I asked the Attorney General the Hon, Senator Cash her legal opinion on the right to peaceful protest. Judge for yourself if this is an acceptable defence of the right to protest from Australia’s first law officer.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS
My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Cash. My question references independent professional truckies who protested on Monday morning in Queensland. Can the Attorney-General inform the Senate of the legal protections afforded Australians under our Constitution, legislation, common law or international conventions that protect the right of everyday Australians to engage in peaceful protest in a public place?
Senator CASH
I thank Senator Roberts for the question. I don’t have the actual legal provisions with me, so I will need to revert to you in relation to that. In terms of the right to peacefully protest in this country, it is a right that we hold dearly, certainly as a society and as a government.
We’ve seen protests around Australia, in particular during COVID-19. It is important that people do adhere to the law at all times and certainly respect the rights of others in relation to what they are protesting on.
The PRESIDENT
Senator Roberts, a supplementary question?
Senator ROBERTS
After the truckies made their excellent point, which Senator Hanson and I support, Senator Hanson did ask the truckies to consider allowing horses on trucks in the blockaded traffic to be freed and allowing everyday Australians to go about their day without hindrance.
Attorney-General, do you agree that the Australian people would be looking to parliaments to defend civil liberties exercised in a fair manner, not to trash them?
Senator CASH
Again, at all times when people are protesting—and it doesn’t matter what issue they are protesting about—they should always protest in accordance with the law. They should respect the laws of the land, and at all times they should respect the rights of others.
The PRESIDENT
Senator Roberts, a final supplementary question?
Senator ROBERTS
I note that previous protests against COVID measures around our nation were deemed illegal and prosecuted, yet the Black Lives Matter protests were approved under COVID restrictions. Both series of protests were in violation of similar COVID restrictions.
The only difference between the two protests was the subject matter. Attorney-General, should politicians be allowed to use public order measures to hide from public criticism?
The PRESIDENT
Order! The minister said they couldn’t hear the question because of noise during a remote question. I’m going to ask Senator Roberts to ask it again, which I know will waste the time of the chamber, but the minister couldn’t hear it. I ask for silence. Senator Roberts, can you repeat your question?
Senator ROBERTS
I note that previous protests against COVID measures around our nation were deemed illegal and prosecuted, yet the Black Lives Matter protests were approved under COVID restrictions. Both series of protests were in violation of similar COVID restrictions.
The only difference between these two protests was the subject matter. Attorney-General, should politicians be allowed to use public order measures to hide from public criticism?
Senator CASH
Again, for Commonwealth, state and territory governments, the one thing we’re all united in is keeping Australians safe during COVID-19. The Australian government has at all times sought to take measures that combat the virus, while, as I said previously, at the same time respecting people’s rights and their freedoms.
You would also know that states and territories themselves have taken measures under their own laws in respect of COVID-19, and, as you have articulated, this is predominantly done under state and territory public health and emergency management legislation.
Again, at all times, though, the Commonwealth will work with state and territory governments—through the national cabinet—to ensure that Australia’s COVID-19 response is one that is measured and is one that is appropriate.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/QT-pic.jpg?fit=480%2C360&ssl=1360480Harriet Blackhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngHarriet Black2021-09-03 14:06:322021-09-03 15:26:10Question Time: Attorney General Cash fails to explain the legal right to protest
I attended the truckies blockade on the Gold Coast this week, protesting against mandatory vaccines in workers who want to cross the border. Them and many others are asking why you need to implement a vaccine passport for a vaccine if it’s so good?
Transcript
[Marcus Paul] One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts. Good morning to you, Malcolm.
[Malcolm Roberts] Good morning, Marcus, how are you doing?
[Marcus Paul] Yeah, not bad, mate. Whereabouts are you?
[Malcolm Roberts] I’m in Brisbane, Brisbane city.
[Marcus Paul] Ah, half your luck!
[Malcolm Roberts] Doing remote parliament from my electorate office.
[Marcus Paul] Yes, of course, remotely.
[Malcolm Roberts] It’s so frustrating.
[Marcus Paul] Yeah, I bet it is, I bet it’s frustrating, because of course, you can’t leave there because if you go to the ACT, what happens?
[Malcolm Roberts] I have to lock down. I have to quarantine for two weeks when I come back. But first, Marcus, I want to express my condolences for your recent loss of your dad.
[Malcolm Roberts] What do you appreciate most about him?
[Marcus Paul] Ooh, what do I appreciate most? Mate, have you got all day? Everything.
[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah, I have.
[Marcus Paul] I wish I did. Look, my father was a compassionate man. He was very, very kind to everybody. I can’t recall a time where he had a bad word really to say about- And he went through some difficult times in his life, but he was always optimistic. But more importantly I think, Dad taught me to respect people and that’s hopefully what I do. I mean, obviously, you know, I do a radio show, so quite often I go off the rails with some of my criticism, but I never try to make it personal. So look, that’s the main thing. My dad was a truly decent man and I hope that I’m also, you know, as decent as he is. There we go.
[Malcolm Roberts] That’s a wonderful compliment and what do they say? “The fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree”?
[Marcus Paul] Hope not. That’s it, mate, that’s it. All right, what are we discussing this morning with you? Vaccine passports. Here in New South Wales, the Premier yesterday basically said that, look, if you are fully vaccinated, you can return to a normal life as of October 17, 18. So she’s well and truly dangling that vaccine passport carrot.
[Malcolm Roberts] You know, Marcus, that really undermines people’s faith in the vaccine, because if you have to be coerced into getting a vaccine, because you might miss out on going to the supermarket, you can’t eat, you lose your livelihood, you lose basic services that you’ve paid for in your form of taxation, then it really raises people’s questions about this vaccine and so they should. Because I’ve checked with the Chief Medical Officer in Federal Parliament, and they won’t say that the vaccine’s 100% safe. They admit that they don’t know the dosage, they don’t know the frequency of injections, they admit that it won’t stop people getting the virus, they admit that it won’t stop the spread of virus, and the efficacy is plummeting. It’s down around 17% of what it should be, so why would you get one of these things? Plus, this is the first time in history that our government has injected something into healthy people that can possibly kill them and we know there are deaths. So I mean, it just doesn’t make sense. And the governments themselves are undermining any faith in the vaccines by the actions they are doing to try and force people to get it. And that’s what the truckies were on about. You know, I appreciated your call on Monday.
[Marcus Paul] Yeah.
[Malcolm Roberts] We were just leaving the truckies’ blockade in Southern Queensland and the truckies just have very simple needs. They just wanted three things. They want a choice on vaccine, whether or not you get it, that’s your choice.
[Marcus Paul] Sure.
[Malcolm Roberts] They wanted to end these capricious lockdowns, which are destroying their livelihoods. These truckies have got to pay off trucks you know. They don’t just get JobKeeper. And then the third thing they want is their kids back at school. I mean, this is just disgraceful what’s going on.
[Marcus Paul] All right, well, look, everybody has a right to free speech and to protest in this country. And look, I’m glad though, that once, obviously, the point was made, I’m glad that you and Pauline moved them on, the way you did and cleared the roadway for other drivers. Because obviously the point had been made, there was some traffic delays, but I’m not a truck driver. I’ve been very lucky. That’s why I try and have a bit of an open mind here. I’ve been extremely lucky. I’ve been able to work and earn, obviously, an income throughout this whole pandemic. So it’s a little unfair on me to jump up and down about people concerned about their rights, and their right to earn an income, et cetera. I’d be a hypocrite to be perfectly honest. I don’t agree with some of the silly protests that have gone on, but I kind of understand it.
[Malcolm Roberts] Well you know, these truckies- just first two points. Firstly, Pauline and I didn’t move them on.
[Marcus Paul] Oh okay.
[Malcolm Roberts] Pauline, she’s a very, very strong supporters of the truckies. Come back to that in a minute. But what Pauline said to the truckies was there are horses stuck in traffic and this was kilometres long, you know.
[Marcus Paul] Yes.
[Malcolm Roberts] You’re not just going to move it by moving aside a truck, you’ve got to end the blockade. So Pauline just said, we know that you’ve made your point. You’ve shown that trucks are essential. You’ve made your point. You’ve got the media in terms of not being forced to get these jabs, injections. There are horses stuck in this traffic. So it’s up to you. You know, she didn’t say-
[Marcus Paul] Yeah.
[Malcolm Roberts] She has got no power to move anyone on, but she just interceded like that. And the truckies being highly responsible just said, yeah, okay, we’ve made our point. And then they opened up.
[Marcus Paul] All right.
[Malcolm Roberts] The other thing is that truckies- a very good friend of mine reminded me of something. Trucks touch every single thing in our lives.
[Marcus Paul] Oh, of course.
[Malcolm Roberts] You know, they transport food to processing. They transport the processed food, the manufactured goods and mate, truckies are so down to earth, they’re responsible for what they’re doing. They’re responsible for other people’s lives. They’ve also, generally, many of them are small business owners. So they have that responsibility as well. Some of them employ people. But truckies are down to earth and they were asking basic questions about freedoms, basic questions. Do they have the right to determine what comes into their body? You know, I’ll make a statement. Parliaments are meant serve Australians and not control Australians. We’ve lost the fact that Parliament serve Australians. Parliaments look after the two major parties. And that’s it. I would far rather have truckies in parliament.
[Marcus Paul] All right.
[Malcolm Roberts] Because they are salt of the earth people. They can represent the people. These guys are salt of the earth and I highly respect them.
[Marcus Paul] The Queensland Premier is copping it again in the press and understandably so. I mean, I have my personal story on this and I won’t, you know, I’ve already said what I have to say.
[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah, I heard that.
[Marcus Paul] But, little Memphis. There’s a little boy, who’s aged three. He’s stuck in New South Wales at his grandparents’ home near Griffith. Due to the border blockade of the Premier of Queensland, Anastasia Palaszczuk, this little three year old has not seen his mum and dad, going on now more than two months. The Queensland Government has refused a reunion exemption. Look, if that’s not compassionate grounds to reunite a three-year-old child with his parents, then I don’t know what the hell is.
[Malcolm Roberts] Marcus, you are absolutely correct. It’s not the Premier. She’s a dope, it’s the Labour state machine. What they have done is instilled fear up here and abused powers. And they’ve done it to keep control of people and done it for their own electoral benefit. And they rely on emotion. There are many, many stories like little Memphis.
[Marcus Paul] Of course.
[Malcolm Roberts] But listen to some of these figures. In Victoria- these are just some of the figures, I’ll go through NSW as well. Every week, more than 340 teenagers suffering mental health emergencies admitted to hospitals in Victoria – 162% increase. Every week, 156 teenagers rushed to hospital for attempting suicide or self-harm. 37 every week needing emergency treatment or surgery. An 88 percent increase – almost doubled. A 90% increase in children with eating disorders.
[Marcus Paul] Okay.
[Malcolm Roberts] New South Wales, daily, more than 40 children and teenagers rushed to hospital for self-harm. That’s up 31%. Acute mental health admissions for children and young people, up almost half, almost 50%. Gold Coast Hospital here in Queensland, a 212% spike in eating disorders from 2019 compared to 2020.
[Marcus Paul] All right.
[Malcolm Roberts] And Queensland’s Butterfly Foundation says, calls for help increased 34% for eating disorders from January 2020 to January 2021. 85% were first time callers to the helpline. In August, the Lifeline Suicide Prevention Line had his busiest days in its 50 year history.
[Marcus Paul] Yeah, we spoke to John Brogden about that.
[Malcolm Roberts] This is disgraceful. Because Marcus, kids are going through the formative period of their mind. Their mind is actually forming and they need the love and nurturing around. Now we’ve got the Premier in Victoria saying they can’t go to their grandparents and get the kiss and a hug. I mean, this is insane. These kids are vulnerable and underdeveloped. Their brains are vulnerable and underdeveloped, and it’s inhuman to expect children to process and cope with the restrictions that adults impose.
[Marcus Paul] All right.
[Malcolm Roberts] Even many adults themselves are now appearing to be on the edge of insanity. And we’re depriving kids of the greatest deprivations, deprivation of liberty, deprivation of education, deprivation of normal development, deprivation of swings, slippery slides and rides on the bike, swims at the beach and local sport, deprivation of crucial friendship support and separated parents, depravation of loving grandparents.
[Marcus Paul] The answer to all of this, is they damn well should have been Olympians or NRL players. Malcolm, I’ve got to go.
[Malcolm Roberts] Good on you mate.
[Marcus Paul] Bye mate. See you later. Malcolm Roberts. There he is. Always passionate, isn’t he?
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/truckieplate.00_02_10_22.Still001.png?fit=1920%2C1920&ssl=119201920Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-09-02 14:13:392021-09-02 14:20:23Truckies and Protests – 2SM with Marcus Paul
In a time of panic and uncertainty last year the government implemented Jobkeeper. Thousands of businesses validly and ethically accepted money from the government without the knowledge they may later be publicly shamed for it. We support accountability, but do it in a properly set system from the start.
That wasn’t the deal at the time, we don’t publicly list every dole recipient and we shouldn’t be doing things retrospectively.
Transcript:
I speak on behalf of Senator Hanson on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021. The key point here is accountability. I know now of organisations that had a disastrous first two months of JobKeeper and then very quickly recovered. They tried to stop JobKeeper payments and couldn’t. We also know that some businesses gamed the system. What this shows is that we need a proper audit.
I’ll give you some background. March and April 2020 was a time of great uncertainty. Deaths overseas were reportedly very high—in the tens of thousands. There was a lot of fear and uncertainty, and that meant erring on the side of safety. So all the parties in the Senate supported the government’s approach on JobSeeker and JobKeeper. We basically gave them a blank cheque and waved it through because it was a time of perceived threat. I warned at the time of a need to get data and develop a proper plan, and that we would hold the government accountable. I noted Taiwan’s stellar performance and Ivermectin.
The government got it wrong with JobKeeper. We all saw that, and that’s not a criticism of the government—so long as the government doesn’t make too many mistakes it’s very easy in hindsight to see that JobKeeper and JobSeeker could be open to criticism. I’m proud to say that I erred on the side of caution and safety in a time of great uncertainty. Senator Hanson and I are not afraid of admitting errors. But it was an error that was based on making sure that we erred on the side of safety, so we cannot hold that against anyone. Senator Hanson later questioned continuing JobKeeper. I did the same. Parliament did not stop it. Labor wanted to extend it and widen it. The parliament failed to hold the government accountable. The federal government continued to support capricious and unjustified lockdowns, and still does. The parliament condones the lack of a proper comprehensive plan, yet has blasted billions out into the community.
That’s the broad perspective. We were faced with a lot of uncertainty. The government made some initiatives. We supported them, and some parties wanted to continue them through until now. Let’s have a look at some specifics. Labor is claiming that, out of the $90 billion paid out in JobKeeper, $25 billion has apparently been paid to companies that did not suffer a decline in revenue.
The Treasurer says he doesn’t know because he does not have companies’ profit and loss statements. And some of them had an increase in revenue and some have paid huge bonuses to executives. So we have a problem. Naming and shaming by itself does nothing, though. The people need action to get the money back from those who’ve rorted the system. We need a better system. We need more accountability to the public. We need a plan and a system in place for the future.
I want to comment on tax law. Tax law has always had secrecy provisions, unless there’s a higher purpose—for example, criminal prosecution. There are many practical occasions when the Australian Taxation Office releases data. Its JobKeeper administration, though, is not part of the income tax system. The Australian Taxation Office systems were used not for tax but for shovelling taxpayer money to companies. That does not affect tax office secrecy provisions.
Our tax system is based on voluntary compliance, including for company tax. Prior to 1986, every individual’s tax return was checked by the ATO. That hasn’t happened since 1986. It is done on a sampling basis. We need to remember, also, that 75 per cent of tax raised is from individuals, so it’s the individual’s confidence in the taxation system and confidence in government spending that needs to be maintained.
Now, the parliament makes the laws. There is only one position in the Australian tax office that is of significance: that’s the taxation commissioner. Why should the commissioner approach the Senate President? Why did he write to the President, when he reports to the parliament? The parliament hires him and fires him. The commissioner, on this occasion, has overstepped the mark.
ASIC will publish the JobKeeper figures for publicly listed companies, and, for them, the context, including the number of employees and revenues, is available. That’s not the case when it’s published for private companies because there’s a need for context. There can be unintended consequences if people simply know the JobKeeper payments without the comprehensive context. We need to prevent various third parties targeting the businesses and taking JobKeeper out of context.
Now, the government will support this in the House of Representatives, whereas Senator Patrick’s original amendment—which we acknowledge and appreciate—would have been defeated. I’m sure that Senator Patrick is doing this to do good, not just look good. So we thank Senator Patrick for his idea, which we have built on and enhanced. Those in the Senate who believe in transparency with safeguards will support this amendment. I want to make two final points. This highlights yet again that central government quite often gets it wrong. We highlight parliament’s lack of accountability. Instead, parliament has been posturing over this COVID situation. We must restore parliament to serve the people. So that’s why we’re moving this amendment, on behalf of Senator Hanson, and I would welcome people’s support.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/MPI-Tues-thumbnail.jpg?fit=480%2C360&ssl=1360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-09-02 10:16:032021-09-02 10:27:04Why we voted against Jobkeeper naming and shaming
This week, we heard Labor raise the issue that “Mr Morrison is considered to be “the Prime Minister for Morrison and no one else.” While that is increasingly heard in the media, among members of the government, among members of the Liberal and National parties and among the people, I reflect on an additional, more significant and rapidly growing conclusion among the people.
That is, the people are saying the Parliament of Australia is for the parliament – meaning, the parliament is working for both the tired old parties. That is, the Liberal-Nationals and Labor. And the people of Australia are paying the price because the people are serving the parliament, when it should be our parliaments serving the people.
Transcript:
This matter of public importance states:
The reported views of members of the NSW Liberal Government, including that they consider Mr Morrison to be “the Prime Minister for Morrison and no one else”.
While that is increasingly heard in the media, among members of the government, among members of the Liberal and National parties and among the people, I reflect on an additional, more significant and rapidly growing conclusion among the people, and it’s allied to the one this MPI debates.
That conclusion is that the parliament of Australia is for the parliament. By that they mean the parliament is working for both the tired old parties—that is, the Liberal-Nationals and the Labor Party—and the people of Australia are the ones paying the price, because the people are serving the parliament, when we need to get back to the parliament serving the people.
I’m very positive about Australians—our resources, our opportunities, our potential—yet I’m very worried about Australia, because of shoddy governance for many decades, and so are the people—for example, the truckies. The truckies recently blockaded a highway south of Brisbane.
Truckies are the salt of the earth—regular people, real people. There’s nothing that hasn’t been on a truck, whether during processing or after it has been made and sent to market. Truckies interact with everyone—all ways of life, all callings and all needs. Now they’re calling out the politicians—and not just those from the government; truckies are calling out politicians generally.
Why? Because they’re feeling doubtful, confused, afraid, overwhelmed and hopeless, and they’re getting angry and feeling very frustrated. Why? Because of their need for a livelihood, which is being threatened; their need for survival; their need for truth and honesty—a basic need; their need for consistency and ease, predictability; their need to be heard by the members who are supposed to represent them in parliament; their need for leadership, trust, integrity, credibility.
Let’s have a look at some of the data. We’ve now had hundreds of days of lockdown in Victoria, months in some of the other states. It’s capricious: smacked on and taken off suddenly. People’s lives have been ruined. There has been stress, isolation, poverty, suicide, domestic violence.
There have been cruel restrictions. One of a pair of twins was lost because their parent was denied access to a Brisbane hospital because she came from northern New South Wales. Fancy losing a twin because of some capricious government or bureaucrat!
Parents are dying without the comfort of their kids. Kids in cancer treatment are alone because their parents have to go into lockdown. Then we have curfews. We have local government authorities in areas of Sydney calling on people to show their papers before they can move from one LGA to another.
There is child suicide, domestic violence, alcohol abuse. There are kids at boarding school unable to go home for the holidays and see their families. There are now threats and bribes to get people to vaccinate, and those threats are undermining vaccination itself.
The World Health Organization says that lockdowns are to be used only initially, to get control of the virus. Well, 18 months is not ‘initially’. Every time a government slaps on a lockdown in this country it is admitting, for the whole world to see, that it does not have control of the virus.
Clearly, there is no plan—people can see and feel that—but politicians lack the strength of character to admit their error. They’re locked in, gutlessly, to save face in front of the people. The Liberal-National and Labor governments, state and federal, are pushing this rubbish on the people of Australia.
The people, though, are starting to get the Liberals to backpedal. What is happening is that the data is starting to come out: people are feeling the pain, and they’re saying, ‘To hell with you lot.’ They want to sort out parliament. But the politicians still won’t back down, because of the fear they have drummed up, the fear that they have ingrained in our society and that is killing people.
What we see now, for the first time ever, are the Liberal, Nats and Labor pushing an untested and unproven vaccine. For the first time in history we see governments injecting healthy people with something that can kill them, and is killing many. At the same time, we see Ivermectin, a now proven, safe, effective and affordable treatment—and a preventative; a prophylactic—and the Liberal, Nats and Labor are stopping this treatment.
There’s a complete lack of a plan, a bias away from the data and a contradiction of the data. All the truckies want are simple, basic needs met—end damaging lockdowns and curfews; vaccine only by choice; and children back to school—so they can get on with their lives and their livelihoods and protect their family.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/MPI-Tues-thumbnail.jpg?fit=480%2C360&ssl=1360480Harriet Blackhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngHarriet Black2021-09-01 12:15:242021-09-01 12:15:36Our Parliaments should be serving the people.
The industry the ALP and Greens want to phase out – mining – is driving a record $10 billion a month balance of trade surplus. This money is going into the local economy, creating jobs and increasing Government revenue. Without the contribution from mining each month Australia would be in a depression.
One Nation supports the mining industry and the ability of Australians to get ahead through their own hard work and endeavour.
Transcript:
The national accounts figures published yesterday carried great news for our community and very bad news for those in the Senate for whom ‘mining’ is a dirty word. Australia’s balance of trade surplus is now at a 10-year high, just over $10 billion in June, up from $9 billion in May.
Every dollar of surplus is $1 of growth for the Australian economy, generating jobs and economic security and making Australia more resilient. Every $10 increase in the iron ore or coal price adds $1 billion to government revenue. Overall, metal ore exports reached a record high in April of $16½ billion.
That’s $16.5 billion in mining exports in one month. Consider all the employment this is creating—the breadwinner jobs, the families supported by individual labour rather than by government handouts. Investment in mining is an investment in our future security—it’s that simple. Iron ore is now at $154 a tonne and coal is at $171 a tonne—both against budget projections of $40 a tonne.
The government has a windfall here. Copper is up 23 per cent, steel is up 24 per cent, nickel is up 15 per cent and cobalt is up 57 per cent. Our mining recovery is broadly based and sustained. This revenue must go, in part, to building Australian infrastructure, which is our future, and, in part, to paying back our profligate deficit, caused by temporary COVID measures that now somehow appear permanent. Yet Labor and the Greens are telling miners, ‘Bad luck,’ because both want to ban any new mines and extensions of existing mines.
Their policy will devastate the economy and the government revenue base. Entire communities will be reliant on government welfare and any rules imposed on them in order to keep the benefits. No wonder the Greens and Labor hate mining. There will be none of this supporting of ourselves under a government Anthony Albanese and Adam Bandt lead.
We are one community, we are one nation, and mining will keep us free.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/mining-thumbnail.jpg?fit=480%2C360&ssl=1360480Harriet Blackhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngHarriet Black2021-09-01 12:07:022021-09-01 12:07:20Mining is keeping Australia out of a depression.
If your employer has made a direction that you must be vaccinated to work, this template letter may help extract important information.
Download the below word document, delete the first page and insert the details of your employer and your details in the highlighted section.
This letter is not legal advice, it does not guarantee you protection from having to receive a vaccination for your work. Further details are provided in the document below.
The youngest child in Australia to undergo transition surgery was 15 years old. If you’re over 18 you can call yourself whatever you like, but telling teenagers gender isn’t real while they battle with all the changes of puberty is a recipe for tragedy.
Transcript
The Morrison-Joyce government has yet again dragged Australia into the misguided and dangerous United Nations parallel universe. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has signed Australia up to a communique from the UN Human Rights Council that endorses radical intersectional gender theory. This is the theory that gender is a social construct and that one’s decision about gender is based not on biology but on feelings. There is no agreement in Australia that gender is a social construct. There is no agreement that minors should be able to nominate their gender based on self-identification alone. Worldwide, the momentum is shifting back the other way, towards greater caution, especially on the use of experimental treatments and irreversible surgeries. The youngest child in Australia to undergo transition surgery—in this case a double mastectomy—was 15 years old. How can a child of 15 know their mind? The vast majority of minors sort out their gender identity by adolescence. Gender fluidity is easily dispensed as nonsense. If gender is fluid, then no-one can be trapped in the wrong body, because fluidity dictates that person’s views of their gender could change with their next mood.
One Nation agrees that pink and blue do not define gender and that biology need not confine us to traditional gender norms. Nonetheless, children growing up must have certainties to hang onto. Telling children there is a plethora of genders they can pick from exacerbates confusion and anxiety and weakens their sense of self. I was surprised to learn that Australia has an international ambassador for gender equality, who is employed to advance these agendas. The decision by Minister Payne was not an aberration. It was deliberate government policy. Our supposedly Christian Prime Minister and this entire parliament are out of touch with everyday Australians. We have one flag, we are one community, we are one nation and we want our children protected from UN lunatics.
Suspicion about the results of our elections is an existential threat to our country. Confidence comes from having strict auditing and checking procedures. We’ve seen that these auditing, checks and system are not fit for purpose. One Nation is asking for those deficiencies to be rectified.
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, here we go again. Yet again the Labor Party are about to sit comfortably in the laps of the Liberals and Nationals to vote through measures that are in both of their own interests. Just yesterday I spoke of this parliament being dysfunctional to the point of being a crime scene. The very next day here we are watching the proof unfold again before our very eyes.
For those watching at home and wondering why One Nation did not use these electoral bills to introduce actual electoral reform, the answer is simple: the way these bills were written. There is one bill per topic and they include a long description that prevents One Nation from introducing amendments that move outside of that very narrow, restrictive scope.
If the government and Labor wanted to join three bills together and vote in one line, they should have produced the three bills as an omnibus bill that One Nation and the crossbench could have amended—and the legislation badly needs amendment. Senators Wong and Birmingham are once again making a mockery of the democratic process—dodgy siblings doing another dirty deal behind closed doors. When are we going to start writing numbers on the perspex screens so we can distinguish between the Liberal-Nationals and Labor! The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters made 27 recommendations towards more fair and effective elections. The ‘Lib-Lab duopoly’ has again rushed legislation before the Senate to implement a grand total of three of those recommendations, none of which does anything to ensure the integrity of our electoral process.
The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Offences and Preventing Multiple Voting) Bill 2021 pretends to do something about multiple voting. In the last three elections, the Australian Electoral Commission reviewed thousands of case of multiple voting and referred a few hundred of those to the Australian Federal Police for prosecution, who made the decision to prosecute none of them. Not one person has been prosecuted as a result of the ordinary operations of the Electoral Act despite recommendations to do so and despite that law being on the books for a very long time. That may be why the government has chosen to abandon the legal system and refer multiple voting to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Yesterday we saw cybercrime warrants being moved from the criminal court system to the administrative court system; today we have multiple voting moving over as well. One Nation is uncomfortable with the growing power of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and with the whole concept of having two court systems. Criminal courts are founded in biblical and common law; administrative courts have no such higher purpose to be called on for guidance.
The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Party Registration Integrity) Bill 2021 is clearly an attempt by Lib-Lab to knock out smaller parties and entrench the power of the status quo. I hear the anger on social media over this measure, yet I have some questions in return. Should a multimillionaire be allowed to use his wealth to buy political influence through the United Australia Party? The requirement to have 500 supporters is not going to slow down a very wealthy individual, yet a requirement to have 1,500 supporters will—unless that party actually has grassroots support. This legislation is saying to Clive Palmer, ‘Put your supporters where your mouth is, not where your money is.’ There is criticism from some new parties who should be more worried about themselves. If you start fact-checking the memes you are spreading, and start offering voters evidence based policy, perhaps 1,500 may be more achievable. I understand that Senator Lambie too is in opposition to this bill. This raises a good question for the government—oops, the Lib-Labs—to answer: why is it 1,500 voters for registration in a populous state and 1,500 in Tasmania? Shouldn’t it be some percentage of registered voters in that state?
The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Counting, Scrutiny and Operational Efficiencies) Bill 2021 makes a number of small changes to voting. These have been mentioned by other speakers and I will not review those here. How will all these changes affect the integrity of our elections? Well, we don’t know. We don’t know now and we won’t know afterwards because our elections are not audited. My interest in election integrity started in January 2021, following the US presidential election. My office was inundated with people asking about whether election fraud, such as it was in the United States, could be happening in Australia. The problem is not whether election fraud is happening; the problem is that people think it is happening. Confidence in election outcomes is central to democracy.
The restrictions around COVID have people at boiling point. Small business closures, job losses, high-handed bureaucrats and politics have reduced many people to desperation. The next election will be a powder keg. It is essential to ensure that, whatever the result, the public can accept it and move on. Suspicion of the outcome can be easily fuelled and turned into violence by those who seek to manipulate the result for their own ends. We cannot let this happen. It is for this reason that New South Wales and Western Australia have provisions in their electoral acts to audit state elections.
New South Wales conducts an audit before each election to ensure systems are fit for purpose and then audits again after each election to ensure integrity and to see what can be improved for next time. Western Australia audits after every election.
The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 does not have audit provisions. In February, I started asking questions of the Australian Electoral Commission, the AEC. To be honest, I expected to hear that auditing was under control given the reputation the Australian Electoral Commission claims it has. That’s not what I found. The Australian Electoral Commission told me in Senate estimates that the Australian Signals Directorate had conducted an audit of the Australian Electoral Commission’s software. The next day in Senate estimates I asked the Australian Signals Directorate if they had done that audit and the answer was a clear no. The Australian Electoral Commission tried to conflate the security audit conducted by the Australian Signals Directorate with an audit of software and systems to pretend our software was being audited and, by extension, was fit for purpose. It has not been audited. The election software is not fit for purpose.
So why did the Australian Electoral Commission make a false statement or imply a false statement? The Australian Signals Directorate looked at potential intrusions into the system, both electronic and physical. Following the audit, the Australian Signals Directorate proceeded with an uplift program designed to harden the AEC network. I call that a fail. If your systems were audited for cybersecurity and the outcome was a comprehensive uplift program to improve your security then clearly the system failed the audit. What else would fail an audit at the Australian Electoral Commission?
In the May Senate estimates I asked the Australian Electoral Commission simple questions. When did the Australian Signals Directorate audit happen? The Australian Electoral Commission declined to answer. What was actually audited? The Australian Electoral Commission gave no useful response. What was the result of the audit? The Australian Electoral Commission declined to answer. What changes to the Australian Electoral Commission’s systems have been made in the uplift program? The Australian Electoral Commission declined to answer. Could the Australian Electoral Commission guarantee that the uplift program would render the Australian Electoral Commission computer system fit for purpose? The Australian Electoral Commission responded that nobody could ever guarantee their systems are fit for purpose. Let that sink in. Nobody could ever guarantee their systems are fit for purpose—the Australian Electoral Commission admitted it.
It is disturbing that such an audit could happen behind closed doors without direction or without structure. It is more disturbing still that this program has no legal basis in the Australian Commonwealth Electoral Act. We should not have to rely on the admirable conscientiousness of the Australian Signals Directorate. We should be able to rely on the completeness of our legislation. We need it fixed. It must be fixed.
Then I looked at other issues around election integrity. First up was a simple question: is the electronic data file containing each vote ever compared back to the paper ballot after the vote has been adjudicated? That answer is no. At no time is the electronic record of a vote checked back against the paper ballot. Senator Birmingham and the Australian Electoral Commission have assured us that there is a check, yet when we peer through the veil of language deliberately calculated to obfuscate no such check is happening, contrary to the minister’s response. The only time this happens is when a ballot is disputed and a paper ballot is pulled out for scrutiny. After the ballot is adjudicated, there is no further check.
These votes are sitting for up to a month in a system that failed an Australian Signals Directorate security test. Data integrity requires that a final audit be conducted immediately before declaration of the poll by pulling paper ballots out at random and comparing them back to the electronic record and vice versa. It’s one day’s work for all the counting staff as they finish their regular counting. It will not delay the result. It will guarantee that the system has not been compromised accidentally or by a malicious party.
My second question was on the accuracy of the voter rolls. The Australian Electoral Commission used to check the accuracy of their rolls by conducting residency checks.
Before this system was discontinued in 1995, those checks revealed a significant number of false registrations: people who had left the country, people who had died and people who had moved. Most of the incidences of multiple voting stem from voting in their old location and their new location: double voting. This legislation does not address that problem. How can anyone say that the voter roll is accurate if they never check it?
My third question is on the software algorithm at the Senate scanning centre that allocates preferences. The Australian Electoral Commission publishes what is basically a data dump of the raw vote count. Leading cryptographers, led by Dr Vanessa Teague, from the Australian National University, have written a check routine to test the preference flow against the published result. Their finding was that the Senate preference flow was correct, so we know this this aspect of the Australian Electoral Commission software works. Why it is up to the university academics to write complicated software at their own expense and on their own time to audit our elections? Since when did the government decide to crowdsource its job? So, what next? A GoFundMe page to pay for it?
This is why next week I will introduce into the Senate the Commonwealth electoral amendment (integrity of elections) bill 2021. This bill requires a preaudit of the Australian Electoral Commission systems prior to each election to ensure the systems are fit for purpose. It requires an audit after the election, as New South Wales and Western Australia require and as the ACT proposes. We propose an audit of the electoral roll and voter ID: voter identification. In short, this bill will audit the elections and the voter. Then we will all have confidence in the next election result.
After decades of this Lib-Lab parliament, people are starting to see how parliament is failing our country. The Lib-Lab duopoly, though, is desperate to continue its hold on a parliament that has a record of decades of not serving the people of Australia. We, though, are keen to restore parliamentary democracy. We have one flag, we are one community, we are one nation.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/0.jpg?fit=480%2C360&ssl=1360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-08-26 17:32:512021-08-27 11:58:57Election Integrity – What has the government got to hide?
Our country has been ruined by governments trying to pick and choose winners instead of letting people be free to invent new and innovative solutions. We used to lead the world, inventing the refrigerator, electric drill, tanks, pacemakers, ultrasounds and wifi. Not anymore.
The right to raise ourselves up through hard work and enterprise is a freedom that must not be compromised. It must be protected.
Transcript
Later this year we will pass an amazing milestone when an Australian designed and made satellite will be launched into space using an Australian designed and made rocket and launch facility. We now have a domestic end-to-end space capability, creating jobs and injecting new wealth into our economy. Government has not achieved this, private enterprise has, proving once again that governments do not create wealth; free personal enterprise creates wealth. For many years, we led the world in innovation, inventing the refrigerator in 1856, electric drill in 1889, military tanks in 1912, pacemakers in 1928, ultrasounds in 1961 and wifi in 1992. But that’s where the list ends, 30 years ago.
Australia once led the world in patents; now China registers four times the patents per capita that Australia does. This is partly the fault of the big banks, whose tight hold on the capital sector funding for business development is throttling investment, suffocating beneath our banks greedy obsession with real estate. The government, through its future growth fund, has taken upon itself the role of picking winners and losers amongst start-ups, making private sector growth beholden to government bureaucrats. Lockdowns have decimated small business and forced medium and large businesses to shelve research and development plans.
Australia is going backwards and is losing the ability for citizens to support themselves through their own hard work and enterprise. Reliance on government handouts appears to be a design feature of Prime Minister Morrison’s socialist version of Australia. Instead, One Nation will shrink the government to fit the Constitution, we will get government out of the way of free enterprise, we will let the Australian spirit out of [inaudible] to then invent and create to carry this nation forward, even to space. We have one flag, we have one community, we are one nation. The right to raise ourselves up through hard work and enterprise is a freedom that must not be compromised. It must remain.
“Since the start of the pandemic, countries have heavily invested in the development of control strategies that aim to contain the spread of COVID-19. Australian citizens have sporadically faced lockdowns. Senator Malcolm Roberts from the One Nation Party talks to us about the approach towards the COVID-19 situation taken by governments. Watch this video for exclusive insights.”
Well, hello and welcome to another edition of Executive Corner Expert Talks, I’m James Preston. And Australia has reached a boiling point with citizens of Greater Sydney having now been locked down for over two months. More protests likely on the way and hollow promises constantly being made by not only the New South Wales state government, but that of Prime Minister, Scott Morrison. It’s fair to say that the people have had enough. The gap between the everyday Australian and the likes of Gladys Berejiklian, or Dan Andrews in Victoria continues to grow each and every day. But one politician who has been particularly outspoken about the approach towards the lockdowns, and of course the COVID situation in a larger aspect by our various governments is Senator Malcolm Roberts from the One Nation Party. And he now joins me live on Kalkine TV. Malcolm, a very good afternoon to you.
Malcolm Roberts:
Thank you, James, for the welcome, it’s a pleasure to be here with you.
James Preston:
Malcolm, great to have you on. Let’s start with the obvious one here. Now, we’ve been witnessing a lot of tampering with freedoms. There’s been lockdowns for a long period of time. Now, 18 months, we’ve been dealing with ons and offs in this regard. What’s your approach to the entire thing?
Malcolm Roberts:
My approach is really simple. First of all, well, I mentioned this back, in the first single day session of parliament dealing with this coronavirus back on Monday, March 23rd. I said to the government, we will wave everything through because we’re looking at tens of thousands of deaths overseas. We realised it’s probably serious, so we don’t know much about it. Let’s get on with it, but we want you to get the data. We want you to build a comprehensive plan for managing this and we will hold you accountable. And what I’ve been driven by is, you said it a moment ago, hollow statements from members of parliament and premiers and the Prime Minister, hollow statements. People have had a gut full of this, James. This has been mismanaged, COVID exposed the mismanagement of our country. We started COVID with no masks, with no capacity to really manufacture solid material.
Malcolm Roberts:
We’ve still got that, but we also now have 18 months confirmed mismanagement of this. So my approach is very simple. I’ve confirmed it with Senate Estimates, with the Chief Medical Officer and the Department of Health Secretary. And they both confirmed my list of seven strategies for managing this virus. I asked them specifically, have I missed anything? No. Is there anything in my list of seven that shouldn’t be there? No. So the first one is lockdowns, but even that should be used only initially and then put aside. I’m happy to expand on that in a minute. The second one is testing, tracing and quarantining like Taiwan, highly successful, but we are failing at it.
Malcolm Roberts:
Third one, some basic restrictions like social distancing, maybe masks, but from what I understand masks, we can discuss that more, masks are not the go. Vaccines, if they’re tested, if they’re properly proved and if they’re thoroughly tested, and these vaccines are not. Fifth one, Ivermectin or any other approved antiviral. Now the Chief Medical Officer and the Secretary of the Health Department, both confirm that that’s a valid strategy. We’re not using that. We could end this nonsense immediately. Sixth is personal hygiene, personal behaviours. And the seventh is health and fitness. That’s a comprehensive approach. And we’re seeing the federal and state governments do only one each and they’re making a mess of it.
James Preston:
Now look, it’s a pretty comprehensive list. Let’s just touch on the first point there, in terms of lockdowns being, I suppose, a final measure to approach with. When Scott Morrison, of course, our Prime Minister, he released a series of different phases. And part of that was supposed to be lockdowns as of course, a final decision here. It was supposed to be the stop gap solution if all else failed. But what we’ve seen in the last two months or so is that, that seems to be pretty much the first approach. So how we ended up in a position where that’s now the desire, I suppose, from our politicians, even though it was about a month before that, that we had this new line of messaging.
Malcolm Roberts:
Well, we haven’t got the data from the government and I don’t believe the government is following the data. None of the states, not the federal government, their plans are shooting each other, blaming each other, avoiding, dodging, ducking, weaving. They’re not being accountable and they are not presented the data. I asked the Chief Medical Officer for the data. He gave it to me. This virus is highly transmissible, but it has low severity to moderate severity. We also know within that group of people, that within the population, there are distinct segments, the old, for example, and those with comorbidities needs special precautions. So what we need to have is a comprehensive plan, a detailed plan. Now the World Health Organisation itself has said, and it’s a corrupt, dishonest, incompetent body. Nonetheless, even it has said openly, that lockdowns are for use initially and not thereafter.
Malcolm Roberts:
Lockdowns are used to get control of the virus. The very fact that the Prime Minister is bankrolling the states on one policy, and that is lockdowns, shows that we have not got control of the virus. We are not managing the virus, James. The virus is managing the states. The federal government is pouring money in the largest transfer of wealth from taxpayers to multinational companies that we have ever seen. It’s bankrolling the vaccine manufacturers, and they’re now having plummeting efficacy. So we are on a mess. This will continue and continue and continue until we wake up to ourselves.
James Preston:
Well, Malcolm, as part of the lockdowns, one thing that we’ve all been enduring, I suppose, is Gladys Berejiklian and Brad Hazzard addressing New South Wales each day with quite repetitive reports really. Now, I personally have quite a huge issue with how they are run. There never seems to be a message of hope. And for me, the language that’s used is just as important as the overall message. Why do you think the information is being conveyed in the way that it is, where we’re focusing on case numbers or positive results, as opposed to, for example, doing 115,000 tests. And then only 150 come back as positive, surely that should equate to some sort of goodwill for the community.
Malcolm Roberts:
Well, I don’t think they know what they’re doing. And quite clearly they don’t. Governor DeSantis in Florida enacted one lockdown upfront in Florida last year. He then subsequently very quickly apologised to the people of Florida. Now remember, Florida has a very high proportion of elderly people. Governor DeSantis promised his people that he would never do another lockdown because it failed. In the United States, we have 50 states and you can compare their performance. Those on lockdowns are doing not as well as those without lockdowns. California is a basket case and has been on virtually continual lockdown for months. It’s a mess. States that are freeing things up are far better performed when it comes to health.
Malcolm Roberts:
There are three aspects to this virus. The first is health, that’s got to be the first priority. The second one is freedom, basic freedom. Now freedom is essential for getting people’s minds and hearts into gear to solve the problems with regard to our health. The third one is governance and accountability. We are seeing an absolutely failed system at work here with the state and federal governments. We do need hope, the data gives us hope. This vaccine can be managed quite effectively as some countries overseas are showing, as states without lockdowns in America are showing, and without a vaccine. We have some countries, some states overseas that are highly effective in managing this virus by using Ivermectin, which the government has turned away from in this country without the due proper analysis.
James Preston:
Well, Malcolm, we’ll get to vaccines itself in a moment because obviously that is tied in with Ivermectin. And also we obviously have to tread quite carefully there because we know what has been happening previously with YouTube, for example, if we try and discuss such a topic. But I want to ask you this question, it might be a bit of a loaded one given your role as a Senator, but is there any merit in trying to, I suppose, tie politician salaries to lockdowns. If we, for example, go into a lockdown or stay in a lockdown for a prolonged period, would parliamentarians such as Berejiklian, Dan Andrews or Annastacia Palaszczuk, those who are in charge of making the decision, should they have their pay slashed to that of the disaster payment that they’re offering people who have had their livelihoods destroyed? Do you think that would create some sort of a different outcome?
Malcolm Roberts:
Yes, it would. But, and I agree with that sentiment and that idea. I don’t know the practicalities and the legalities of doing that. However, it would put responsibility back, but there’s an even better way. And that’s to vote some of these people out, that would really cut their pay. We need scrutiny. This lockdown nonsense will continue in our country until the people wake up and hold the governments accountable. That’s what’s happened in this country. We’ve had 80 years of atrocious governments that has let the people down. We’ve destroyed our manufacturing capability, our productive capacity. We have become dependent on overseas countries. We have the world’s best people. We have abundant resources, energy resources, metals resources, minerals resources. We have a fabulous agricultural sector. We have water that needs to just be moved around properly and efficiently. We are in shortage of many of the things that we should be abundant.
Malcolm Roberts:
We’re exporting our coal, our iron ore to other countries to turn into steel. And then we import the steel back. This is crazy. The people in this country have to wake up and have to make sure that they understand it’s not just a Morrison liberal national government. It’s not just a potential Albanese government. My goodness, I don’t know which would be worse. But the problem is parliamentary system in this country has stopped holding governments accountable. And that’s the key thing. And the way to hold parliaments accountable and to change the focus and drive of their parliament is to change the parliament. I’m not talking about changing the constitution. I’m talking about the changing the composition through the ballot box. That’s the way a democracy works. We’ve had 80 years of failed governance, and now we need to change that and start voting for a different parliament, an independent parliament to make sure that we hold governments accountable.
James Preston:
Malcolm, take your point there, but let’s now move on to vaccines. You’ve been a rather outspoken critic about the approach that both federal and state governments across Australia have been taking to date. For example, we’re seeing in your home of Queensland, the concept now of no jab no entry being proposed. Now that is of course, despite the fact that people who’ve been vaccinated can still contract it. They can get breakthrough infections and then obviously transmit them onto other people. So what’s your position on the concept of mandatory vaccinations?
Malcolm Roberts:
Totally opposed to it. I want to make it very clear, James. I wholeheartedly support medicines that have been tested thoroughly and proven to be safe, effective, and preferably affordable. I’m opposed completely to using untested medicines, untested drugs, and completely opposed and strongly opposed to forcing those drugs, untested drugs on people at the threat of losing their livelihood, which is what’s happening. Now, we have a range of people with a different views on vaccine. Some are vaccine compliant. Some are vaccine reluctant, some are vaccine hesitant, some are vaccine resistant and some are vaccine opponents. Generally speaking, I’m hesitant. Give me the data and then I’ll make my mind. It must be an informed choice from everyone, an informed choice. So I have a right as a Senator to listen to my constituents, to share the data I have. And I know that YouTube and Facebook are banning people for saying certain things.
Malcolm Roberts:
So, but that shows that we haven’t got a democracy anymore. What we need to do is to recognise that there’s this whole, there’s a broad spectrum of views towards vaccines. When people start calling people vaccine deniers, or anti-vaxxers, that’s a way of suppressing debate. That’s all it is. It’s a smear. There’s no data that goes with it. Anyone is allowed to have their own view about vaccines. That’s a free country. Everyone should have the free right to have an informed consent before they give their consent. To have an informed choice. It’s my body, my choice. It’s your body, your choice. And if you’re different from me, so be it. I don’t care. Now, vaccines, I’ve asked the Chief Medical Officer, the Head of the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the Secretary of the Department of Health in federal parliament, federal Senate Estimates about vaccines.
Malcolm Roberts:
I asked them, are they 100% safe? No, they’re not. What is the dosage required? We don’t know. How often will we have to get vaccine injections? We don’t know. Will there be booster shots? We don’t know. Will we be able to remove masks and restrictions and lockdowns? We don’t know. We all do know a few things, James, and that is these vaccines, as Pfizer has admitted, its own vaccine, the efficacy has plummeted very shortly after the vaccines have been administered. Israel is now finding an 11 fold increase in COVID cases in Israel. We know that they’re very concerned about the plummeting of vaccine efficacy. We know that Pfizer has admitted that they have made an application to the federal, the Food and Drug Administration in the United States to administer a third booster shot.
Malcolm Roberts:
How many booster shots do we need? How many booster shots will there be? And what we do know is that there have been massive adverse effects in America. There’ve been over 10,000 deaths recorded. There’ve been a thousand miscarriages. There’ve been people with heart problems, lung problems, other diseases. That we know also that Pfizer’s vaccine causes, the European Health Organisation has recognised that Pfizer’s vaccine can cause myocarditis of the heart and yet Pfizer now makes a drug to treat myocarditis. Pfizer made $18.9 billion in revenue in the last three months, the last quarter. It made a profit around $4 billion. And yet it is making people sick and getting money for that, and then selling more drugs to cure them from the disease that it’s caused and making more money from that. So what we’ve got here is a really tight circle where we do know the facts show that these vaccines haven’t got the efficacy they expected and even their own drug manufacturers are admitting that
James Preston:
Well, Malcolm, I think two points I’ll jump on from there is obviously, it’s quite important here to point out as well, just for our due diligence that no vaccine is 100% safe. We know that for a fact, there can always be adverse reactions. But certainly take your point that we don’t have long-term data for these either. We know that these are being pushed out. In general, the large percentage of people who are taking them aren’t having adverse reactions, but they do still exist. And that is something that does need to be discussed moving forward. I think that’s a very important issue.
James Preston:
One thing I want to ask as well is just for yourself, are you, I mean, you mentioned that you’re vaccine hesitant. Do you believe you will get the vaccine at some point? Or are you completely steering away from it until more data arrives?
Malcolm Roberts:
No, I won’t be getting the vaccine.
James Preston:
Okay. All right, well, let’s move on now to the concept of vaccine passports. [crosstalk 00:16:20].
Malcolm Roberts:
There are just too many risks there. [crosstalk 00:16:20]
James Preston:
Now we’ve seen some huge protests in France where they’ve obviously implemented that policy. It’s obviously a very loaded issue. What is your take with vaccine passport? I’d imagine it’s quite similar to the concept towards mandatory vaccinations.
Malcolm Roberts:
Correct. Mandatory vaccinations are murky for a start, because there is some people who say that they’re possible through employers. But I’d urge employees to put the question back on the employer and to indemnify the employee against death or against any serious injuries or illnesses. Now, vaccine passport, mandating vaccines may or may not be legal. That’s very vague and very fuzzy right now. Regardless, it’s unethical. So even if it is legal and the federal government cannot make it legal, it’s in the constitution that prevents that. The state government can in certain states and state governments have, others could change the law to make it legal. But in this case, James, what we’ve already seen is the federal government going through the state governments. So it’s really a federal initiative, which means it’s illegal. But it’s certainly unethical to force anyone and certainly unethical to force someone at the threat of losing their livelihood.
Malcolm Roberts:
That means a person has a choice between eating or not getting the vaccine. That’s it. If you want to eat, then you’ve got to get the vaccine. That’s totally wrong. And so vaccine prisons, I call them, not vaccine passport, it’s a vaccine prison because they’re designed to exclude people who are not vaccinated, who choose to not be vaccinated. That means we’re denying people their basic rights, their basic rights to move around, Facebook and YouTube even denying their basic rights to freedom of speech. Denying people livelihoods, denying people travel, denying people to exchange, denying people social activities, denying people to mix with their families.
Malcolm Roberts:
We have seen the real issue in this vaccine. And, sorry, in this virus, is not just health, it’s freedom and it’s government accountability. Governments have quickly moved into control and always throughout human history, we have control versus freedom. And at the moment, freedom is losing out. These vaccine prisons as I call them, they’re not vaccine passports, they’re vaccine prisons to restrict people, to force them to be vaccinated. That is immoral, unethical and totally wrong. Leave it up to each person to choose, but above all, give them the information so that they can make an informed choice.
James Preston:
Well, Malcolm, I think that’s a pretty good note to finish on the entire concept behind what you’re talking about here is basically freedom. Freedom of movement, freedom of choice, freedom of decision-making. So I want to just thank you so much for your time and getting across your insights today.
Malcolm Roberts:
You’re welcome, James. Health, freedom and government accountability. And your pleasure to be on the interview with you.
James Preston:
Brilliant, thank you very much, Malcolm. That is One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts. And for all of our sake, hopefully we can find a way out of this mess very soon. And of course, manage to keep as many of our freedoms as Malcolm has been alluding to intact as possible. Well, that’s all for this edition of Expert Talks. If you missed any part of this conversation or you’d like to browse our complete catalogue of expert talks, simply head across to the website, kalkinemedia.com. And also our YouTube channel, Kalkine Media. I’m James Preston, signing off for now.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/fK57rGSIiNE/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-08-24 12:01:072021-08-24 12:01:14Vaccinations should not be mandatory and lockdowns a last resort – Kalkine TV with James Preston
