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Before President William J. Clinton, we know him as Bill, signed the U.S. Anti-trafficking Federal Bill in October 2000. The International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children in Alexandria, Virginia, commissioned this news reporter as an independent journalist to investigate the exploitation of children emanating from the Baulkham crisis. A war that my guest previously covered in the early 1900s, when she co-owned and co-produced an international policy series syndicated on Public Broadcasting System Network in America. She expanded this initial human trafficking investigation globally.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

As a result, a documentary called Shattered Innocence – The Millennium Holocaust, was released at the National Press Club in Washington DC in 2001. It was endorsed by the National Press Club News Makers Committee, UK Detective Paul Holmes, the co-founder of the Interpol Trafficking Committee, and Arnold Burns, the former Department of Justice, U.S. Deputy Attorney General during the Reagan administration. She’s worked with people who’ve come from both sides of politics in America. Detective Holmes called Shattered Innocence, “Groundbreaking, the best work on human trafficking.” My guest nailed it. She nailed the connection of the dots of this global phenomenon.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Her trans criminal and transnational findings then still stand today. Her insights prove prophetic. As a result, in November 2002, her second global investigation took place entitled, In the Name of God. It was released at the National Press Club in Washington DC as well. It challenged the then Catholic Church, so she’s going up against the big boys, the Catholic Church’s hierarchies public mantra of non-complicity. It’s participation in the cover up, lack of accountability and exposed the criminal tools embedded in the Catholic church hiding child abuse.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Ms, she’s… Almost gave her name away. Her reporting concluded that the Catholic Church’s policy and responses to paedophilia go back centuries. She advised prosecutors to seize the historical secret archives maintained under Canon Law, which resulted in grand juries and are still used in current criminal investigations. In 2016, In the Name of God was submitted to the Australian Royal Commission’s National Inquiry into the institutional response to child abuse, which made several hundred recommendations. Including but not limited to reporting child abuse to law enforcement disclosures disclosed in confessions.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Christine Dolan, is my guest and she is senior editor and chief investigative journalist for cdm.press, leading multiple investigations on COVID international policy and big pharma corruption. She is founder of American Conversations since 2014 and is now collaborating in partner with L. Todd Wood, cdm.press publisher and executive editor. Welcome Ms. Dolan, thank you for joining us.

Christine Dolan:

Oh, Senator, thank you. It’s good to be back talking to you again. To all your listeners, I hope they’re tuning in and they take what we have to share with them today because it’s going to affect everybody’s life.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Well, I must say, I haven’t got my notes in front of me, but TNT records every broadcast, every show, and then if you go back to tntradio.live, go to the top of the page, click on episodes, you can scroll down to the host of the show. In that case it’s Senator Malcolm Robertson in this case and then you look at the date of the show and you’ll be able to get a recording of any show that I’ve done. Any show that anyone’s done that way, so we will be recording this forever, Christine. Before we continue, first thing, what do you appreciate? Anything at all, family, friends, whatever.

Christine Dolan:

Oh, family, friends, safari’s in Africa. I think that my line in the sand is if I could never go back to Australia or South Africa or Kenya again because of all this nonsense over COVID.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yes, you’ve had quite a few safaris. In fact, I read that you’ve been in every African nation, every one of them.

Christine Dolan:

I have. I’ve been very, very blessed in life that I’ve been able to travel and I appreciate different cultures. I believe in the Treaty of Westphalia. I don’t think that the globalists have an understanding of how much should be appreciated in all the cultures. And I think that we’re living in very scary times. Very scary times.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

We are. And I’ve travelled through all 50 of your states in America and very privileged to have done so. I learned a lot. Christine, let’s go back to the start because I don’t want to just explore the news. I want to learn about your life, what gave you your energy, your enthusiasm, the way you chase these people. Because this lady, let me tell you everyone who’s listening, this lady, I don’t know if you can say this or not about a woman in America, but she’s a bulldog. She is a bulldog and she goes after things. Christine, where were you born?

Christine Dolan:

I was born in Beverly Farms, Massachusetts. It’s the North side of Boston, right on the Coast.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

That’s good, Kennedy Country in Massachusetts.

Christine Dolan:

It’s very big Kennedy Country. And my dad came from Jack Kennedy’s generation. My dad went to MIT. Graduated ’43 during World War II. But then I was the third born in my family and my father had worked for DuPont and the Monsanto and that’s why the family ended up in St. Louis where Monsanto’s headquarters were. And my dad was in the biochemical industry for decades. Although I wasn’t a science reporter and I wasn’t a… The last time I ever took a science class was biology in high school. But I grew up with somebody in the business who had done very well in the business and was acknowledged and recognised. And he had a biochemical company that manufactured chemicals for medicinal research. And the largest customer he had was NIH.

Christine Dolan:

So I was privy to the politics and the history of the pharmaceutical company. And he had always explained to me that in the 1950s, following World War II, they came up with thalidomide, and that was initially used for insomnia for people after World War II and then was given to pregnant women. And when they tried to distribute it to the United States, they knew that in fact it had resulted, in the babies were hurt. They were born with arms coming out of their shoulders.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Gross deformities.

Christine Dolan:

Deformities, thank you. And there was a woman named Frances Kelsey was her name, who was out of the ordinary for her generation. She was at FDA during the Kennedy administration in the 60s. And she had questions and she put those people through a ringer because she wanted more research. And then she basically did not allow it into the United States at that time. It later was approved during Fauci’s aid crisis. And he was actually, ironically, given an award in the name of Frances Kelsey. But which makes no sense because she blocked having that drug in the United States then in the 60s because of the baby deformities. And she was given a big award by JFK when he was President. And so I grew up knowing that. And then my dad passed away about, I guess, 11 years ago.

Christine Dolan:

And it was very unusual because in 2020, I didn’t know Fauci. His wife was ahead of me at Georgetown University. But again, I wasn’t a medical reporter. I was covering the 2020 campaign for John Solomon at Just The News. John had just started early in January/February, he called me and he said, “Can you help me get this started?” I said, “Sure.” And so I jumped on board and then the next thing we know, it’s not the 2020 campaign, it’s the COVID campaign. And it was a nightmare here in America trying to get a handle around it. Trying to get a handle around what is the origin of it. There are many people in Fauci’s camp that kept on saying, “Well, this is going to happen again.”

Christine Dolan:

And when I had gone to law school and I didn’t finish, and I’m not a lawyer, but I was trained as a criminal investigator in law school. So when you ask me, Malcolm, where do I get the passion, I think it’s just instinct. There’s a lot of faults that I have, but one of the talents I have is the ability to connect the dots. And whenever you see chaos, and it was chaos in 2020 here in America. I knew that the story was bigger than what we were being told. There was no transparency.

Christine Dolan:

There were just too many people with too many degrees that had no idea what the hell was going on in the world. And the thing that caught my eye is that if everybody says that it’s going to happen again, then the natural thing that should happen should be for world leaders getting together and demanding to know what is the origin of this so it’s not repeated. And that was not happening. Morrison in your country did eventually say… Wanted the Chinese to really become transparent. And there was a lot of pushback with him, but I never saw anybody else. And that caught my mind because-

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I’ve got to interject there, Christine, because what I noticed about Scott Morrison is that on the 3rd of October 2019 I think it was. In Sydney he made a speech talking about the unaccountable internationalistic bureaucrats. He was basically naming the UN without naming him, but it was just nonsense. We have been calling out the UN and the World Economic Forum for decades, and Morrison realised we were making progress so he tried to hijack the issue and silence it. But Morrison, very early on, even though he called out the Chinese, that was just for local political benefit for himself. Because very soon after he advocated giving the World Health Organisation, that criminal, dishonest, deceitful organisation, incompetent organisation, increased powers, powers of weapons inspectors. Morrison was talking out of both sides of his mouth. And he did that forever throughout this COVID virus campaign, mismanagement, gross mismanagement in this country.

Christine Dolan:

Well see that’s a piece of information I didn’t realise for the background of it. But at the time in 2020 he was, for whatever, whether it was ill purpose and everything like that for political gain. He was the only one that was calling it. And I mean, Trump didn’t call for it. Biden claimed that when he came into office that he ordered up an investigation. But again, you had the foxes in the henhouse that were doing the investigation. I don’t know if you caught this recently, but everybody in the world should understand this. Jeffrey Sachs, who’s all part of the globalist group, economist, he actually called for a commission.

Christine Dolan:

He created 11 tasks force, one of which was on the origin. And Jeffrey just came out earlier in August, I think it was the first week in August. Where he went public and he said that in fact he had realised that when he hired Peter Daszak as the head of that origin task force, that he then hired other people, which he was allowed to do with Jeffrey’s blessing. But then Jeffrey came to the conclusion now in 2022 that in fact everybody that was on the origin task force was lying to him. People that he’d known for decades, because they were all saying, “Don’t look over here at the lab. It must be in nature.”

Christine Dolan:

And what caught my eye two years earlier was when this broke, all of a sudden there was a Lansing Journal article, this is February 2020. And it was written by people I had no idea of any of them, but they all had concluded at the very beginning of this madness that it did not come from a lab leak. And I thought to myself, how would anybody know this because nobody’s done an investigation? The Chinese, the CCP, they’re not forthcoming and you need to have boots on the ground to do this. And I contacted them and I found out things that really haven’t surfaced and the public doesn’t really understand the game that’s at play here. But I will just label these people who authored that article. And we later found out that it was orchestrated by Daszak to basically cover their derrieres. But-

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Can we take a break there? Can we take a break there please, Christine and what I’d like to do, you’ve already said that you got onto it in February 2020. That’s well before most people started even thinking about a possibility that it was being rigged. We’ll have a break now and we’ll come back and then I’d like to know how you developed that instinct and then we’ll go into Peter Daszak and others in detail later on in this show.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

But I’d like to understand where the young Christine Dolan as a girl started developing these instincts. And how you developed them even further in your university and after university, your early jobs, because you’ve worked in mainstream media. You’re one of the few people in mainstream media that I would trust. So we’ll take a short break and then we’ll be right back with more from Christine Dolan.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Welcome back to the Senator Malcolm Roberts Show. And I’ve got a very important guest, Christine Dolan, who has worked in all of the major networks in the United States. She’s had many years as an investigative reporter. She’s investigated slavery and her work has been acclaimed by Heads of States and diplomats. Members of the European Parliament, U.S. Congress, members of the OSC in Vienna, U.S. Department of Defence, Interpol, FBI. This lady has been around. She’s actually trained some of the investigators in how to do their job. Let’s understand first, Christine, what turned little Christine as a girl into a bulldog investigative reporter? What were the key things that influenced you as a child? Where did you go to university? What did you study? What did you graduate at? And then where you came into your first job?

Christine Dolan:

I was an Irish Catholic raised Sacred Heart girl. I went to-

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Oh, so we know where the bulldog comes from then?

Christine Dolan:

The Bulldog, yeah. And then I went to Georgetown University, undergrad. I went to the Business School, majored in economics. And then I went directly into law school. Hated [inaudible 00:22:01]. Hated my second year. And then I said the hell with this, because I didn’t want to be a lawyer. I had a job as a criminal investigator for defendants with the Public of Defender’s Office. And I loved being in the field. I loved gathering information. And so that was my first instinct. And then I applied to 72 radio television stations in sales and in news. I had no idea how to get into the news business, but I also knew that I always wanted to go into the news business. I never really wanted to be a lawyer, I just thought that I’d get a law degree because I thought it might be helpful. And I disappointed my father and my mother when I said I was not going to go back to law school. And I was pretty dramatic about it.

Christine Dolan:

I didn’t take my second year spring exams. So I made a definitive statement and then I asked my father to pay for me to have these 72 interviews I lined up in eight cities. Because I didn’t want to live in a small town. I wanted to start, I wanted to see if I could get my foot and door at the networks. And I was hired on the spot guys in the news division. And some guys in the sales divisions wanted to hire me. But they said, “No, no, no, no, you belong in the news division.”

Christine Dolan:

So I first started off at ABC News, I worked for a guy named Kevin Delaney who was terrific. He was on the roof of the embassy in Saigon, so he had covered Vietnam. I ended up working for Hal Bruno, who was a legend in the news business. He had uncovered the Chappaquiddick story for Newsweek. And then he came over to ABC News and I worked as a researcher off air reporter for him. He taught me so well that I then jumped to CNN and became the first woman political director and his counterpart. So we competed against one another, but we were friends for 33 years. And then after that I started my own production company focused on Africa-

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And how old were you then?

Christine Dolan:

… An international policy show.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

How old were you then, Christine, when you started your own show?

Christine Dolan:

I was in my thirties. I was in my thirties when I did that. And then I had an opportunity to, I was asked to be the spokesperson for the USA Nelson Mandela tour in 1990, which I did because I thought Mandela, I was an awe of him as a human being. But I had an international policy show on PBS, and that was in the nineties when we were trying to get Americans to be more interested in foreign policy. There were very few, the networks weren’t really covering it the way that they could have. And this was before MSNBC and Fox Cable was even on the air and it’s CNN. We had in the eighties, we had, oh my gosh, 24 hours of news. But we had repeats of shows. And so I came up with Inside Politics, which was the first ever daily political show to teach people about-

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yours was the first in the United States?

Christine Dolan:

It was the first daily political show, and it was in the eighties before Fox or MSNBC was ever created. They weren’t created until the late nineties. And the goal of the show is to teach people about politics. But it is not what it is today. I mean now it’s been on the year now over 30 years. But it’s the vision of it that I had then certainly has been changed by the management at CNN. But so I’ve always been out there wanting to get ahead of where the news was. And I like to do investigations. I like to do long investigations. When I was commissioned for human trafficking, I was so horrified that the cops put me through a real ringer to test me if I was a tabloid journalist. And I said to them at the time, “Look, well travelled, I’ve been around the block, I’ve been around the world. I’m seasoned.” So I thought, “but I have no idea what you’re talking about.”

Christine Dolan:

When I interviewed Paul Holmes, who was the head of the Interpol Trafficking Committee in June of 2000, I asked him point blank. How young are the victims? And he said, infants. In one ear out the other, because I had no context. Two weeks later I met with Carlos Shepherd, who’s a forensic profiler, probably one of the best in Europe. And a woman named Yola Bolebrek. And I told him, I met this nice cop in London and he’s telling me this and I just don’t have any contexts. And they said, “Christine, it’s true.” And I said, “Well, if it’s true, then people have to educate me.” Because I’ve covered three wars by that point. And then the next thing I know is I get a phone call the next day and Yola Bolebrek tells me I passed the test and I said, “What was the test?”

Christine Dolan:

And she said, “We just needed to know how serious you were. John Ernst wants to meet you.” I said, “Who’s he?” And she said, “Take a train to the Heg. And he was head of the porn unit at the hag and he brought me on the inside and these guys taught me. And the advantage I had as a journalist at the time where cops have to be invited into a foreign country to do an investigation. And they have to have a task force and everything like that. That wasn’t really coordinated for this in 2000. And so as a journalist, I was able to go from country to country. And to get that story because once these guys really made me realise how evil this was, it was beyond Rwanda. I realised then and there, this is the depth of hell and people just did not know.

Christine Dolan:

They know that slavery is immoral, but they didn’t realise at the turn of the 21st century that it was alive and well. It just had a different picture on it. So I took every risk and I dressed up as a hooker, hung out with transvestites who actually, most of them are victims of child abuse, in red light districts because they have their own corner. I don with the mafia and everything like that. And I was able to get the story. And to do what the cops were not able to do. And then I decided to take on the Catholic church. So the one thing that we learned is what are the criminal tools? What are the tools of the trade that people use to commit the crime and to cover it up. And I can tell you that it’s a team of people, just like in the Catholic church where it wasn’t just the Cardinals that covered up. It wasn’t just the auxiliary bishops that covered it up.

Christine Dolan:

It was the Vatican, it was the lawyers, it was the state legislatures that had laws that said that if you were abused, you could only report it after three years when some people have regressive memories. And it doesn’t come back for a long period of time because of compounded trauma in their brain. So when the COVID story came up and there was chaos at the beginning of 2020. I don’t know when the story really hit you guys down there in Australia, Malcolm, but I know that I was on some phone calls with some business leaders in Australia who were talking to some people at Gavi and CEPI. And a friend of mine, allowed me to listen in. I knew that was what the people from Gavi and CEPI were saying to the business leaders in Australia was absolute nonsense.

Christine Dolan:

I just happened to know a lot of nurses. I was asking nurses across America, What are you seeing in the ICUs? What are you seeing in the ERs, emergency rooms? And they were telling me, we’re killing people with the ventilators. So I’ve got the Lancet report in February 2020, that doesn’t make any sense to me. These people that had, were the authors of the report were telling me what they do as for a living in terms of hunting for 1.6 million viruses. To obtain the 25 coronavirus family viruses and to figure out if they’re transmissible to human beings, which then would create a seasonal vaccine for everybody in the world for all these 25 coronaviruses. Now to me, at that point in time, I’m thinking these people are pretty crazy and this is Frankenstein’s business. This is Frankenstein science. But the thing is, they actually were funded by the US. It was under a project called PREDICT Project at USAID.

Christine Dolan:

They were in operating in 30 countries. They had labs all over the world. People have to understand, when you think about this, think about the bat woman in the Chinese Wuhan lab. She’s part of the team. And the people who wrote that, who authored that Lancet article in February 2020, all belonged to that. Peter Daszak, he was one of the people that was on who authored that article. And he’s involved with gain of function. But I’m learning this all on the first six weeks of coronavirus shutting down America. I’m talking to the nurses, I’m talking to international scientists and doctors who are trying to get money to come up with something that can reduce the COVID viral load in the body. And what they were telling me is that the ventilators was the wrong procedure.

Christine Dolan:

This disease, for lack of a better word, pardon me, caused blood clots. People in hospitals should be put on blood thinners, antioxidants. And what these guys were trying to do is to get government money or some money to create X, Y, and Z that would reduce the viral load in the body that’s causing all this disaster. And they weren’t getting the money. And then all of a sudden we moved to May or June and Fauci is… Oh no, I have to go back to April. April 2020, Fauci is at the White House sitting on the sofa. Dr. Bricks is there, Trump’s in the room and he’s saying, Remdesivir is a safe drug. And I know somebody who died from Remdesivir, and I’m thinking none of this makes any sense. And instinctively I know if you have this much chaos, there’s a cover up here someplace.

Christine Dolan:

And then as you know, six weeks later, vax was the only answer. And telling me that vax is the only answer is telling me as a war correspondent, that war is the only answer that makes no sense to me. So that I knew right then and there by June, this was nonsense. And the only person in the world I wanted to talk to was Bobby Kennedy. And I had dated one of his cousins when we were all kids. And I called my late friend’s brother and I said, “Give me his cell phone number.” And I called Bobby at the time and I said, “I’m going to get into this because this is medical trafficking.” One of the things that when people think of human trafficking, they think of sex labour, internet, street. I created a model for the different faces of human trafficking, child soldiers, sex tourism, ritual abuse, torture, organ trafficking.

Christine Dolan:

And then you have medical trafficking. And I had concluded by August of 2020 that this was medical trafficking. But again, I’m humbled up to have to say I didn’t fully understand the form of corruption at that point. It was an instinct with me. But after the campaign is when I called Bobby and he said, “I want you to meet two people.” I met with the two people that they gave me 25 books to read. I read the 25 books and I was absolutely confirmed that this was medical trafficking. And I think I’ve sent you the film that I released in July of 2021. And it is the most unregulated, unaccountable, human medical experiment in the history of mankind.

Christine Dolan:

There’s not a doubt in my mind about this or hard or soul or anything right now. What I do know about investigations is the longer that the fraud goes on, people make mistakes, guilt sets in. And so after the 2020 campaign, there were two areas that I wanted to organise. I wanted to find pharma whistle blowers on the inside of Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer and Moderna, and any other pharmaceutical companies here in the United States who had any association with the Gates Foundation, CEPI, WHO vaccinations, even if they weren’t COVID. That were going to move into the mRNAs because they are going to move into the mRNA shots for flu, malaria, aids, tuberculosis, and god knows what else is on the recipe. And then I-

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So this is just the tip of the iceberg we’ve seen so far?

Christine Dolan:

That’s right. And then the second group that I wanted to develop was the COVID vaccination injured. And so I started talking to the vaccinated injured. Because we had, I don’t want to call them clinical trials, but we had trials. So they called them clinical trials in 2020 before the rollout. We got the rollout here in the United States in December. I don’t know when it was in Australia. So I want to define Vaccine injury from the so-called clinical trials here in the States, which I did. And then during the rollout. And most of those people were terrified of being called anti-vax. They didn’t want to go on the record, they didn’t want to go on the camera. And so I spent the first, I guess it was the first January till around June. And talking to these people, and what I realised was they were talking to NIH, CDC, FDA, NIAID.

Christine Dolan:

They even wrote a letter to all of them plus the White House in May of 2021. By June, I called one of the authors of that Lancet February, 2020 article. And I said to him, “What do you thinks going on with the rollout?” Now keep this in mind, this is June, 2020. We don’t have a lot of breakthrough cases at that point in time, which means that vaccinated people getting COVID, those were under reported if they existed at that point in time. And this guy says to me, “We have to do better on the messaging that the vaccines are safe and effective and prevent transmissibility and prevent the disease.” And I said to him, “Well, what about the vax injured?” And he said, “Christine, they’re urban legends.” And that really threw me back. And I said, “You can try that on somebody else, but I’m just too old for that.”

Christine Dolan:

I said, “I’m talking to people.” And he said, “Yeah, but if there’s three million vaccinations and 325,000 of them are injured with blood clots, we have treatment for blood clots.” I said, “I have not spoken to one vaccinated injured person who only has one thing wrong with them.” There was neurological, there was cardio, there was vascular injuries that doctors at the ERs in the hospitals didn’t know how to treat them. People were not reporting them to theirs. These, a lot of these people happened to be a lot of women who had a lot of menstrual problems that they didn’t want to talk about on camera. But they were telling me as a woman.

Christine Dolan:

And they ranged from very irregular periods to women who were postmenopausal getting their period after their shots. I mean, it was a disaster. One woman was actually put into a psych ward. Doctors were telling them they were suffering from anxiety and depression. It was just unbelievable trauma for these people. It was like talking to my first trafficked victims over 20 years ago. They were traumatised by it. A lot of them were in the healthcare industry. They were not getting the care from their own colleagues. They were getting gaslighted by their own colleagues. They were disappointed by what was going on. Some of them even worked for pharmaceutical companies. They couldn’t believe what was going on inside their industry.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Can we take a break now, please, Christina. We’ll come back and go into this in. We’ll let you continue because this is riveting stuff. I love the way your instinct has kicked in so early in this whole fiasco, this whole… Well, I think it’s genocide myself. And so let’s take a break and we’ll be back with Christine Dolan.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

This is Senator Malcolm Roberts on today’s news talk radio where the only thing that we mandate is the truth. And we’ve got a real truth teller here because she’s used her instincts to get right to the core of issues all over the world. Child trafficking, slavery and now she’s telling us about medical trafficking. So Christine Dolan, please continue. And I’d like to know more about Peter Daszak when it suits you please. And also it seems that there is some criminal activity or anti-human genocidal activity, people who just don’t give damn about human life. And then there seems to be a lot of group think and people just following slavishly. What else is going on here?

Christine Dolan:

I think Malcolm, the one thing I had to do in these books that Bobby’s colleagues recommended that I read. I had to get up in the history of the pharma corruption, because we in America, and I don’t know what it’s like down there in Australia. But we in America are pharmaceutically addicted. 75% is, 80% of the people in America are on prescription drugs. We’re the first countries-

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

75?

Christine Dolan:

75% to 80% of Americans are on prescription drugs. We have gone through Valium in the sixties was an epidemic. We’ve gone through the opiates just like you guys have. And it’s been all over the world. We’ve gone through fentanyl is the biggest thing now. People are just drinking fentanyl here. It’s amazing what it’s doing to kids. We’ve legalised pot, but the pot today is cut with fentanyl. So we have the highest overdoses since, I think it’s last year in the history of America. So we have a drug attitude here that is pervasive. And there’s a belief in the medical divinity of the white coat. So if people see, and doctors have told me this, if somebody sees a commercial on TV and they’re depressed, then it’s a new drug. And well doctor, “Why don’t you give me that one because the last one didn’t work.”

Christine Dolan:

So people are actually asking for something because it’s advertised. And I had to go back and take a look at the pharma. The rules and regulations of the game for criminality are very clear, which you have to know. You have to be humble enough and curious enough to ask the questions. How did this come to be? And so we know here in the United States that going back to 1986 under the Reagan administration, Congress passed a bill. Reagan signed it. And that basically gave carte blanche to the pharmaceutical companies having no liability for any of the vaccinations that are out there. Because there were a lot of vaccination injuries prior to that time. And I’m not going to doubt whether anybody’s heart was in the right place, but basically it was carte blanche to the pharmaceutical companies for mumps, measles, rubella, mercury, everything went off the charts.

Christine Dolan:

And there are people who in fact have been harmed, their families have been harmed. And underneath that bill, there was a kangaroo court that was set up, but it’s not like your normal civil criminal court. If you want to get any money in compensation for having a family member hurt with a vaccination in those days. You have to apply like a Catholic Victims of Compensation fund or a Jeffrey Epstein Victims Compensation Fund. You file it with HHS, the Department of Justice attorneys handle it. You’re not allowed to even subpoena the pharmaceutical companies for any documents. I mean, it’s wild stuff. And if people don’t know if they’re not affected by this in the past, they’re not going to be able to recognise what was going on in 2020. So I had to take a deep dive going back and figure it out. I had to take a look at the different players.

Christine Dolan:

Who are these people that are involved in this Frankenstein, Corona virus hunters world. Peter Daszak is one of them. Who’s involved with the labs? Peter Daszak is one of them. How did this get funded in these labs that are ranked by 2, 3 4, which is fourth being I think is the highest in terms of security and standards of practise. Is it regulated? No, it’s not regulated. This is having nuclear weapons all over the world with no regulations. And that’s what people don’t understand. I did an hour and a half interview with one of those authors just recently. His name is Dennis Carol. And he was overseeing the PREDICT Project at USAID and it ran for 10 years during. It was started, I think it was at the beginning of the Obama administration. And then it was stopped.

Christine Dolan:

And then during the Trump administration, somebody got around the fact that they could, the PREDICT Project wasn’t stopped, that the gain of function was stopped within the PREDICT project. And this is when they go out to the bat caves, they get these coronaviruses, take it to a lab, they fool around with it to see if it’s transmissible. And they really do have a goal of going out and hunting for 1.6 million. They say that there’s 25,000 different families of coronaviruses of that 1.6 million viruses they want to hunt for. When they had the PREDICT Project, they found 1200 that were transmissible. And it’s a very dangerous industry. I didn’t know anything about it. And I would predict that probably most politicians and world leaders don’t really know about this and how lethal it is. But there’s no oversight.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

But what I’ve noticed, Christine, is that parliament, and I’m listening to Ron Paul, he’s implied much the same as I’m about to say about Congress as I’ve learned about parliament. People in Parliament, the public don’t respect them, but at the same time, they seem to follow slavishly, whatever they say. And what we’ve seen in Parliament and in your Congress is sheep. And they have very little inquisitive. If we had Congress and a Senate full of people like you, America would be wonderfully run because people ask questions, but the politicians don’t.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

They just seem to follow slavishly. They’re afraid of saying, I’m sorry, I don’t know. And I’ve noticed quite frankly that women are more likely to say, “Hey, I need some help. Hey, I’m sorry I made a mistake. Hey, I’m wrong, can you please help me? Hey, I don’t know the answer to this question. Can you give me that hand?” And it’s the men who tend to be more like sheep, not all men of course. But what I’m getting to is the institutions, because you just stunned me. You said that there’s no regulation around this area. I thought it was so highly regulated.

Christine Dolan:

No, no. There’s no, that’s a myth. It’s not regulated. And I’ll tell you the reason why, the American politicians in Washington DC on both sides of the aisle, do not ask these questions. The money, okay, we’ve got campaign financing that’s just off the charts here. But the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing and Research Association, which is the Federal Trade Association that gives out money to people on Capitol Hill. There are very few politicians in Capitol Hill that have only taken six figures over the years. It’s a very powerful, very powerful trade association.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So you’re saying many have taken seven figures?

Christine Dolan:

Yes.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Many members of Congress-

Christine Dolan:

Over the years-

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

… have taken seven figures

Christine Dolan:

… Because it’s over the years. I’m talking about cumulatively. I can tell you that Romney has probably taken millions. So this is, you take the money for the donations, they spent over 300 million, pardon me, in 2020 alone. But then also in the States, I had to ask myself, “Why did Governor DeWine from Ohio announced the lottery in 2021 to get people to take the VAX?” And then all of a sudden I realised talking to some people in Ohio, how vast the money is flowing into the state legislatures. And I think I told you this before Malcolm privately, I even listened in on the White House office of faith based phone calls. Starting immediately after Biden was inaugurated.

Christine Dolan:

So this was mid-February 2021. And I heard the people on that end of the phone talking to thousands of people all over the world, I mean all over the country. That they wanted the churches, which had been closed down in America for 2020 to hold “COVID events” because they’re places of trust in community to validate vaccinations. Now think about that. They wanted the churches to host the COVID events, to get the vaccines, to validate them because they’re places of trust. On that one phone call mid-February of 2021, the Biden White House is telling the faith based leaders to in fact get married to the leaders in the Black communities as well as unions. Although specific unions were not mentioned in that phone call. So this is-

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So they’re just tying it up. They’re tying it up.

Christine Dolan:

They’re tying it up-

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And they’re exploiting trust.

Christine Dolan:

They’re flashing it, they’re selling, it is such a level of diabolical human behaviour. And then you have to say, “Why the hell do they want to do this? Is it just because of pharma? Is it because of money? Is it because of the globalism? Is it because of world economic form? Is it because of WHO?” And then you have to take a look at this year alone. In January of this year, the woman who handles the global policy at the HHS here in the States got your country, our country, all of Europe, 47 countries together to sign on for amendments to the WHO to amend the 2005 International Health regulations. And basically is getting all these 47 of the countries to say, “We want to put our health sovereignty onto the WHO.” Isn’t that a clever thing to do because you can’t sue the WHO.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Let’s just pause there for a minute, please. Because what you are showing now is why you claim there’s medical trafficking and you’ve made a good case. You’ve seen child trafficking, human trafficking, slave trafficking, and now you’re making the case for medical trafficking. It’s due to corruption-

Christine Dolan:

Yeah, but before-

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Before we go on, we are not going to cover anything like a fraction of what you know Christine. So is there somewhere people can go to learn more about what you do, what CDM does, Your colleague Todd, website, How do they learn more about what Christine Dolan knows?

Christine Dolan:

I’m not on social media. I don’t like Zuckerberg, I don’t like Dorsey. I am on CDM media. If you just go to Google and put in cdm.press, you’ll see American conversations in the upper right hand corner. We’re broken it down with interviews with vax injured, medical tyranny, which gets into doctors that can’t speak out. And I have a global show taking on the WHO and the globalist every Sunday live on our website. It’s a global conversation and plain site, it’s exposing it. And that is at 12:30 PM Eastern time in the United States for everybody all over the world. One thing I just want to say before we go because I know we are running out of time.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Can we, before you continue with that, and I’d love you to continue with that. We’ve only got about three minutes left and then we have a hard cut. So away you go. Take the last three minutes, Christine.

Christine Dolan:

Okay. So I want to explain to your audience when we talk about medical trafficking, because of my body of work over 22 years ago, I helped shape the context for defining human trafficking. And the best way to understand human trafficking is that you just take a human being. If you defraud, lie coerce, force somebody for whether it’s sex, labour, child soldiers, sex tourism, doesn’t matter, internet, street to remove their organs. That is considered trafficking. So if you just put, for commercial profit, a human being defrauding, lying to, coercing, forcing, for X, Y, and Z-

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Exploiting.

Christine Dolan:

Exploit, that is considered trafficking exploit. And we know that these people are making money. Why are they doing this? The one thing that everybody in the world should do, every politician should do, is to demand from their government to get a copy of J and J, Moderna and Pfizer’s contracts that were given to their country to get access to that foreign citizenship. To put these injections into these people. It’s very important to get those contracts. I’m collecting these contracts as much as I possibly can. I’m going to cross reference these contracts, but I know that those three pharmaceutical companies are asking foreign governments to not make them liable in case there’s any harm done. They want the same lack of liability that they have here in the United States.

Christine Dolan:

In some countries they’re asking for collateral damage. And some of the documents they’re saying to the foreign governments, if you order two million in May, we’re going to decide when you’re going to deliver them. But if there’s a cure for COVID, if between the time that you sign this contract and they are delivered, you’re still going to have to pay for those vaccinations. And this is what really gets crazy. Why the hell would anybody in any foreign government sign a contract like that? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. And the only reason why somebody would do it, I dare suggest, is because somebody took a bribe.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah, it’s about the money. But I think it’s also in the case of the World Health Organisation, which is corrupt, incompetent, dishonest, fraudulent. It’s about control on behalf of the United Nations and the World Economic Forum and let’s face. These big pharma control, that’s what they want. They want us as slaves to buy their products, get sick on their products, so they give us another product to remove the symptoms. We’ve got about a minute. Christine, anything else you want to say?

Christine Dolan:

Well, that recycle makes a lot of sense why Bill Gates would be involved with it. Because I don’t know about you, but I didn’t own a Mac until two and a half years ago. During 2020, I used PCs. Every time that my PC would break, I would have to get a new one. I would have to go out and I have to buy a new Windows. So it was a recycled model for economic profit. And that’s why I think he’s so attracted to the vaccinations and people need to understand this is not a man who has an altruistic interest in help.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I’m going to have to cut it off there, Christine, because we’ve got 15 seconds. I just want to thank you so much for being here. You are so clear, so precise, you’ve got a wealth of experience. We need people like you to do more of what you’re doing, speaking up to expose these globalist predators, these bastards who are exploiting people. Thank you so much, Christine. Look forward to talking with you again.

Christine Dolan:

Thank you, Malcolm. I look forward to seeing you and talking to you again. Bye.

Advert Speaker:

To hear a replay of this hour, go to episodes@tntradio.live now TNT Radio News.

George Christensen joins me on the Malcolm Roberts show for TNT Radio to talk about his upbringing, crony capitalism and how to stop the globalist march through our country.

Transcript

Announcer 1:

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

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Thank you so much for listening in today. We have another special guest. This guest is breaking into the media, whereas Christine Dolan was part of the mainstream media and now is setting a new chart and doing investigations to take her beyond the mainstream media. George Christensen is my next guest. Now George was in the National Party, part of the LNP coalition, and he had had enough of politics, so he got out and he’s doing a stellar job in informing people because by way of his own broadcasting, his own work in the media, so I’m going to ask him to talk about that. So welcome, George.

George Christensen:

Thanks very much, Malcolm. Great to be on your show.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And I must say it’s a pleasure having you, because we didn’t engage that much until you actually joined our party. And you’re not here because you’re a member of our party now, but I got to work with you during the election campaign and I loved working with you. You’re frank, you’re direct and you’re bloody well informed. You don’t open your gob unless it’s factually based. So before we start, what do you appreciate, anything at all?

George Christensen:

Well, without making it a mutual admiration society here, can I say I appreciate you Malcolm, and I appreciate what you’ve just said, but you are an absolute warrior. You are a warrior in the Senate, and it’s fantastic to see you in full flight, exposing the globalists, exposing the vaccine madness, exposing the World Economic Forum, the climate change myth, all the rest of it. Malcolm, you do a fantastic job for the Australian public.

George Christensen:

Now that we’re done with that, and I really do mean it but now that we’re done with the mutual backslapping, can I just say, you asked me the question what do I appreciate? Well, look, I appreciate freedom most of all. Freedom and liberty, Malcolm. These are the two fundamentals for any flourishing and functioning society, and without it we don’t have a functioning society or a flourishing society. We have a dictatorship or a totalitarian society which will eventually stagnate and die. So that’s what I appreciate most of all.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Okay. Thank you so much, and thank you for your kind words too. I know they’re sincere because that’s the way you operate and that’s what has drawn me to you. Where were you born? Let’s understand what makes George tick, because I know that that freedom is deeply ingrained in you. You went to journalism, part of the way through. Now you’re going back to journalism. But I get the sense that your inquisitiveness was developed at an early age, and your sense of truthfulness. So tell us where were you born and what shaped your early years, and what sort of parents did you have, what sort of influences?

George Christensen:

Yeah. Yeah. Well, look, I was born in Mackay, didn’t move far from that spot obviously. I was raised there, educated there, had my first job there and started a career in journalism there. Served on the local council there.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So what was your first job?

George Christensen:

Well, my first job was actually sweeping the floor in my dad’s shed, although that’s not a real job, just got paid pocket money. But my first job actually was… Well, I had some part-time gigs at university. I wouldn’t even consider them real jobs. I was a factory worker in a newspaper printery actually. It was a casual work that I did at university to help pay the bills. But the first proper job-

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

What were you studying at uni, George? Journalism?

George Christensen:

Journalism. Journalism, yeah.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Okay, so you got a job in one of the newspapers.

George Christensen:

Yes. That was my first job in Mackay, at a newspaper that’s now closed down. It was one of those free local sort of community newspapers called the Pioneer News. So it wasn’t national or international, hard hitting stories, but it was about the local community and people appreciate to know what’s going on in the local community, who’s doing what, who’s helping, what issues there are. So that was where I cut my teeth in journalism, Malcolm. Yeah. But look, as I said-

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Is that why you went into journalism?

George Christensen:

No. Look, it’s an interesting story as to why I went into journalism. I mean, just to go back to your last question, I grew up in a very, I don’t want to stretch this too far but a poor family comparable to others. My father lost his leg to cancer at the age of 19, and so he was a disability pensioner when I was born although he was very much trying to get out of that by doing anything and everything. He was a taxi driver actually for most of the time when I was a little kid. My mother also had a disability. She was an epileptic. And the reason them two met was they met in a rehabilitation centre actually, so it was because of their disabilities that brought them together and the fact that I’m here. So I was one of those kids that went to school barefoot, because Mum and Dad at the time couldn’t afford to buy new shoes. You know, that was my growing up.

George Christensen:

So university seemed like not really something that I thought too strongly about while I was in primary school, I guess no one does, even in the younger years of high school, but I started to think about going off to university. Now, I was pretty good at English, at modern history, ancient history, even study of society, that sort of thing at high school, and I actually got a pretty good enough OP, good enough to get accepted into a law degree, and that was my first option. I got admitted to a law degree at Griffith University and was going to go off and do that. It was actually… I think it was a double degree, a Bachelor of Laws and a Bachelor of Public Policy. So that’s what I was interested in doing, but the reality then had to be looked at, and the reality was that Mum and Dad didn’t have enough finances to support me leaving home, moving somewhere else, down to Brisbane and setting up shop, so I had to then make another decision based on what was the financial reality for the family.

George Christensen:

And so we had a very fledgling university in Mackay at that time. It was really a sub campus, a sort of an outpost of central Queensland University which was mainly based in Rockhampton at that stage but they offered first year courses in Mackay. And so I started my university studies there doing a combined Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Business degree. I eventually dropped off the business component of it and just focused on the Arts, but my major was in Journalism, although I did what we would call a minor in Sociology as well while I was there at university. So I went off to Rockhampton for three years to finish those studies and graduated. I looked, after I finished university, at actually going back and doing what I wanted, a law degree. I’ve got to say, I got two units in and then I pulled the pin because I was pretty much studied out at that stage, Malcolm.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah, I can understand that. But what I’m picking up from what you’re saying, between the lines, is that you’ve got a fascination with people. You want to understand what makes people tick. And I’ve noticed you are pretty incisive when it comes to seeing what’s going on. Just like Christine Dolan, my previous guest, I don’t know if you listened to her, but you can see what’s going on as some kind of instinct. Is that because of your early journalism?

George Christensen:

Well, look, I was always interested. I said that the subjects that I did well at, at high school, were the study of society, modern history in particular, ancient history a bit, and English. And there’s a common thread through those subjects. I mean, the study of events, the study of major ideas, the study of English language and literature, which forms those ideas. So I was very much interested in ideas, I got to say, and events that were going on that had a major relationship with those big ideas, and I still am today. So going into journalism I guess, there was somewhat of a step backwards, as there has to be. I mean, the young man that aspires to be an astronaut doesn’t immediately fly into space. He’s going to go through training. He’s going to learn to be a pilot. He’s going to do all those sorts of things.

George Christensen:

So stepping down and getting at the grassroots level and understanding what makes a local community tick through this newspaper I worked for, the Pioneer News, was very, very good grounding actually. I’ve got to say I didn’t work there for all that long because, and this is public knowledge although I don’t talk too much about it, at that stage I had a very, very strong feeling or urging, I can’t explain it, to explore the Catholic priesthood, and so I actually left my job to go to a seminary. I had gone on a trial basis for two weeks and then I came back, and then there was a decision to go back again that had to be made. And I pulled the pin right at the last minute on it, which left me sort of stranded because there I was, having quit my job thinking that I definitely was going to go down this track, and then at the last minute I decided, no, I’m not going to do it because there was numerous factors at play.

George Christensen:

My family were very much against it, and that also led me to reevaluating the decision, I guess, and those two factors combined led me to not pursue it. But that goes to another thing that’s a very strong part of me, and that is my belief in a higher power, in God, my belief fundamentally in the Christian faith. I don’t pretend to be a saint, Malcolm. I don’t pretend to be a saint. There’s been more blue words come out of my mouth than most sailors, right? So I’ve never pretended to be a saint, but I do have a very, very strong belief in Jesus Christ and in the Christian faith, so that has remained with me from then on. And it goes into part of my belief in bigger ideas. When you see the world through that particular worldview, that Christian worldview, you are interested in the ideas and ultimately you are interested in the battle between good and evil.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. Could you expand on that? Because you know, good and bad are two words I try to avoid using, because what might be good for a farmer is rain, what might be good for a tourist operator is sunshine. But good and evil, and how do we express that in everyday language. Not everyday language, how do we see it in our communities? Because, you know, there are… Well, yeah, I’ll leave it to you.

George Christensen:

Well, that’s a really big question.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

It is.

George Christensen:

Look, there’s some things that are relative, right? Like what you said, rain might be good for a farmer, at the same time it might be bad for the guy who’s… I don’t know.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Running a tourism operation.

George Christensen:

A cricket aficionado or a tourism operation, or the person who’s just planned a family barbecue, so those things are relative. But look, I think that there are some things that are not relative. There is good. There is good in humanity, and what is good? Well, good is selflessness. Good is the service of others before yourself, without the want for reward. So that is good, I think, Malcolm. And we express that even, putting aside the Christian faith or any form of religion. What is the one thing that is sacrosanct in Australian culture, and the answer is it’s the Anzac spirit.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And mateship?

George Christensen:

Yes, yes. Mateship is almost fused with that sense of the Anzac spirit, because these were people who laid down their life for a greater cause and for their friend. And so that is the spirit of goodness I think, and it shines through actually in Australian culture. Not just Australian culture, but just an example of how that permeates our culture.

George Christensen:

Evil on the other hand, and I don’t want to get too much into this but you’ve asked me the question. I think that we know absolute evil when we confront it, and not everyone is confronted by it but we know it when we see it. It is a place that is completely and utterly void of that goodness.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

They’re taking a life.

George Christensen:

Taking a life.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Stealing.

George Christensen:

Yes. Anything that’s void of that selflessness, even small acts. And again, I don’t pretend to be a saint. Have I engaged in stuff that is wrong? Everyone has. There is not a single man or woman on the planet who hasn’t sort of walked at least a couple of steps into that darker side. There’s only one man who’s walked the planet who hasn’t I believe, and that is Jesus Christ. But absolute evil is another thing, and when you’re… So I speak to a lot of priests and other ministers of-

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Can we… Can we-

George Christensen:

Yeah, yeah.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Take a short break there please, George-

George Christensen:

Yes.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And then come back with your point and continue. Because we need to have an ad break now, so let’s do it now.

George Christensen:

Let’s do it.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I’ll be back with George Christensen in just a few minutes.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Welcome back. This is Senator Malcolm Roberts on TNT radio, today’s News Talk Radio, and I’ve got the pleasure of having George Christensen as my guest. Now, George, you were talking, in the middle of, about evil versus good, and you were about to talk about priests. Perhaps we could finish that and then get onto your new role, because you were a maker of laws as a member of parliament, and now you’re a reporter of news and politics. And more than anyone else, you go right down into the depth of things. I’d love to learn more about that, what drives you. So continue with where we were before with good versus evil.

George Christensen:

Well, I’ll end the sermon with this. I mean, I talk to a lot of, well not a lot, but a few different priests and other ministers of religion. I find they’re always good sounding boards for various discussions that I want to have, and some of them are very close friends. And so they talk about there being the difference, and I fundamentally believe this Malcolm, there is a difference between the evil that men do, although it is still evil and it is bereft of that goodness that we talk about, and what we would call absolute evil or the personification of evil.

George Christensen:

And what I’m talking about there is Satan, the devil. I fundamentally believe in that. Some Christians actually don’t, but I think that it does exist and we need to be wary about it. I mean, some people might call me crazy and a kook, but when we look at the world today and we see the zeitgeist, the spirit of the times that weaves its way in our culture, in our society, in our politics, in our economy, in terms of international happenings and institutions, I think that there is something gravely Satanic that’s actually going on in the world right now. I think that this spirit of personified evil has actually captured the world and it’s captured culture. Now-

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Let’s continue talking about that. I’m sorry to interrupt you, but I wanted to… A good friend of mine who I’ve got a lot of respect for, he’s pretty switched on, he just sent me a text. He must be listening. He said pure evil is Klaus Schwab, and I think that’s where you’re going, isn’t it?

George Christensen:

Well, yeah. Look, the world economic forum. I just started reading Alex Jones’s new book, The Great Reset and the War on the World, and he speaks about it in these terms. It’s the battle for freedom, or the battle versus authoritarianism, and I think that they can be framed in good versus evil as well. Wanting everyone to be free and be able to pursue their own sense of happiness without infringing on the freedom of others, versus those who want to crush the fellow man and force them to do their will. I mean, that’s the battle of good versus evil, and I see that very strongly in the world today, and certainly out of the World Economic Forum. I wonder about the World Economic Forum. I spend a lot of time focusing on them and the ideas that are coming out through them.

George Christensen:

But I sometimes wonder Malcolm, and this is me speculating, whether it is just merely a front, because they’re so public in some of the things that they come out with, and some of the things are so bizarre. There’s either two things going on. One, it’s just front and we’re being obscured from something else that’s going on. Or two, and this may be the case, they have gotten so far with their agenda that they do not care anymore about hiding it. When you hear bizarre things coming out of the World Economic Forum, such as that they want to have fact checking for our thoughts. You know, the whole thing about transhumanism? When you start going down that rabbit hole, and this is stuff that the world economic forum publishes in their articles, says in their bloody globalist seminars and all the rest of it.

George Christensen:

They’re talking about the fusion of AI with the brain, and they can actually have blocking receptors, so that if there are things, ideas, images, anything, that really is something that goes against society as they see it, that can be blocked from entering the human mind. Just think about how frightening that idea is, how frightening that technology is, but how even more frightening that people would think about deploying it in such a way as the Davos crowd do. So clearly, clearly, that is a battle between good and evil.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Do you think George… I’ve always tended to think about the human spirit, the universal spirit, we’re of our universe. We’re not part of our universe, we’re of our universe, and so there’s a universal unity if you want. So rather than think in terms of good and evil, I tend to think in terms of our real self and our ego.

George Christensen:

Yes.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And you created Georgia, and I created Malcolm, and my ego is the thing that’s hurt me the most-

George Christensen:

True.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Because I can’t believe that I hurt me, but that ego is deliberately doing that so that I reinforce the ego. Because the ego is something I created, so while ever I have that false construct, then the ego survives. So I don’t know if I’m explaining it very well.

George Christensen:

No, you-

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So I tend to see things in terms of ego, ego versus our real self, our real self. And our real self would probably be akin to your good, your inherent goodness, the goodness of humanity, which I believe in very strongly. But then the ego takes over and the Adolf Hitler, the Klaus Schwabs, and they want to control. And always beneath control, there is fear, because that bloody ego is afraid it’ll get dissolved.

George Christensen:

Yes. I think we’re talking… We’re using different words, but I think fundamentally we’re talking about the same thing.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah.

George Christensen:

I’ve heard it said like this in probably more philosophical terms, there’s the logos and then there’s the, and I think this is made up word, the alogos. In the Christian parlance, we say Christ is the logos. I mean, in the beginning of John, the Gospel of John, in the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God, or was God. So that, the Word, is actually in Greek, logos. And if you then take it out, I mean, we believe the logos is personified, it’s Jesus Christ. Take it away from that sort of Christian interpretation, what is logos? Logos is rationality. You talked about… I think it was, what did you say? There’s the universal spirit, is that how you described it? Is that your term?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah, the unity of the universal spirit that is through all of us.

George Christensen:

Yeah. Yeah. So I think that what you’re talking about there is rationality, and it’s order but it’s divine order. It’s perfection, the way that the creator intended the entire universe to function. And then chaos breaks out, and this is the source of evil. It’s rebellion against what the divine order is. So whatever semantics you would like to use, I think that fundamentally we’re talking about the same thing. And I think that it just goes down to where we are at the moment. Look, I am not one who’s the defender of the status quo. The status quo is shocking, Malcolm. This is why it’s so easy when they talk about a great reset to capture some people, because people think that that life at the moment is completely crap. Yeah, it should be reset. The problem is it’s the people who’ve made life as bad as it is that are the ones wanting to do the reset, so do you think it’s going to get any better? The-

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Bullseye.

George Christensen:

Yeah.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

You just hit the bullseye.

George Christensen:

I mean, it’s crazy. All the mega corporations, all the politicians, all the people who have been pulling the strings and calling the shots for decades, wanting to develop a new world. I mean, whose utopia is that going to be? Now, I get back to the good and evil concept, or logos and alogos. A natural state of things is capitalism, right? And let me expand upon that. Not capitalism as we know it. I think the word has been really… It’s almost passe because capitalism means something dirty to a lot of people, right? Let me use another word-

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah, and just on that, George. I can’t resist jumping in. I don’t like cutting people off at times, but-

George Christensen:

Yeah, go on.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

We don’t have capitalism. So I’m-

George Christensen:

Yeah, that’s right. That’s right.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

We have crony capitalism, which is bastardised socialism really, heading on the way to communism. That’s what we’ve gotten, back to feudalism.

George Christensen:

I agree with you.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

We have not got capitalism. Perhaps we can talk about that later.

George Christensen:

Oh, look, that’s where I’m going, mate. That’s exactly where I’m going.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

But keep going. Keep going with your thread. I didn’t mean to…

George Christensen:

So, free enterprise, it is the natural order of things.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

That’s it, personal enterprise.

George Christensen:

Malcolm, you might be good at, I don’t know, pick a trade. You might be good at carpentry, right? And I might be good at bricklaying. I need a table and chairs built, and a bed built, and cabinets built. You can go and do that. Guess what? You need a house out of bricks made, so I can go and do that. And that is the true natural economy working. There’s a sense of that goodness I was speaking out about people helping each other, but there’s also reward. They help each other, they help themself, and the entirety of society flourishes in that system. We bring our talents to the table. We share those talents with others for their talents. We do that through a trade that’s eventually been worked out with money, and that is the natural order of things, not just economically, but also in a societal sense.

George Christensen:

So what these globalists are trying to do is to turn all that on its head. They want mega monolithic multinational corporations to be working hand in hand with technocratic governments, where there might be a facade of representational government but the reality is it will be government by experts. And I don’t say that in a polite way-

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Technocrats?

George Christensen:

Technocrats. You know, the people who have been saying all the things about the pandemic over the last two years, all the things that we must do, that we’re ought not to do, that have turned out to be so badly wrong and have actually damaged people’s health and damaged the state of our society. These are the people who will be in charge, along with the mega corporations who will be, as they say, working hand in glove with governments to bring about change. Now, who elected them? How is that monolithic corporation bringing something to the table that I can trade with that actually helps better society? I don’t understand that. So it is fundamentally going away from the natural order of things.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Well, let me put a framework to you then. In capitalism, we have the individual ownership of assets and means of production.

George Christensen:

Yes.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And we have individual decisions in terms of allocating those resources. In communism, we have state ownership of the resources and the means of production, and state allocation. Socialism, in my… Just splitting the difference there, is individual ownership of the resources and means of production, but state allocation through regulation. And so we are very, very much into socialism right now. We’re not at capitalism. The other thing is that people think that capitalism is rampant, and it’s not. America’s not at all capitalist. It hasn’t been for a long, long time. And what we see is the need for these regulations to protect us George, from the capitalists. And the people who are making the regulations, or driving the law makers who are making regulations, are the ones who are trying to control things and they use regulation to control, and that’s put us into socialism.

George Christensen:

Yeah. True, true. Look, not every law that government brings out or regulation they bring out is bad. I mean, some of them are designed, and do keep some of these major corporations in check. But the problem is, right, when a regulation is brought in, you’ve got this multi billion dollar corporation which has a suite of people in middle management, lower middle management, upper middle management, all the rest of it. You’ve got these hoards of people in human resources and government relations and government regulatory departments who can actually do this work.

George Christensen:

All it requires sometimes is paperwork and ticking boxes, and they employ people that are very good at paperwork and ticking boxes. But the small business who that regulatory burden also falls upon is made up of Mum, Dad, and maybe a couple of young workers. Well, who’s going to be ticking all the boxes and filling in all the paperwork for them that it falls on as well? And so that’s why small business drowns in the paperwork, yet big corporations seem to flourish with it because they’ve just got all the people. So regulation in itself, when it falls on both big and small, actually works in favour of big business.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Oh, exactly. And I think George, that regulation is there for big business, because you look at the IR club. The fundamental responsibility in industrial relations, especially in a small business, in any business, is the workplace relationship between employer and employee. And if the employees want to organise themselves and get a bit more clout by having an honest union delegate, good luck to them. That’s their right. But what we see now in this country is the IR club, which comprises lawyers, consultants, HR practitioners, big business, multinationals quite often, trying to bulldoze their way through, union bosses in some large unions. We see these people clubbing together, and what they do is they make regulations so damn complex, so long, so detailed, that the honest worker cannot understand it, the honest business manager cannot understand it.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And so they have to go to lawyers. Hello, look, who’s making money. They have to go to union bosses who are feathering their nests and looking for their careers. They have to go to multinationals, and do a deal with them that favours multinationals. The whole thing is set up for this IR club, and the same happens with banks. You and I should be able to form a bank, but it’s so difficult because the regulations protect the major banks and give them control. The regulations are set up for the big controllers.

George Christensen:

Mate, while we’re talking about IR, can I ask you a question? You’re a Senator. I know it’s your show, but I’d be interested in your thoughts right now on this jobs and skills summit. I have mine, but I’m interested in your thoughts on it because that’s a hot topic at the moment.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I haven’t given it a lot of thought, George, because quite frankly, look at the basics of it. Anthony Albanese came to the last election with a plan. He sold us. He told us. He had a plan. When the election was over and he was in power with 32% of the vote, he suddenly told us his plan was about going to ask people for their plans. He had no bloody plan. And the job summit is just a facade for the ACTU, big union bosses and big multinational players to organise the deals to suit themselves. It’ll be, yet again, another way of entrenching the IR club, the industrial relations club, and small businesses and workers will be left out. I mean, I don’t know if you know how much work we’ve been doing on Central Queensland and especially the Hunter Valley with regard to the exploitation of casuals. That’s an absolute disgrace that was enabled by union bosses and colluding with multinational companies.

George Christensen:

Big business. Yeah, yeah.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And I’m not talking about the mining companies. I’m talking about the labour hire people who are part of Recruit Holdings in Japan, the largest labour hire firm in the world through Chandler Macleod in Australia. And Chandler Macleod has received 2.4 billion dollars in the last four years, in the preceding four years, from the federal government for labour hire services. I mean, these people are all working together, and who pays for 40% less wages? The worker. Who pays for loss of worker’s compensation and basic security and entitlements? The worker. Who pays for the exploitation? The worker pays. And we’ve got big unions, union bosses, big multinationals, and big labour hire firms, colluding. Not all the labour hire firms, but just some of them. And this, they’re exploiting, George.

George Christensen:

They are. They clearly are.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

The job summit will perpetuate that.

George Christensen:

Look, I think it’s going to be even worse than that, Malcolm. And I’ll get off this, because I know this is not the topic you wanted to be discussing, but these are important right now.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

No, no, I’m here to listen to George Christensen. I want people to hear what you… Because you’re a good thinker. So go for it, whatever topic you want.

George Christensen:

There was an article in Macro Business the other day on jobs and skills summit, and often some of the stuff on Macro Business I disagree with, some that I agree, so it’s a bit of pick and choose. And this one had me nodding from go to whoa, and it was summed up with this thing, and I just can’t believe it because the unions were in charge of this jobs and skills summit, right?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Excuse me, George.

George Christensen:

And they’ve been-

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I just realised the time-

George Christensen:

Oh, dear.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And I’m enjoying the conversation with you. Can we have another ad break and then come back with your story?

George Christensen:

Let’s do it.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah, okay.

George Christensen:

Let’s do it.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

We’ll be back. This is Senator Malcolm Roberts with George Christensen. We’ll be back in just a minute.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And this is Senator Malcolm Roberts on TNT News Radio, and I’m with George Christensen. And I’m going to ask George to continue with this story, but to make time, we’ve only got 12 minutes left George, and we’re covering a lot of good issues, I want you to make time please, in that, to tell us about your latest venture and how people can learn more about you, because that’s really important. You’re one of the most incisive commentators on public affairs in this country.

George Christensen:

Well, I’ll wrap up with this jobs and skills summit by just saying that the way that Macro Business has styled it, it says it’s been turned into one giant immigration scab grab that will see permanent and temporary migration lifted to one unprecedented levels against the direct wishes of the Australian people who have not gotten a say. And we saw that with the lift in nearly 200,000 migrants a year, and that’s going to happen. And there’s a lot of people who, I guess that they were aligned to the union movement or they were sympathetic to the union movement, that were calling out the previous government, the Morrison government, before the Turnbull, and before it the Abbott government, for foreign workers coming into the country. And they’re noticeably silent about this. It’s very, very bizarre. But Labour has long… This is why I fundamentally shook my…

George Christensen:

I shook my head every time Labour got up and started beating its chest on this issue. Because you’d remember Julia Gillard back in the day had a white paper into the Asian Century, and part of that white paper contained a lot of stuff about Labour mobility. And I’ll just read you one thing out of that white paper, then I’ll finish on this topic Malcolm, that this is what they say they want to do about the Australian economy and businesses operating and connecting with growing Asian markets, that they will work to reduce unnecessary impediments in Australia’s domestic regulations to cross border business activity, investment and skilled labour mobility, having regard to the arrangements in place in other countries in the region. So Labour was always about foreign workers coming in and doing jobs here in Australia that otherwise Australians could do, and I think that, that’s the tragedy of this whole thing. We are turning into, as some people suggest, a guest worker society. And I think that’s part of the globalist sort of ideology, the globalist utopia, there’d be no borders, workers could go wherever, do whatever.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. There’s no doubt about that, because the two fundamental structures for human civilization are the family unit and the nation state, and the globalists have done years now of smashing the family. A good friend of mine, John McCrea, says that he calls the family law system and the family law courts the slaughter house of the nation, and it is destroying family. Because you know far better than I do George, when we destroy families, people turn to government, they’re controlled.

George Christensen:

That’s right. That’s right.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And when you smash national borders and you have the erosion of sovereignty, which is what is happening right now and has been for decades, and under both Liberal and Labour, then you have a central government with central control. Then you have all the benefits to them of labour mobilisation. This has all been orchestrated to smash borders, to move people around, to get control of people and turn us back into a feudal state, but in this case it would be a global feudal state.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I’d love to have you back one day because you are wonderful when it comes to education, families and sovereignty, so let’s get you back one day to talk about that. But I’d like to hear for now about you. What are you doing and how can people learn more about you, and hopefully even use this service. And I say it openly, I’m promoting what you’re doing, because you are incisive and you’re honest and you’re considered, and you’re very, very thoughtful. You know what the hell’s going on.

George Christensen:

Well, when I made the decision to step down as the member for Dawson, I did so still knowing that there was a fair bit of fire in the belly and I didn’t want to leave politics. I was leaving the house of representatives, but not politics. And obviously I worked with One Nation, being a Senate candidate for One Nation, but that didn’t eventuate, although hopefully my role in that helped Senator Hansen who’s another warrior with yourself, Malcolm, in the Senate, helped her get over the line. I’m glad to see that she’s returned to the Parliament. But I decided to deploy my resources, which was in the field of journalism. I mean, I’d had that experience as a journalist and training as a journalist. I’d had over 10 years experience as a politician, so I decided to deploy those two evils for the forces of good.

George Christensen:

And I say that a bit facetiously mate, but what I’m trying to do now is put out… Well, what I am doing is putting out a daily newsletter, or Monday to Friday newsletter, that goes into issues where the mainstream media no doubt fears to tread. And all of next week, I’m talking about just a tiny little topic, the decline of Western civilization, and we’re going to be going through that pretty methodically, looking at democracy, looking at demography, looking at the decline in culture, looking at the decline in economics.

George Christensen:

So this is something I’m going to be focusing on next week. People can sign up for a free trial. They don’t have to pay to start with and they can leave whenever they want if they don’t like it. Nationfirst.substack.com. And so I just encourage people, you want to sign up for a free trial and read these pieces that we’re putting out next week on just the little topic of the fall of the west, please do that. I think that this is a topic that probably-

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So what’s that address again? Nationfirst-

George Christensen:

It’s nationfirst.substack.com. Nationfirst.substack-

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Substack, S-

George Christensen:

Yeah.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

S-U-B-

George Christensen:

S-U-B-

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

S-T-A-C-K.

George Christensen:

That’s it. That’s it.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Okay.

George Christensen:

I’m also working Malcolm, very briefly, on setting up a conservative or pro freedom news aggregator website for Australia. There’s plenty of them over in the US. They’ve got Citizen Free Press, the Liberty Daily, Populous Press, and once upon a time the Drudge Report used to be there, but now it’s gone over to the left. So I’m setting up one of these websites for Australia called Eureka Free Press, where we’re going to be trying to put the best of the best news and opinion that will really mean something and help in the fight that us pro freedom warriors have to engage in every day, because it is an informational war. So this is hoping to be one website that people can log onto daily, they can get everything that they need on there, they don’t have to go trawling the web because we’ve done that job for you.

George Christensen:

And there’ll also be some original news content on there as well, Malcolm, and I’m hoping to grow that, but I’m dipping my toe into this water to see how it goes. It’s cost me a bit already to get all of this set up. People have actually donated some money as well to help this venture get off the ground and I’m greatly appreciative for that. We’ll give it a go for six months and just see whether it’s at least breaking even and if there’s interest from the public, and if there is, then we’ll continue it on.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I’ve heard you’re getting very good interest so far, and very good support.

George Christensen:

Yeah. Look mate, I actually shared a call for donations to lift the amount of original content that we could put on the website, and I got to say, we exceeded what we called for. So there obviously is a fair bit of interest in getting this out there and having original news pieces on there as well as aggregating the best of the best.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Well, I know George, correct me if I’m wrong, let’s have a quick little talk about the media and the different forms of media. We’ve got what I call the mockingbird media, the legacy media, the lying charlatan media, the lamestream media, the what some people call mainstream media.

George Christensen:

Legacy, fake news, yeah.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah, fake news. And they’re owned by the people who are pushing the global agenda, so they suppress any knowledge of it, so that’s one side. We can’t trust them. We know that for a fact, you cannot trust them. Then the next form of media that we have is social media, or as I call it these days, antisocial media, because we know that we have 142,000 followers on my Facebook page as Senator Malcolm Roberts, and sometimes our reach is pathetic because we are throttled back. We know that we’re getting throttled back.

George Christensen:

Yeah.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And it’s quite obvious, and then we have Instagram. But we can’t say things that we believe. We can’t say things that are the truth. We can’t say things that are backed by facts. We can’t say things that might upset the globalist agenda. So the globalists, Bill Gates for example is funding some of these people to suppress news of people like us, whether it be on climate, whether it be on COVID especially, these issues, basic issues of life and death for people, you can’t talk about.

George Christensen:

Yeah, it’s a disgrace.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. And then the third one is what I call the new, independent, truth seeking, people media, and I would put you in that category. You’re reliant on people directly-

George Christensen:

And I would put TNT in it as well.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I would put TNT. Wherever I go, I publicise tntradio.live. Wonderful service, maybe you’d talk about that in a minute too. But where do you see the media? Have I categorised the three different groups of media? Is there anyone I’ve missed?

George Christensen:

No, I think you’re spot on. We’ve got the legacy media. It’s called legacy because it’s fading, it’s dying. The advent of the internet, obviously I saw a long time ago that this would democratise the media, that if people were unhappy with the fake news that was being shoved down their throat, the bias and all the rest of it, they would vote with their feet. And so less and less people are watching the free to air commercial networks, less and less people are buying newspapers, and more and more people are getting their sources of news online.

George Christensen:

Now, the problem is that the mega corporations, Facebook, Google, and all the rest of it that want to return us into this feudal society, have picked up the ball for the legacy media and are doing their best to corral people into these silos where they’re basically getting the same stuff they got in the old media, but now online. Still, still, there are a bunch of different websites that are out there, and the movement is growing of being truly independent, truly pro freedom, and presenting the real news to the public. And I think that that is only going to grow and people are going to vote with their feet, Malcolm.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

But only… I think what we’ve got to do is vote with our wallets as well, and I’ve cancelled subscription to Sky News because it’s become fake news in the evenings now. It used to be socialist in the mornings and mid afternoons, and free enterprise in the evenings, but even now it’s woke. I look at them basically booting Alan Jones. I look at 2GB booting Jones.

George Christensen:

Yeah, that was terrible.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I mean, he’s a beacon for truth and freedom, and he takes on the issues, COVID, climate change. He does a really good job on that because he talks the truth. I’d hate to get into an argument with him. He’s so well up… But I’ve cancelled my subscription to Sky-

George Christensen:

Well, he’s a clear example of the new media

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Sorry?

George Christensen:

He’s a clear example of the new media, ADHTV.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah.

George Christensen:

They’ve got the capacity, and I think they will go big and they will threaten some of these other channels. Because now you can just jump online, you can subscribe to this streaming media channel and you can watch it on your smart device or you can watch it on your smart TV, so that’s a democratisation of the media at play. They want to kick off Alan Jones. Well, people want to watch him, so they can still do it, and they can do it online and they can support a network that’s not engaging in that sort of behaviour.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So we’ve got about a minute to go, so I just want to mention again, George Christensen, you can get his thoughts directly on nationfirst@substack.com. Correct, George?

George Christensen:

Nationfirst.substack.com, and you’ll get them via email. Not directly, I’m not going into some transhumanist-

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

No, no. I mean, they’re not being filtered by a whole posse of journalists. They’re your thoughts directly, your incisive comments about, and your incisive news.

George Christensen:

Yes, that’s right. Nationfirst.substack.com.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And perhaps you could come back one day and we’d talk about education, because you’re very strong on that, talk about families and talk about sovereignty. Because they’re the core, they’re the keys stopping us sliding back into global feudalism.

George Christensen:

You’re very right, education being one of the most important because that’s the next generation.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

George Christensen, thank you so much, and thank you for what you have done and what you are doing for the people of Australia in educating and opening eyes and hearts. Thank you so much.

George Christensen:

Likewise, Senator Malcolm Roberts. Thanks very much.

I chat with Chris Spicer from the Primodcast for a deep dive on Climate Change hysteria and why the upcoming Climate Change Bill is going to be terrible for our country.

Transcript

Speaker 2:

Ladies and gentlemen, podcasting from Sydney, Australia. This is the Primodcast. Independent, unfiltered, and uncensored. Beginning in three, two, one.

Chris:

Senator. Welcome back.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Thank you. It’s good to be back Chris.

Chris:

So had a bit of a giggle before we jumped on here about a video that…

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

What an insane planet we’ve got.

Chris:

Absolutely mad.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Oh, sorry. The people who try to control it, they’re insane.

Chris:

Yeah, that’s right.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Fact checkers. But good on you for standing up.

Chris:

Oh mate, I get more insane by the day anyway. So look, thanks for joining me again. I have actually put a few polls out about this episode to see what people wanted to know and what questions people had. So the main reason why I’ve got you on here today, as I said to you before, is that you are very well versed when it comes to the climate change debate, agenda, whatever you want to call it. And I guess, very similar to what we’ve seen with COVID that doesn’t seem too much opposition to the agenda. And if there is opposition, it tends to get silenced.

Chris:

So what I thought I would do was invite you obviously, and Adam Bandt, the leader of the Greens party onto the show to have an open debate where there’s no Channel Seven, no Channel Nine hand picking questions for him. I just want an open transparent debate. You agreed, which I knew you would, but I never got a response from Adam. So we’re doing it without him, but that’s okay. I’ve got the questions I have. So look, you’ve been speaking about the climate argument now for a while, and you’ve had a bit of experience with it. I think you said something to do with, was it university or something you’ve studied in the past?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. What the argument is, their argument, the climate alarmists, they’re saying that the burning of hydrocarbon fuels, coal, oil and natural gas is causing catastrophic global warming and it’s going to destroy the planet and freeze us and fry us and everything. The storms are going to increase. So let’s just have a look at the basic message. Hydrocarbon fuels contain atoms of hydrogen and atoms of carbon, hydrocarbon. And when they burn in oxygen in the air, they use the oxygen. So the hydrogen atoms react with the oxygen atoms to form H2O, which is water. And the carbon atoms react with the oxygen to form CO2, which is carbon dioxide. To be perfectly clear and complete, sometimes if it’s not burnt properly, you’ll get carbon monoxide, CO, that’s one carbon and one oxygen, carbon monoxide. And that’s a toxic poison, but that’s not what their issue is. If you burn it efficiently, you get very little carbon monoxide, but still don’t put the exhaust from your car into your car because you kill yourself. That’s carbon monoxide.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

But the majority of gas that comes out is carbon dioxide and water vapour. Now then when you find hydrocarbon fuels, they’re found in nature is coal, oil and natural gas, they have impurities because of the way they were formed in nature. They were laid down millions of years ago, hundreds of millions of years ago. So you might have sulphur in it, you might have other elements in it. And when you burn sulphur in oxygen, you get sulphur dioxide, which is a pollutant. You might get nitrous oxides, which are pollutants. You might get particulates, which are pieces of soot basically, they’re pollutants. That’s what used to cause the smoke. You’ll notice these days in most cities, they don’t have much smoke anymore. That’s because the particulates get scrubbed out at the power station. The sulphur dioxide gets scrubbed out at the power station. The nitrous oxides get scrubbed out.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So that’s why these days at a coal fired power station or a gas fired power station, you’ll see a chimney with nothing coming out of it because water vapor’s invisible except on a cold day when it forms steam, and carbon dioxide’s always invisible. So what they’re saying is that the carbon dioxide which is coming out of smoke stacks, coming out of industries, coming out of power stations, coming out of cars, coming out of cows farting, cows belching, coming out of your nose right now because your carbon dioxide, the air has 0.04%. It’s got bugger all of it. That’s enough to keep our plants alive. But when you exhale, because you’re a factory as well, when you take in your oxygen and you mix it with the carbon and hydrogen in your food, then you get same thing, water vapour and carbon dioxide coming out.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So what you’ve done is you’ve taken in carbon dioxide at 0.04%, and you’ve put it out at 5%, which is more than 100 times, 125 times, whatever it is, higher. So you are polluting right now, Chris. We’ve got to kill you. We’ve got to tax you rather. So that’s what they’re about. They’re about limiting the carbon dioxide because carbon dioxide is in everything. And so they can tax almost everything. And when I said to you a minute ago about you’re breathing out carbon dioxide, there is a consultant who did some work in London for Tony Blair’s office. They were asked to assess the feasibility of taxing people for the breath they’re exhaling.

Chris:

That’s insane.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So I’m only a little guy. Maybe I’m producing less carbon dioxide because I’m more efficient than you as a big fellow. So you’ll have to pay more than I will. How can you do that? And I mean, that’s what they’re after. They’re after control of our energy and control of our food and control of our agriculture, that’s it.

Chris:

So when you have people the Greens party, who are obviously more, in terms of that space, they’re definitely the more dominant with what they’re saying. Now this is the question. Not just them, but everyone in general that are pushing for this. How do they know that carbon is causing climate change? How do they know that? Are they referring to a specific type of literature? Where are they getting that information from? Who’s telling them it’s bad?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Okay. So the first thing is I have challenged Senator Larissa Waters, who’s the leader of the Greens in the Senate to a debate on the science behind climate science and the corruption of that science. I challenged her when we were both on the stage in a forum. We were both on a four person panel. On October the seventh, I think it was, Thursday, October the seventh, 2010. She jumped to her feet the moment I challenged her, she jumped to her feet and said, “I will not debate you.” At the end of the forum, I was the last one to speak in answering questions, I turned and walked back towards her just to get to my chair. She jumped and said, “I will not debate you again, just to make it clear.”

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I challenged her again in the 2016 election campaign in May. I challenged her and also Mark Butler, the Labour party spokesman for climate change. They both said, “No.” I’ve challenged Larissa Waters starting on the 9th of September 2019. I said to her and to Di Natale, who was the leader of the Greens in the Senate at the time, that “I challenge you to a debate. And I challenge you to put forward your evidence for your claims about carbon dioxide from human activity affecting climate.” They have never debated me. They’ve never put forward their evidence. That’s the first thing I want to say. So they run from it.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Now what’s their science based on? It’s based on bullshit. There is no science at all that they have ever cited. What they do, Chris, is they say, “We had a storm last night. That was due to mankind’s climate change. Nothing different. They had hurricanes going to New York. That was due to climate change.” Bullshit. Because they’ve had hurricanes going, tracking all the way to Canada. They know that from human civilization and when the United States was developed, we know that there’s nothing unusual at all going on in the climate. But what they do is they tell lies about the Barrier Reef. You’ve probably just seen the article that says the Barrier Reef’s in fine shape. It’s got record coral cover in the north and the central regions and the south, they’re only affected by Crown-of-storms starfish, which is entirely natural and cyclical. So there’s nothing happening in the Barrier Reef.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

There’s nothing happening with storm activity. It’s no more frequent storms, no more severe storms, nothing happening with droughts. They’re no more severe than in the past. The biggest drought we’ve had, most severe drought was 1901 in our recorded history and perhaps 1920s to 40s. There’s nothing changing in snowfall. They just vary. And what they’ll do is they’ll pick a year or a month when we have natural variation, it’s up, and they’ll say, “Oh, this temperature’s high.” But they don’t tell you when the temperature’s low. So there’s nothing. They’ve got no evidence. First of all, they have to prove that there’s something, remember this is all based on global warming, unprecedented global warming. So what they have to do, first of all, is prove that the temperatures are unusually warm and continuing to rise. They’re not.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

We’ve had 25 years, the most authoritative temperature record for the whole planet is NASA’s satellites. And they’re showing that since 1995, 27 years ago, if you remove the El Nino and La Nina cycles of temperature, the temperature has been flat globally. Flat. If you look at the temperature records for our country, the temperatures were warmer in the 1880s and 1890s. I said 1880s, 1890s, than today. United States, it was warmer in the 1930s, 1940s than today. So they’re fabricating this. They’re just telling lies. And so what they use though, is they make lies up about the Barrier Reef, about the polar bears, the pandas, the cuddly koalas, all the bullshit that they can come up with. There’s nothing there that they have ever presented any evidence. It’s based on nothing it’s based on just simply wanting to control the agenda, to control your energy, control your food, control your water, and control your property.

Chris:

Now I know, obviously you can’t speak on behalf…

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Oh, by the way, Chris, by the way, you mentioned the word carbon. It’s not carbon, it’s carbon dioxide. What they’re done is they started with carbon dioxide from human activity, and then they very quickly converted it to carbon. And carbon, they did that because the old pollution was carbon when they had smoke particles coming out of the chimneys. And carbon is black, usually. Carbon is also diamonds by the way, carbon is also graphite. So pure carbon. But carbon in the smoke stacks was a filthy pollutant. And that’s what they’re trying to conjure up an image of, a filthy pollutant. But carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. First of all, it’s odourless, tasteless, colourless. It’s non toxic. And the second thing about it is it’s entirely natural. Nature produces 32 times more every year than we do. Nature controls the level in the atmosphere.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

We’ve had two natural experiments. In 2008, we had the global financial crisis, which you’d remember. The following year around the world, except for Australia where we were exporting record amounts of minerals, we had a major recession in most countries. So when you have a major recession, you use less industrial fuels. So the use of hydrocarbon fuels, coal, oil and natural gas decreased, which meant the amount of carbon dioxide that humans produced decreased. And we know that for a fact. And yet the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued increasing. In 2020 we had the almost depression around the world due to government restrictions, not due to COVID, due to government restrictions on COVID. And we had the same decrease in fuels, same decrease in human carbon dioxide, but the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued increasing.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So what that tells you is that we do not control the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Nature does. Nature alone. It produces 32 times more every year. We don’t even know how much carbon dioxide is produced by nature in some years, it’s just phenomenal. It swamps human activity. But the second thing is nature alone controls the level because there’s more carbon dioxide in dissolved form in the oceans, 50 to 70 times more in the oceans than in the entire earth’s atmosphere. Slight changes in the sun’s activity lead to slight changes in the ocean temperature, which lead to either carbon dioxide being absorbed or being expelled from the oceans. And so on a seasonal basis, you have this going on with carbon dioxide and that’s exactly what’s showing nature controls it. We also know the laws of chemistry like Henry’s Law. Humans do not control and do not affect the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If we shut down everything, all that would happen is that nature would release a little bit more from the oceans to keep that balance.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So we’ve had two experiments which prove that if we tax people, shut down industry, it won’t matter a damn, because nature controls the level in the atmosphere. But it’s very important to talk about carbon dioxide and human carbon dioxide. They’ve never been able to show any impact whatsoever from human carbon dioxide. The whole of these policies are built on bullshit. To have a good policy what you need to do is you need to say, for every unit of carbon dioxide from human activity, it has this effect on temperature, or this effect on snowfall, this effect on droughts, this effect on storms. They’ve never been able to specify that. If you haven’t got that specific quantified effect, you can’t make up a policy about what you’ll do to cut it.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And you can’t cost the benefits, you can’t cost the cost to industry. The costs to industry are huge. The cost on families is enormous. And the cost to our inflation is stupendous, because electricity is used in everything. It’s used in services, not just manufacturing and transport. So what’s happening is we have gone ahead with a policy that has never, ever been specified, never. And the other thing about it is that without that specific quantity of human carbon dioxide and its effect, you cannot tell how your policies are being effective or not. You just don’t know how you’re going. So it’s based on bullshit and it’s based on an objective to take money out of your pocket and to control what you do, what you eat eventually, what energy you use, how you use it, what you spend your money on. That’s all of this, it’s a tax.

Chris:

Well, you know what I think, even though I think one of the first times we had a conversation and we spoke about climate and I hadn’t really formed an opinion on it. Simply because I’m aware that the climate changes obviously, and it’s always been that way, but I hadn’t looked into it any deeper than that. So I didn’t know whether human caused climate change, how much of a difference humans were making. I didn’t look into any of that.

Chris:

But what I did notice is that not just in Australia, I mean around the world, these climate policies that are ever being pushed through, or even just spoken about, all seem to have one thing in common, control. And that’s where I thought, well, hold on a second. If this is going to impact my life and control us even more than we are at the moment, then I want to know why. Show me why. Justify it to me. If they could prove that we are in fact causing it and there’s going to be catastrophic and all the rest of it and little koala bears and all that sort of thing, like they do, that’s what they push through. I don’t think any person would have a problem with that.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

No, you’re right.

Chris:

It’s when they’re just saying this needs to happen. This needs to happen. We have to do this. We need to sacrifice this because of this. Oh, can I have a look at how are you coming to that conclusion? Ah, just don’t worry about it. Everyone knows that that’s what’s happening. That’s all I keep hearing. And again, maybe it’s due to the whole COVID scenario, where I’ve learned that if you get shut down from an alternative opinion to what’s being pushed through the mainstream narrative, then you need to stop and think why. Because the truth doesn’t mind being debated, at all. Lies do. And it’s a very similar pattern as to what you’re seeing with COVID. The vaccine, I guess, to an extent, and climate. They’re all similar.

Chris:

And all three also are to do with control. Mandates, control. And I mean, I did read the climate change bill that Labour have put through. I did have a read of that. There wasn’t much detail in the way of how they’re going to achieve that 43%. They just said, we’re going to achieve 43% by 2030. That was it. So I think they need to be a lot more transparent with, okay, well, how do you think we’re going to achieve that? And what does that mean for people like you and I? Is my cost of living going to get higher?

Chris:

But there’s none of that. It’s just this is what needs to happen. This is what’s going to happen. And you can’t ask questions because you get shut down. And that’s why I wanted to speak to you about it because I know that you have the information that a lot of people are looking for that they just can’t find anywhere. And again, if you share something on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, whatever it is, the mainstream social media networks, the same thing happens as to what happened with COVID. They start giving you links. Ah, you spoke about climate. Well, here’s a link to this agency. Here’s a link to that agency. And if you say something that goes against that narrative, they’ll flag your post for false information or misinformation. And I’m starting to see that a lot more in the past six months as COVID’s died down a little bit, you can see they’re transitioning into climate.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. You’re astute. You’re thinking. You’re actually thinking, unlike most people. In France, they’ve had lockdowns due to heat waves, natural heat waves. They’ve had lockdowns. Don’t leave your house because you could die. I’m serious. And they’re talking about lockdowns in other countries for similar things. I’ll just mention a couple of things. First of all, you said, well, where’s your evidence? Well, they haven’t got any evidence. They’re just talking about emotional stories and they’re actually telling lies. So when you want to question science, science is based upon hard evidence. That’s the beauty of science. And when science started emerging a few hundred years ago, it put a real hole in people’s attempts to control, the elites attempts to control, because instead of standing over you with financial power, instead of standing over you with economic power, instead of standing over you with military forces, with thugs, instead of standing over you with emotion, instead of standing over you with religion and fears of going to hell, people started saying, hang on, give me the basis. Where’s the objective facts?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And science is all about having hard, empirical evidence. Empirical just means measured. And so that’s what I’ve been using in the parliament ever since I got in, in 2016. When I first mentioned it, the journalists rushed off to get their dictionaries. They didn’t know that. And people have been laughing at me at times and trying to ridicule, and that’s what they do. And they’ve been saying, “Oh, where’s your empirical evidence?” I’ve given them plenty. But the point is that people now know what empirical means and it’s hard data.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

But the second thing is, that’s not good enough. We had Emma Alberici on the ABC tell me, well, what more evidence do you need? We produced 50 billion gigatons of carbon dioxide last year around the planet. So what, Emma? So what? Because you’ve got to have the second part of the science, which is you’ve got to be able to prove cause and effect. So if you do this, this happens. If you do this, or if you see this effect, what caused it? This caused it. So you’ve got to have the cause and effect. So you’ve got to have the data, which makes it objective within a scientific framework that proves logically, with reasoning that this is the effect. So that’s the first thing.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

They’ve never provided any links to logical scientific points. Never. The same thing I’d mention to you is that the truth loves being debated, as you just said there. I agree with you entirely. And why does the truth love being debated? Because it reinforces itself. If it’s not the truth, it’s found out and it’s no longer the truth. And the third thing I’ll just mention is that this whole climate narrative is anti-environment, because if you look at the real pollutants, which I started talking about, the sulphur dioxide, the nitrous oxide, the particulates. In old power stations like they used to have in China 30 years ago, they’d be belching out these pollutants. And that’s why you see haze in Beijing. It’s not because of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is invisible. It’s because of the old power stations were putting out carbon in the form of particulates, haze, smoke particles. And so what they were saying here was, “Don’t burn our power here, ship our manufacturing to China.”

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So China was producing real pollution. So they’re actually increasing the pollution around the planet by shutting down us. Where we had clean power stations that scrubbed out the particulates, scrubbed out the sulphur dioxide, scrubbed out the nitrous oxide, and just let carbon dioxide and water through. Harmless gases essential for all life on this planet. So it’s anti- environment. The other thing, I don’t deny that humans have an effect on climate. If you go into massive land clearing, you will affect the climate in that region. We do not have an effect on global climate. Well, how do you affect the local climate? You affect the local climate if you change the vegetation, you change the water vapour, you change the moisture in the air. So those are the things that do affect. So I’m not saying humans should just go and destroy the environment. But what you’ll find is the focus on climate change is causing serious consequences on the environment.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

If you look at the wind turbines, they’re putting up in the name of climate, they’re chopping birds. If you look at the forest they clear for wind turbines. If you look at the solar panels, the agricultural land they’re destroying the forest they’re clearing for solar panels. And these solar panels and wind turbines, they’re hideous uses of resources. For every unit of electricity from a coal fired power station, you need 35 tonnes of steel. For every unit, the same unit of electricity from a wind turbine, you need 546 tonnes of steel. How do you make steel? With carbon dioxide being produced. So these wind turbines, over the life of the wind turbine, produce more carbon dioxide then they save. Not that that matters because carbon dioxide’s harmless.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

But the point is they use so much materials, that that’s why wind will never, ever compete with coal, nuclear, hydro, gas, oil. Never, because the amount of resources that they consume are huge. So the cost is enormous and the energy density is so low that they produce so little energy that the cost per unit energy is something like double what coal is. So what they’re doing is they’re driving our economy into a tailspin. They’re inflating our economy. What happens is we then subsidise the wind turbines and the solar panels because they can’t stand on their own. We subsidise them. Who do we pay the subsidies to? The wind turbine and solar panel manufacturers, which are mostly in China, and then we subsidise the people who instal them here in Australia, mostly foreign companies and some billionaires. And then we pay them subsidies to keep operating them because they can’t compete with coal.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And then what happens is that the price of normal electricity increases because of the subsidies. And we also then find they rigged the system so that they’re favoured and then that means the coal fired power stations are uneconomical, even though they’re actually half the price to produce. And so then coal starts dying. Next thing, they shut the coal fired power stations down, and you’ve got only high cost components producing our electricity. We’re buggered.

Chris:

Yeah. It’ll drive up the cost of everything. Manufacturing, even our electricity bills. That’s why we need to be asking more questions because I don’t think people realise that when Albanese got up and said that, we’re going to hit their 43% reduction. Okay. It sounds good, but how are you going to do that? And what does that mean? And that’s what I really wanted to speak to you about as well as to how these targets, climate targets will impact everyday Australians in regards to what can we see to go up in price? Obviously we know electricity bills will go up, but what else can we see happening around the country the more they push this on?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Okay. Everything that uses steel and electricity will be increased in price, everything. So if you look at Adam Bandt’s showing signs that he’s admitted defeat on one key part. Coal is used to generate electricity. It’s called thermal coal or steaming coal. It’s fed into power stations to boil water, to drive the turbines, to turn the electricity generators. That creates steam. So it’s called steaming coal or thermal coal. It’s used to provide heat. Coal is also used to produce metallurgical coal in steel mills. In a steel mill you need something that’s got a lot of carbon in it. And when it’s burned it produces carbon dioxide. So they use coal because it’s got the carbon, they also use coal because it’s a solid material and they can blow the air through it, which reduces your iron oxide into iron. Then that forms your steel.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

They also use coal because there’s carbon in coal that goes into your steel to make it a better quality steel. We produce some of the best quality steel in the world. And they also need it to support that whole mass because they put the iron ore on top, which is very heavy. And so you’ve got to support that mass so the air can get through it and do its job. So that means coal is absolutely essential for steel. Unless you get scrap steel and just melt it down, but then you need electricity anyway.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So coal is needed for steel. And I’ve been telling people this for years. Adam Bandt in the election campaign suddenly admitted quietly, “Oh, we can’t stop the production of steel.” That’s right. Steel is in trucks. It’s in our food implements, to plough the ground, we harvest the ground. We sow the ground. We harvest the ground, we truck it, we process it. We store it in fridges. We process it in factories that are full of stainless steel. Steel is in everything. It’s in the goods. It’s in the trucks that transport. So steel is in everything. And if it’s not in everything, it’s in the production of everything because you need a steel truck or a steel implement or a steel scalpel or a steel implement. So steel is in everything. You make roads with steel, you make pipes with steel for bringing water in. You do everything with steel, either as the tool or as a raw material.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

But electricity, what they’re trying to do there, is say let’s cut our use of steaming coal to generate electricity and use wind turbines. Well, hello. What goes into making wind turbines? Steel. And there’s 16 times as much steel in the bloody wind turbine unit electricity than in a coal fired power station producing electricity. So that’s why wind and solar is so damn expensive and battery cars are so expensive, because they’re huge consumers of resources. We are increasing the footprint of humanity by using this bloody stuff. And we’re increasing the toxic chemicals because it’s very difficult to get rid of batteries. They use very rare earths that are mined using toxic processes.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So we’re increasing the use of copper. So that means mining. We’re increasing the use of rare earths, which means mining. We’re actually increasing the use of mining to produce the rare earths and the other exotic metals and minerals that are needed for solar and for wind turbines and for the increased batteries. And yet you will never, ever produce enough electricity from these things and you certainly cannot store it. So what they’re trying to do is absolute madness, but what’s happening is that they will tax us all out of existence and then they’ll control us. And if you look at the United States, this is an example. You’ve heard of George Soros?

Chris:

Yeah.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

George SOS owns the Democratic Party. Obama was a President in the Democratic Party. George Soros said to Obama, negative messages on coal. Obama really ramped it up on coal. They shut down so many coal mines. The price of Peabody Coal shares went from $1,100 to $15. That’s a 98% reduction. Who bought the shares?

Chris:

Soros.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Soros. Because the long term predictions from most people that the use of coal will increase dramatically in the future. That’s the only way to get Africa and Asia up and running the same as we’ve had, in our development of industrially. So coal forecasts are huge. So he’s now sitting pretty with Peabody Coal company, the world’s largest coal producer. That’s what they’re doing. Soros has got a reputation for destroying whole countries, bringing them to their knees economically by manipulating the economy and then making a profit. That’s what Soros does. He destroys to create wealth for Soros at the cost of billions of people’s lives. So that’s what we are facing here. We’re facing control for lining billionaires’ pockets. There are people in this country who are making money hand over fist, they’re billionaires. You can’t afford enormous solar complexes and wind turbo complexes, but they can. And what they do is they make money out of it by getting subsidies. Warren Buffet, who’s the most astute investor ever, he said, “Wind turbines, useless. Subsidised wind turbines, fabulous investment.” It’s the subsidies.

Chris:

Yeah.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Government is now the largest transferor of wealth from the poor and from the middle class to the wealthy. And it’s deliberate.

Chris:

That’s exactly what’s happening at the moment. That’s exactly what’s happening. And you can see that. There’s actually a very good documentary I watched only the other day on Netflix called Capitalism: A Love Story. Have you heard of that?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

No, I haven’t.

Chris:

Very, very interesting. Just in regards to how the system works. This was based in late 2000s. Well, when America had their crisis, was it 2008, 2009?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. Global financial crisis. They had it in ’08, near the end of ’08. And then they destroyed their economy in 09.

Chris:

Yeah, with the bailout package. And what happened with that? And the banks used it and it was an absolute shamozzle, deliberate though. It was deliberate. Goldman Sachs, the treasury department of the US government infiltrated by Goldman Sachs. It’s what they do. It’s what they do. But unfortunately they do it in such a way, like we’re seeing now with climate. We see an issue, the average person will see an issue of climate, this is what needs to happen. But in the background, these people making money hand over fist while it’s costing you money. And it’s going to get to the point now where it’s not going to get better. The economy’s not going to get better so long as they’re pushing this 43% target, that Labour push. So has that gone through? What’s the status of that climate change bill?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

It’s gone through the lower house and it’s gone to a committee in the Senate and it’ll probably come up in about four weeks time in the Senate for voting there.

Chris:

How do you think it’ll go?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

It’ll pass for several reasons. First of all, Labour and the Greens, thanks to dopey liberal recommendations on preferencing, Labour and the Greens together have 38 votes out of 76, they’ve got 50%. All the independents, One Nation and the Liberal Nationals have 38, 50%. So it just needs one independent to cross to go and join the Greens and they’ve got it through. Now David Pocock has said that he will support it. So David Pocock, he’s a hell of a nice guy.

Chris:

ACT isn’t he, I think?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Correct. He’s a hell of nice guy.

Chris:

Is he a rugby player?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah, a very, very, very good rugby player. Real, real hard on him. He’s a fabulous rugby player, very fit. I mean, the guy is built like an ox, but he’s lithe and agile. I mean, he’s a magnificent specimen as a human in terms of physique. Very, very fit. Very, very strong. He and Richie McCaw from the All Blacks revolutionised the way where way number sevens and number sixes play. They’re really very, very effective. Top player. But on science, complete ignorant. Completely ignorant. He stood up in the Senate the other day and he is not a demonstrative guy. He’s a nice personality. He just said, “I’m all for following the science, like we did in COVID.”

Chris:

Okay. Yeah.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

What? And he’s been sold the pop on climate. He’s drunk the Kool-Aid. And there’s so many intelligent people like David, who don’t think. It’s not intelligence that matters. It’s the ability to think analytically. So the economy, if you look… Chris, we’ve been scratching around in the dirt as humans for thousands of years, hundreds of thousands of years. We’ve been at the whim of every drought, every famine and humans have been at the mercy of climate until we got hydrocarbon fields, coal, oil and natural gas. And all of a sudden in 170 years, we’ve now got these things. We’ve got so many things that 170 years ago, when the industrial revolution started, we would not have dreamt where we are today. A person on welfare in this country lives better, longer, safer, easier, more comfortably than a king or queen did 200 years ago. Fact. They live much longer and easier and healthier.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So that’s been due to coal, oil and natural gas. We used to cut down forests 170 years ago to do our cooking, to provide our warmth, especially in Europe where you needed the warmth. We used to kill whales to produce our whale oil for lighting, for reading at night. Then we got gas lights. Then we got coal fired power stations. Then we got oil. All of a sudden, we don’t have to burn the forest. So as a result of coal, oil and natural gas, the area of forest in the developed countries has increased dramatically. Forests have increased because of coal, oil and natural gas. The whales, we don’t kill them anymore for whale oil, for lighting. The number of whales are now pretty secure. So coal, oil and natural gas has been a huge driver of the environment, benefit for the environment.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

The other thing that happens is when you use coal, oil and natural gas, you have a very high energy density fuel. When you have high energy density, you get high energy production for low cost. And when you decrease the cost of energy, you increase your productivity. If you can afford to use more energy, you become more productive. Think of all the energy you’ve got at home, your fridge, your stove, your dishwasher, your car, your car is so much more efficient than a cycle. If you look at farmers, each of us, we could go out and till our own soil. But it’s so energy intensive, that when you get a farmer with a massive John Deere or Cat tractor, they produce far more than we could even dream of. So when you produce that high productivity, the cost per unit of your food, the cost per unit of all your services decreases dramatically.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

The single greatest thing for the last 170 years industrial revolution has been human creativity, our heart in their minds and sharing that. That’s why freedom’s so important. But the second biggest thing and easily the second biggest thing, is the relentless decreases in real costs of electricity and fuels. When you have decreases in fuels, you get greater use of fuels and you get greater productivity. When you have greater productivity, you have cheaper production, you have greater wealth, you have greater prosperity. And what’s happened is we’ve now got greater prosperity, except that in the last three years that every decrease in price for electricity has been artificially increased. And Australia’s gone from having the cheapest electricity in the world to now being amongst the most expensive.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Our electricity prices have trebled artificially. If we removed all the bullshit restrictions, we’d still be decreasing the real cost of electricity, but that’s no longer the case. So we are reversing human progress. It’s inhuman, it’s unconscionable and it’s immoral. And it’s all based on a lie. No science whatsoever drives this bullshit and a criminal named Maurice Strong started this in 1980, when he started the scam of global warming. A criminal from the United Nations.

Chris:

Yeah, I was watching a little, it wasn’t long, it was maybe five or six minute documentary on him a few weeks ago. But I think, look, the people like Adam Bandt, the people like the independents that put a lot of climate activists got through independents at the election, what do those people gain from that? Obviously they’re not the ones that are going to be benefiting from extra control. Is it just they’re brainwashed? It has to be.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

But what they’re benefiting from is increased representation in parliament. The Greens have now got two senators from every state. They’ve got more clout in parliament. They can now tell the government what to do. The Greens are completely ignorant. They have no idea of what we are talking about right now. They have no interest in what we’re talking about right now. The Greens are hell bent on control. If you look at the Greens, they supported injection mandates. They were speaking vigorously on injection mandates. They supported the invasion of the United States and NATO into the Ukrainian conflict. They support control everywhere if you look at the Greens. They want to increase regulation. They want to tell you how to live, what to do. The Greens are so damn arrogant and ignorant that they think they can ignore four and a half billion years of evolution and tell us how the planet should evolve in the future.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Now you probably believe in evolution. I do. Our planet has come from being a ball of gases to being a solid planet. And then we had erosion on the planet due to water and air. And then we had life forms introduced to the planet. Then it was single cell. And then we had complex animals. Then we had dinosaurs and then mammals. And then we had humans and our ability as humans, completely different from any other animal species. We’ve got a neocortex, that’s wonderful. We then created all kinds of technological improvements in just 170 years we’ve just gone phenomenally well. What they’re trying to say is how we should evolve in the future. They’re playing God, Chris. They’re trying to tell us how the planet would evolve. Forget your four and a half billion years of evolution. This is what we’re going to do in the future. Who do they think they are? They think they’re God.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So they’re all about control. Now, what I said was all of the Greens are delusional when it comes to science, they have no idea. They’ll talk about the koalas being threatened. They’ll talk about the Barrier Reef being threatened. They’ll tell lies, they’ll fabricate lies one after the other, and you can come in and give them evidence, they won’t do anything. But the other thing about the Greens is some of them are the foot soldiers for the World Economic Forum and the United Nations. The Greens is the policy introduction for the United Nations into this country. What they do is they bring in policies, they get the media through their stunts and then the Labour Party starts adopting those policies, and you check. Then the Liberal Party says Labour Party’s getting votes. So we need to put in those policies. And so the Greens bring in these policies and they’re doing it on behalf of the United Nations. But most of the Greens wouldn’t know what I was talking about there, just some of their leaders would know.

Chris:

Yeah. Talking about the Greens, that’s why I was looking down. I’ve got to read this to you. It was a post I’d seen yesterday. I don’t know if he put it out yesterday or was just the post he’s put out and someone took a screenshot of it. So it’s a Adam Bandt Twitter, I’ve put it up for you to see through the thing there.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I can’t see it there.

Chris:

You can’t see it. So this is what he tweeted, off subject but I think you can see the mentality and what’s going on there. He said, “Yearly reminder that drug dealers aren’t to blame for your loved ones banned drug related problems. Quite the opposite. Dealers often act as community elders, keeping an eye out for regulars and providing a stigma free community connection point.” I couldn’t believe that. What is wrong with him?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah.

Chris:

What’s wrong with him? He’s not all there. He can’t be. I couldn’t believe that. It’s one of the worst ones I’ve ever seen.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

No, no, I can believe it. These people are inhuman, they’re anti-human, mate. If you look at the Greens policies, they’re anti-education, anti-science, anti-environment, the impact, they tell you they’re pro environment. But the impact on the environment is horrendous. Anti-industry, anti-development, anti-Australian. They’re anti-homosexual because they support Islam and Islam wants to throw homosexuals off the bridges, off the roofs of buildings. They’re anti-women, anti-families. I can make a solid case in all these things. The Greens, some of those are deliberate. Some of those are just through sheer ignorance. By the way, bringing up that thing about drugs. What’s the difference between a drug pusher and big pharma?

Chris:

No. What?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

The drug pusher doesn’t force you to use their drugs.

Chris:

That’s a fair point. They don’t mandate it. That’s right. I was only saying the other day, could you imagine how illegal a Pfizer vaccine would be if it was made by a Columbian drug cartel? Can you imagine?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yep.

Chris:

Oh, it’s crazy. But I could not believe that when I read that. He says outrageous things, honestly. His Twitter feed’s like a comedy. It’s hilarious, some of the shit. You think, the world doesn’t work that way. Do you know what, it looks to me like he’s got no actual experience. No life experience. He’s never been to and seen what drugs do to people. Because I think if he could, he would legalise drug use. He would.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah.

Chris:

For sure. When I see certain things, I’ve seen people, I’ve seen someone get stabbed in a park over drugs when I was 15 years old. You see a lot of things. And that’s why when you look at comments like that, that he’s made, that drug dealers are essentially elders looking after the community. No.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. David Leyonhjelm in the Senate and other people in the LDP put out some pretty good questions. I think we need to think about banning things and criminalising things. Because when you do that, you create a black market and then you can’t control it. Okay. So there is a reasonable argument for legalising some drugs. That’ll actually bring it under close to public scrutiny and you probably have less use of it. That’s one side of the argument. So I’m open to that debate, but it’s got to be done very, very properly. Not a lot like he’s doing it.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And you’re never going to have a drug lord who’s going to be the representative for the community and the judiciary for the community. I mean, that’s complete rubbish. That’s nonsense. And that’s the problem we have, Chris, because if you saw some of the Green’s election campaigns and remember they had a very successful election campaign, they’ve got more members in the lower house, they’ve got more members in the Senate. There was one TikTok video of somebody dancing above Parliament House. They had a picture of Canberra’s Parliament House and somebody dancing above it and Adam Bandt looking up with a vague look on his face. That was it. No message, no words. That was it. What kind of people does that appeal to?

Chris:

Yeah, I don’t know. Brain dead.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Exactly.

Chris:

I think look, the issue with drugs is one that I think there’s a lot of variables, but I think when we’re talking about drug use, I don’t believe cannabis should be… That should be decriminalised for sure. But then you look at drugs like marijuana and you go, okay, well. But then you look at drugs like heroin or methamphetamine and you start thinking well, okay, you don’t really want that legalised in any capacity. But marijuana, sure. Because a lot of the pharmaceutical drugs do more damage to the community than black market drugs will ever do. Ever. If you look at the US, their opioid epidemic, now it’s fentanyl. It was OxyContin. Now it’s fentanyl. They’ve got huge problems over there on legal drugs that are prescribed by doctors and fulfilled by pharmacies. So opioids, painkillers, some benzodiazepines are much more dangerous and harmful to the community than marijuana would ever be.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Well, marijuana, sorry. Let’s talk about medical cannabis because we’re very, very strong supporters of medical cannabis, very strong supporters. It’s a wonderful product. It’s entirely natural. There are no side effects for most people at all. Not only that, you can’t overdose on it. You can stuff yourself so full of medical cannabis that you still wouldn’t have any problems. Whereas opioids, you can die. And the opioids are addictive whereas medical cannabis is not. So there’s a separate argument for marijuana compared with medical cannabis. But they’re both worth looking at. Medical cannabis, we’re entirely sold. That’s it. And we are keeping the two separate at the moment because most people are not ready for the decriminalisation of marijuana because of the THC in it, the psychotropic effects.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

But medical cannabis, it’s used by a lot of people in this country and it should be much, much cheaper and much more readily available. It should be readily available at least by prescription from a chemist, at least. And the reason it’s not, Chris, is because of big pharma. Big pharma controls the health department, at state and federal level. It controls many of the doctors, it controls the doctors’ Guilds, the doctors associations, and what they do is they’re seeking continued profits. Medical cannabis is useful for so many things. In the 1930s, I read somewhere, it was the number one prescribed medicine. Number one. It was in the Doctor’s Almanack. It was taken out because big pharma wanted to produce its toxins and medical cannabis cannot be patented because it’s natural. So that means if you can’t patent it, you’ll never be able to charge outrageous prices for it. And yet it’s effective, it’s safe and it’s affordable and accessible. It’s perfect. That’s why it’s not wanted by big pharma. And that’s why big pharma keeps the government to outlaw it.

Chris:

That’s right. I don’t know about Australia, but I know in the US a lot of the anti-cannabis campaigns, TV campaigns and whatnot were funded by pharmaceutical companies.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah.

Chris:

That’s exactly it, they don’t want that because you think about the conditions. I mean, depression, I get anxiety, insomnia. Instead of sleeping pills, people just have medicinal cannabis. There’s so many…

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Post traumatic stress.

Chris:

Post traumatic stress, cancer, for pain. But you know what’s interesting as well? I’ve been looking into it a bit recently, is there the use of certain, what are they? I can’t think of the actual name of it now, but the mushrooms. Little micro doses of mushrooms that they’re giving to, I think retired military personnel in the US to help with their PTSD. It’s working wonders.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

It’s also being used in some countries, I think in the United States. I know some doctors who are involved with it working wonders with mental health issues. Really very, very effective, very effective. And so we need to advocate more for at least experimental use of them right now. There are people, I can put you in touch with people in this country who are actually using it therapeutically right now.

Chris:

Yeah. I’m sure it happens. Australia’s quite far behind, especially behind the US when it comes to experimenting with drugs that were frowned upon for so many years, and it’s working wonders. And I don’t know how much influence the pharmaceutical companies have here. Well, I know they’ve got a fair bit considering what we’ve been through over the last few years, but there doesn’t seem to be a lot of talk. I know the Greens do support that, but I think they support recreational use don’t they?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yes. And what we want to do is we want to separate those two for now because we want to get medicinal cannabis into people’s hands, cheaply, readily. We want to make that more widespread. So most people are open to that, but they’re not open to recreational use. So rather than stop the use of both, because by pushing both, we just want to push at the moment medical cannabis. We’ll look at the other one later. Put it aside for now, let’s get medical cannabis into people’s hands and into people’s bodies.

Chris:

Would you say it’s a generational thing, because I don’t know many people at all that are around my age that would oppose the legalisation of recreational marijuana use. Maybe highly religious people, but the average person, I don’t think they care too much.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

No, I don’t think it is a generational thing. We know of a lot of army veterans or defence force veterans, we know a lot of older people who have got things that come on with age, they love medicinal cannabis. They think it’s fabulous. I think over a million people use it, but we’ve got to make it much easier.

Chris:

It’s quite expensive, isn’t it, I think, at the moment to get it?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yep, and it shouldn’t be. We could have with our clean environment in this country, we could be supplying medical cannabis all over Asia. It would be huge. And hemp producers, hemp. Then we’ve also got cannabis producing food. I mean really good food. Textiles. So it’s a wonderful, wonderful crop. We could get that in into Australia, that would be fab. And it is coming in certain places. They’re already growing hemp. They’re growing medical cannabis, but it’s just not widespread yet. But there are some people who are trying to do battle with all the bureaucrats and the regulators and they’re making progress and we’ve been supporting them and we’ve got a few more things planned.

Chris:

Do you know Dr. Katelaris? Heard of Dr. Katelaris? Also known as Dr. Pot?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

No.

Chris:

No. So he’s an Australian doctor who was charged in the 90s for supplying and helping children and also breast cancer, people with breast cancer with medicinal cannabis, back in the 90s.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Which State?

Chris:

New South Wales.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Okay. We know of a couple of Queensland doctors who’ve helped people enormously, especially epileptics.

Chris:

Yeah. Well, he was doing it in the 90s and actually reversed breast cancer in many women that he was treating, and also helped children that were in pain with medicinal cannabis. Done great work, great work. He did an interview I think on 60 Minutes or something like that. And then a few days later, apparently the feds kicked in his door and got hold of him. And he had history with Dr. Kerry Chant then, in regards to what happened then. Well, he had his medical licence taken and was actually sent to jail, pending his court hearing and he represented himself and used on the basis of medical necessity and he walked out free, as he should.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Well, what’s changed, mate? What’s changed now the medical… No, I shouldn’t say that. The health departments are telling doctors what to say and what not to say. They’ve completely smashed the doctor, patient relationship. That’s sacrosanct. The Greeks developed that 3000 years ago. That’s been smashed.

Chris:

Absolutely.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

We’re destroying informed consent. We’re mandating things. I mean, this is not all right. It’s not human. And this is what our country has descended into and that’s what we’re fighting against.

Chris:

There’s too much government involvement in our lives. And a buddy of mine only a few weeks ago was fined for fishing without a licence. And I thought, man. You know what? Obviously, I know you’re a part of it, but no politician should have the right to tell another human being that they’re not allowed to fish. It is our basic human right to fish.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I agree. And who’s pushing for that? United Nations. They’re trying to lock up. We have the largest continental shelf fishing zone in the world. We have a tiny population by world standards of 25, 26 million people. That’s it. We should be exporting seafood hand over fist all over the planet. We import three quarters of the seafood we consume. How the hell does that happen? I’ll tell you how it happens. We have 36% of the world’s marine parks in our country. Some of them are controlled on behalf of the UN, by our state and federal governments. Some are controlled directly by the UN. China has 1.4 billion people. What’s that? I’m guessing that’s around 60 times what we have.

Chris:

Oh yeah. A lot more.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

They have a tiny coastline compared to ours. Who’s our biggest exporter of fish, seafood into this country? China.

Chris:

Oh, Thailand would be close to China, wouldn’t it?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Thailand is second. Thailand has a tiny coastline compared to ours. A population that’s about three times ours. Yet they’re the second biggest importer of fish into our country. How can that be? The fish don’t say, “Oh, we better look after Australian waters here. We’ll stay out of Australian waters. We’ll go to Thailand waters.” Bullshit. The Thais and the Chinese say that to the United Nations because they have a country to feed. What we’ve done here is the Greens, the Labour, the Liberals and the Nationals have sold out our fishing industry. We used to have a vibrant fishing industry. Not anymore. We’re so regulated.

Chris:

Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t John West originally Australian? Well, I’m trying to think of the old cans of salmon and tuna, John West.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I don’t know where John West was, but I know that our last tuna cannery was packed up, dismantled, packed up and sent to Thailand back in 2010. Sydney was told by Alzheimer’s Sydney had lots of canneries, seafood canneries. We had a vibrant fishing industry. It’s been gutted because of UN regulations. What’s that done to the price of fish? What’s that done to the quality of fish? What’s that done to your choice, your freedom?

Chris:

Oh, quality of fish at the moment, I don’t know about up there, but in New South Wales, try getting a nice piece of barramundi. You could tell they’re all farmed. They got that muddy taste to the farmed barramundi, you can’t get any fresh barramundi, it’s almost, around where I am, impossible.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

See, this is the UN affecting our energy, UN affecting our water, UN controlling our food, controlling our transport, controlling our movement. What they want to do is control our identity, control what we spend, how we spend it through digital identity, which is a product of the World Economic Forum, the Liberal party introduced legislation before the election. And they’ve copied parts of that from the World Economic Forum’s digital platform project. Copied and pasted it into our legislation. I mean, this is what’s happening to our country. That’s why we’ve got to speak. And that’s why it’s so important to keep doing what you are doing.

Chris:

Yeah. We need to continue to have these conversations. And I have tried many times to have people on the other side of the debate on for a chat, and I’ll be completely, even if I don’t agree with them. There’s some things you say that I don’t agree with. There’s probably some things I say you don’t agree with, and that’s fine. But you always allow the opportunity or the other person to speak and get their point across. And I’m happy to do that. Just the other day, I wanted Mike Carlton to come on another chat about a few things that he was saying. And I said something about his best mate, Peter FitzSimons. And I got a message just last night from Mike Carlton in my inbox saying, “Fuck off dickhead.” And then blocked me.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Let me tell you a story about Mike Carlton. I’ll see if I can remember. It was a few years ago, there was a journalist called Ben Cubby. He was at the Sydney Morning Herald and he was their Chief Environmental Reporting. Got that? He was the head of their environmental reporting. So Ben called me up and said, “Can I interview you about this?” This is before I got into the Senate, “About your stance on climate?” And I said, “Sure.” And I gave him a whole lot of stuff. In the middle of that I said, “Do you know about the IPCC? The UN’s intergovernmental panel on climate change?” “No.” No clue. Here he is, the environmental reporter on a single biggest issue, supposedly, in the environment. He didn’t know about that body.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So I told him a few things. He made a story, it’s a long time ago, probably seven or eight years ago, he made a story and he published it. And it wasn’t that offbeat, but it talked about me being a director of a company I wasn’t. It talked about me doing other things. It tried to frame me as a bit of a coal producer, I wasn’t. I’m very keen on, supportive of coal, oil, gas, and nuclear and hydro electricity because they’re the cheapest forms of electricity. And what else did he do? Oh, that’s right.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Then Mike Carlton came out and said I was antisemitic. Antisemitic? At the time I was a volunteer on the Galileo Movement, which was founded by a man whose wife was Jewish and who, as a two and a half year old, escaped from the Holocaust concentration camps. A Hungarian Jew, a lovely, lovely lady. A lot of my friends are Jewish. I was at a bloody protest in support of Israel where the Greens were hammering the Israeli companies in this country. I was standing up for the Jews, and Mike Carlton came out and said, I was antisemitic. I mean, what a lying bastard.

Chris:

I think they just throw labels on people. I don’t think there’s any thought.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Correct.

Chris:

They just chuck a label on you. Maybe it could just be for… Look, undoubtedly, it’s so people look at you in a particular way. So anything you say after that point, people will just ignore. That’s why they label people, anti-vax, what you were referred to, climate denier. I got called, and this is something I’ll… because a lot of people have agreed. A lot of people have disagreed with my point, but I made a point the other day to, I’ll tell you who she is now because it ended up as a nightmare on Twitter. Twitter’s good, isn’t it? I’ll tell you what. It’s Doctor, she’s down, I think in South Australia, an indigenous woman. Oh, I’m trying to find her now. Where is she? Here we go. Dr. Tracy Westerman. You familiar, no?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

No, no.

Chris:

So anyway, she said something about how come when people ask if you’re Italian, Greek, and you tell someone you’re Italian and Greek people go, oh, okay. But when you tell people you’re indigenous, they say, okay, but how much? How indigenous are you?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I’ve never thought of that. And no one’s ever told me that.

Chris:

That’s what she said. And I said to her, look, in my own experience because I’ve seen it happen, is that people will claim they’re indigenous even if they’d never mentioned it before in their life. I knew someone who did it, they had a dental campaign, I don’t know if it was a federal or state funded dental programme, but indigenous Australians got some free dental work done. This is about 10 years ago now. And a friend of mine claimed that he was indigenous for that for free dental work. There’s another person I know who’s great, great grandfather was indigenous. It’s actually a distant family member. So I know exactly who she is. And I know her family. She claimed that so she could get housing. She got into public housing in about six weeks while I know people that have been waiting for five years. And that was my point, is that a lot of people unfortunately say that or claim it for their own personal gain. And she went off, saying it was weaponized language.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Well, wait until she gets hold of Nampijinpa Price in the Senate. Most people know as Jacinta Price. Her full name is Nampijinpa Price. Man, what a wonderful Senator she’s going to be. I don’t know if you’ve listened to her first speech. Wow. She put the facts out there. She is just a wonderful human being. She is just so lovely to have in the Senate. She doesn’t hang back. She’s just great. And she’s in the Liberal Party, but where credit’s deserved, I give credit. And Nampijinpa Price deserves heaps of credit. She’s going to change that parliament just by telling the truth on indigenous. Beautiful.

Chris:

Well, I’ll tell you what, she’s upsetting the left at the moment. She’s upsetting the left of what she was saying the other day. But again, that’s that same guy I was telling you about, Pete FitzSimons interviewed her and apparently was quite rude and I think she said that she felt bullied by him.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. I can’t imagine anyone bullying Nampijinpa.

Chris:

I don’t know. I did see the speech, but I don’t know much about her, but that’s what we need though. We need a voice where, because I think we all know deep down. There’s a lot of stuff that’s going on at the moment that we know is bullshit. We know that, but people are just too afraid to say that because of the backlash they cop.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Well, we’ve been calling out and the worst thing you can call an Australian woman is racist. And that’s what they’ve done with Pauline. And you just said you are given labels at times. I’m given labels, climate denial and all that. Whenever they give you a label, it means they can’t argue with you, it means they haven’t got the facts and they can’t string their facts into a logical argument. So they resort to a label. So when people give me a label, I just say, “Well, thank you very much, Chris, for giving me that label. It means you haven’t got an argument. So thank you. I’ve just won the debate. See you.” And they can’t give Nampijinpa Price a label. They give Pauline a label, but it doesn’t shut Pauline down. It won’t shut me down because we know what they’re doing. That Pauline has been fighting so hard for the aboriginals in this country and the Torres Strait Islanders.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

When I was first elected into the Senate in 2016, I was walking up to One Nation headquarters in Albion at the time. And three aboriginals from the Territory saw me. And so they walked up and said, “Where’s Pauline’s office?” And I said, “In this building, come with me.” And I said, “What are you doing down here from the Territory?” And they said, “Well, she’s the only one who gets it. She’s the only one who stands up for us. She’s the only one who knows what’s going on.” And we’ve been calling out the Aboriginal industry because the Aboriginal industry is feeding 30 billion a year into an industry from taxpayer money and it’s not getting to the people in the communities.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

We made a list of something like, oh, how many? There are dozens and dozens and dozens of Aboriginal groups that are not serving the people. The people on the communities, the Aboriginal communities are languishing, and they’re not getting the money. The money’s going to black and white consultants, black and white lawyers. It’s going to a whole industry. As some of the aboriginals in the Territory said, you talk about a housing project to build houses. Most of the bloody money goes on white contractors, when the aboriginals could develop a skill and build the bloody houses themselves and have greater ownership. Why is that being neglected? That’s not help.

Chris:

No, it’s appalling. And you know what? You see it with a lot of other minorities. You see that they’ll be used for political gain or for many other reasons. And that’s what we’re seeing at the moment, that topic at the referendum that’s going to be put out, for the indigenous voice. I don’t agree with it, only because I think that we need to come together as one now, this division, it needs to stop. It’s unnecessary, we’re one country. And I just think it does more harm than good, especially in the long term.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

You’re exactly correct. It also says something else too. Currently, around about 5 or 6% of federal senators and MPs identify as indigenous. 5 or 6%. When you look at the number in there, out of the total number of 227 representatives, 5 or 6% are indigenous. The indigenous population is 3%. They’re already overrepresented. So aren’t they really saying that the Aboriginal representatives in parliament are not doing their job?

Chris:

Well, that’s an interesting way to look at it. Isn’t that? Well, that’s what they are saying.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. That’s right? So that is like the whites in parliament. They’re not doing their job either because they’re following the party power brokers’ instructions. They’re not representing the people, they’re following the party power brokers’ instructions. The other thing it does is, I agree with you. We are one nation or one country, whatever term you want to use. And it separates into two. That’s not good.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

But the third thing it does is really insidious. The Greens are very, very damaging with this one. They create victims. They create classes of people and they say, “Chris, you are being demoralised. You are a victim.” And then that destroys your sense of responsibility, destroys your initiative and you become a victim forever. That’s what the Greens do. And to some extent, the modern Labour Party does that. The old Labour Party used to be about standing up together, united by all means, but at least standing up and the Greens create victims to get votes. And in the process they destroy lives. So the Greens are about looking good, not doing good. And the Greens actually, that’s why I keep saying they’re inhuman, because they’re destroying lives. They’re creating perpetual victims and saying, you are this or you’re that, or you’re a single parent or you’re an Aboriginal or you’re a Torres Strait Islander. No, you’re Australian. If you’ve got particular concerns, let’s hear about them. But don’t talk to me about my skin colour or all short people need more money, Chris.

Chris:

Do you know what? It’s the virtue signalling and just like Coles have now announced that they’re got to put a welcome to country on their receipts. What? I don’t understand that. Why? Why don’t you do more for the community? I looked at this last night. Coles have 112,000 employees. I think it was 1800 or 1600 of those employees are indigenous. So how about you do more there? If that’s your concern, how about you do that? How about you employ more indigenous Australians? Because you know what? My children, at the school, they have indigenous, NADOC, we have all these things and I’m all for that, because I think we can all learn a lot from indigenous Australians. In regards to their connection with the land are unmatched, unmatched. And I find it very interesting. And I’m all for my kids learning a bit more about culture. There’s no problem with that, but it’s this pushing it down your throat all the time that gets to me.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Well, let me give you a little example of something. We’ve got an excellent barrister in our office. And I asked him to research the Native Title Act, which came in under Keating, I think it was. Now, all of us whities think that the Native Title Act was brought in to give Aboriginals some land. Bullshit. The Native Title Act of parliament, federal parliament, the preamble to it, the introduction to it, is littered with the words United Nations. If you go to an Aboriginal community like we have in Cape York, Northern Territory, they cannot get access to land. If you cannot get access to land, how the hell do you get money to borrow, to pay for a house? How the hell do you get money to start a small business? What the Native Title Act was about, was about locking up the land, taking your land, pretending to give it to the Aboriginals, but not. And so it was about locking up the land. Where did it come from? United Nations. It was about stealing land.

Chris:

What year was that?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Oh, Keating. When was Keating in power?

Chris:

No idea. It’s why I asked.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

’96, ’93, ’96, somewhere around there.

Chris:

Was the mid 90s, somewhere there.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Early to mid 90s. So this is what’s going on and people aren’t aware of that. And we all sit back and think, well, the virtue signal etc. We’ve done our job. We’ve given the Aboriginals land, bullshit. Go to an Aboriginal community and talk to them. They will tell you they can’t get the land. And they’ll also tell you the Aboriginal industry is stopping the money flying from the taxpayers to the Aboriginal in the community. Torres Strait Islander, we were up there last year. I said, what do you think about Close The Gap? Because to me it’s a negative because you’re focusing on the negative, closing a gap. And he said, “It’s bullshit and you’ll never close the gap while ever we have a Close The Gap programme.”

Chris:

That’s right.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Of course it is. But I was wanting to know, so I said, “What do you mean?” And he said, “Well, who do you think makes money out of having a Close The Gap programme? All the people supposed to be on these programmes who are closing the gap.” If they close the gap, they won’t get the money. They’re not interested in closing the gap. It’s that simple. It’s been turned into an industry that is hurting the Aboriginals in the communities. That’s what we object to. And Pauline has been calling that out since ’96.

Chris:

So it comes from… That’s what I mean, there’s people that will label you and Pauline as racist and on all the rest of the terms that they use.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Nazis.

Chris:

Nazis. If you have to speak, because if what you say, if you just make a point and you just read that in passing, it may look that way. But the way you explain it and the way that you, and not just you, but Pauline as well, it’s very clear to anyone that listens that it comes from a good place. And that in fact, you’re probably doing more for that community than what the other people are, and that you’re actually standing up and speaking for them. But it’s the same thing. The minute you even suggest that you’ll vote no to the referendum for the indigenous voice, the comments were flying about you being racist. You’re like, well, that’s irrelevant. What do you mean I’m racist? I’m objecting to a particular issue. But people just can’t, when I mean people, I mean let’s be honest, primarily the left, but they just see it and run with it.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I don’t call them the left. As you know, I call them the control side of politics, because left and right are meaningless terms these days. I know what you’re saying. And most people can understand a broad group by the left, but there’s so many people on the left economically who are on the right when it comes to morals or values and vice versa. It’s an irrelevant term. And I realised, I was reading a book one day about 10, 15 years ago. And I realised that left and right are used to confuse people. The real terms are you’re either in favour of control or you’re in favour of freedom. And the real issue throughout humanity has been control versus freedom. Labour Party is in favour of controls. Greens are in favour of controls. So what you call the left broadly, in favour of controls. UN is in favour of controls.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And that’s been the entire battle in humans, it’s a battle within each of us, whether we want to control someone else. It’s a battle between two of us, who’s going to control. It’s a battle between a group. It’s a battle within a community. It’s a battle within a nation. It’s a battle between nations, that’s what’s caused most wars. So it’s that ego again that comes up. That’s what the core issue is with humans, the control element, the fear based element. People who want to control, always beneath control is fear. So it’s whether or not we let their fears take over and control others, try to control others, or we let our spirit come through. And then we’re of the universe.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

You’re not a part of the universe, you’re of the universe, but the way we create ourselves and fabricate the ego that I call Malcolm, I’m part of the universe, whereas I’m really of the universe. And I think we’ve got to get back to that holistic thinking, that unified thinking, universal thinking, which means you don’t have a voice for Aboriginals. You have a voice for the people of Australia, that’s it. And what we’ve got to get back to is that, because at the moment we have a voice for the Liberal Party, a voice for the Labour Party, a voice for the National Party, although it’s pretty weak, and a voice for the Greens.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

They’re all speaking for the UN. David Littleproud is the leader of the Nationals. He’s trying to push forward globalist policies. One of the last things he did as a National Party minister was introduce a bill on biodiversity, which is complete bullshit. It was about controlling land in the guise of giving money to farmers for that control. I mean they’re coming at us every which way they can, Chris. We’ve just got to be so much on guard, but I think we’ve got to get back to being individuals within a human species of our universe rather than looking at separation and fragmentation.

Chris:

Mate, well said. We’ll end it there on that. That was yep, exactly right. You’re exactly right. And I heard something a few weeks ago and they said that in the video, he said that we were controlled by freedom, that we’re being controlled by freedom. And then once cryptocurrency and people, you had the internet, they started talking, like we are doing here and bouncing ideas off each other, they lost a little bit of that control. So the shift now is they’re trying to control us with safety, which is exactly what they’re doing. In the last three years, how many viruses have popped up out of nowhere? How many? Coronavirus, monkey pox, now there’s a new one in China where there was 31 cases identified of a brand new virus. It’s just one after the next.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Foot and mouth in Bali.

Chris:

Foot and mouth, that’s right.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

That one’s real.

Chris:

Yeah, that’s very concerning that one. Very, very concerning. But anyway, I’m aware you have another meeting at 12, so we’ll leave it there. But Malcolm, always a pleasure.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah, same here, Chris. And keep doing what you’re doing, mate, because we can’t rely on the mockingbird media, the anti-social media, the legacy media, the charlatan media. We’ve got to rely upon people like you to get the truth out. So thank you.

Chris:

Absolutely. And is your TNT Radio, what’s your vision for that? Are you doing that for the foreseeable future?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yep. Every two weeks on a Saturday from three til five. And thank you for mentioning it. TNTradio.live wonderful, wonderful, global, Australian actually, but they have hosts in New York, Los Angeles, Tel Aviv, Belfast, Ireland, London, all over Australia. And they have journalists during the week and people who’ve come from prominent positions. We’ve got former CIA, senior people in CIA on there. And then on the weekends, they tend to have people like me and we take our turns. So every second Saturday three til five I’m on. But TNT was funded by a person who wants to change politics in this country and change journalism, bring it back to basics and honesty. And by a journalist, Mike Ryan, who’s doing a wonderful job. What they’re doing is they’re just saying to the media, here’s some honesty. And they’re saying to the media, here’s the real politics. So they’re reporting fearlessly on any topic. They just tell the truth. As they say the only thing that TNT mandates is the truth.

Chris:

Yeah. We need to have that. And that’s why I have no problem recommending your show on TNT Radio because we need to work together collectively. Because you know what that’s going to do, it’s going to pressure the mainstream media to hopefully start being a little bit more honest, because people are going to get sick of it. And I’ve already noticed that people are getting sick of the mainstream media. People know that the mainstream media lie. And I think it’s a lack of awareness that podcasts like mine and shows like yours exist. But I think people are really starting to see that now. And it’s going to force the mainstream media to change, because if the mainstream media change and they’re more forthcoming and truthful with their reporting, everyone wins. Everyone wins. So it doesn’t bother me if I promote your show and we’re all in it together collectively, it’s a collective effort. But anyway, Malcolm.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I meant what I said, keep doing what you’re doing.

Chris:

I appreciate that mate, all the best.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

See you, mate.

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.