Paedophile Suppression Orders

Paedophilia is among the worst possible offences someone could commit. My office has been told about a supposed suppression order on a document listing 28 high profile people accused of the offence.

Unfortunately, my investigations were not able to find any evidence supporting these accusations, with the document being merely an unauthored list of names and there is no suppression order.

Despite this, all allegations should always be thoroughly investigated and we need a Commonwealth Integrity Commission that is able to tackle corruption, criminality and misconduct anywhere in politics and the judiciary.

The list is unauthored and completely inadmissible as evidence in any kind of court. We cannot even contact the author to verify the allegations because we don’t know who they are.

There is no difference in evidentiary terms between the list and a napkin that I write your name on. There is no suppression order.

It is up to former Senator Heffernan to explain why he didn’t explain these facts when he raised it. We have done everything we can to pursue this issue but if a list is unauthored with no supporting evidence there is very little we can do.

After exhausting inquiries, this separate investigation and research was brought to our attention which provides insightful additional detail:

Transcript (click to read)

Speaker 1:

Well, did you know that there is a secret paedophile protection racket right here in Australia, implicating some of our most powerful figures in government, all the way up to the High Court of Australia? Well, that’s how the story goes anyway. And it’s not just a few people here and there, it’s everybody. Everybody in government is in on this conspiracy, everybody in our judicial system is in on this conspiracy. A lot of these allegations and these claims seem to stem back to one man’s speech in parliament, and that is a speech by Senator Bill Heffernan.

Speaker 1:

Now, if you haven’t seen this speech, it basically all boils down to one particular moment, when Bill Heffernan publicly discloses a secret list containing the names of 28 high profile figures in government, including a former PM, as well as a number of high profile figures within our judicial system. Now, the story goes that John Howard placed a 90-year suppression order on this secret list.

Speaker 1:

Now, to understand all this and put all the pieces together, you really have to understand the timeline of events that led up to Bill Heffernan’s speech. Obviously, during 2015, during Bill Heffernan’s speech, John Howard wasn’t the prime minister then, Malcolm Turnbull was, I believe, at the time. So we have to go back in time to when these allegations were first made, and that was way back in 1994, 1995, during the Wood Royal Commission into police corruption in New South Wales.

Speaker 1:

Now, if you’re not familiar with the Wood Royal Commission, it was established after a number of concerns were raised about possible corruption within the New South Wales police service. By 1995, the commission had uncovered hundreds of instances of bribery, money laundering, drug trafficking, fabrication of evidence, destruction of evidence, fraud, and serious assaults in the criminal investigation branch at King’s Cross Police Station.

Speaker 1:

Now, when were these allegations of paedophilia first made? The allegation of the existence of this conspiracy was first made by Colin Fisk, a convicted sex offender and member of such a network. The background to this allegation was his arrest, along with detective Larry Churchill, for child pornography and drug offences.

Speaker 1:

Now, who’s Larry Churchill? Well, he was the deputy detective sergeant to the then, at the time, Graham Chook Fowler, the detective senior sergeant of the King’s Cross Police Station. He’s basically the centrepiece of this Royal Commission, and he was also made famous on the Underbelly TV series. But it wasn’t until 1994 that Colin Fisk begun to make a number of allegations about exposing respected businessmen, a former media personality, and top legal identities, as well as an ex-politician, in this secret paedophile network.

Speaker 1:

This is where it starts to get a little bit odd, because shortly after Mr. Fisk was interviewed for the first time by the Royal Commission, information was leaked to a journalist who wrote an article in Woman’s Day in which he claimed that, “Mr. Fisk was about to give evidence before the Royal Commission. He would expose respected businessmen, a former media personality, top legal identities, and an ex-politician. And he was at risk of being murdered by a ring of millionaire child molesters and corrupt police officers who protected them.”

Speaker 1:

Now, it was obviously because of this Woman’s Day article that caught the attention of a Labour Senator, Deirdre Grusovin, who invited Mr. Fisk to her electoral office, where he made a further statutory declaration in which he claimed that all these allegations against these prominent high-profile people, known to be paedophiles, were first made way back in 1989 when he was arrested with Larry Churchill.

Speaker 1:

Now, he claims to have made all these allegations back in ’89, except all the copies of the records of interview to prove that he did make these allegations in ’89 have either been destroyed or they’re missing. There’s no evidence of it whatsoever. And he said when he went to the Royal Commission to give evidence about it, it was all missing and nobody could find it anywhere. He also made the claim that Mr. Marsden, John Marsden, who was a lawyer, was also involved in this paedophile network.

Speaker 1:

Now, this was introduced to parliament by Mrs. Grusovin. Mrs. Grusovin read this out under parliamentary privilege. That ultimately led, and this is important, that led to the New South Wales ICAC, the Independent Commission Against Corruption, who were already investigating possible links with New South Wales police and this paedophile network. They were already investigating. But because of this, because this statutory declaration was introduced, that then led to the powers of the ICAC being transferred over to the Royal Commission.

Speaker 1:

And now, this is really important. Not more than two months after that statutory declaration by Mr. Fisk, he then made a further statutory declaration on the 27th of January 1995, in which he basically retracts all the allegations that were made in Senator Grusovin’s office just two months prior, in which he says that in his confused state of mind at the time of making his statutory declaration, he could not differentiate between fact and fiction. He even retracted the allegation against Mr. John Marsden, the lawyer, for accusing him of being a part of this paedophile network. In which, John Marsden then sued Channel 7 for defamation for half a million dollars.

Speaker 1:

And also, on the records of interview way back in ’89, where he first made these allegations about these prominent paederasts, he said they did not exist in the first place. So the question we have to ask ourselves is, because this is where all these allegations first originated, we have to ask ourselves, why did Mr. Fisk push so rigorously to try and have the powers switch from the ICAC to the Royal Commission, so the Royal Commission would not only have to investigate the allegations of corruption within the New South Wales Police Force, but also this whole paedophilia area as well? That is a question we need to ask.

Speaker 1:

Why was he pushing so hard for that? Why did he make a statutory declaration, which ultimately led to that happening, to the powers being transferred to the Royal Commission, only then to retract those allegations not more than two months later, after the Royal Commission had to take on those duties away from the ICAC? The ICAC were going to investigate it anyway, but now it was transferred over to the Royal Commission.

Speaker 1:

I think this is an important point that not a lot of people are talking about in relation to this secret list that Bill Heffernan speaks about in parliament. Because let’s just play a clip from Bill Heffernan, where he talks about this being brought up during the Wood Royal Commission way back in ’94.

Bill Heffernan:

And the Royal Commission, the Wood Royal Commission, as you know, Mr. Attorney, was about to explore. And it’s in the Hansard, so it’s no great secret who the legal fraternity people were, that used to attend Castello’s, the boy brothel club, in Kellett Street, Kings Cross. And I’ve actually got the list here.

Speaker 1:

So Bill mentions he has the list of the legal fraternity, allegedly, who used to attend the Castello’s boy brothel in Kings Cross. Now, I think, if this list even exists in the first place, I think these allegations were first made by Colin Fisk to the Royal Commission. Because Colin Fisk actually did make a number of allegations that were investigated by the Royal Commission, and that brought people to justice. And it involved this Castello’s boy brothel. It was the Mayor of Wollongong, I believe, at the time, I can’t remember his name, who was directly involved in this paedophile network. And Castello’s was mentioned a number of times in the Royal Commission.

Speaker 1:

So, it was investigated, but this was made by Colin Fisk. So this leads me to believe if this list really is real, if there is an actual document containing the names of 28 high profile figures, that I think these allegations are made by Colin Fisk.

Speaker 1:

So, again, the question we have to ask ourselves is, why did Colin Fisk push so hard for this to happen? I think it was done, and if it wasn’t coordinated, it was definitely influenced by the corrupt New South Wales Police Force who were directly linked to Colin Fisk. Now, you might think that’s going over the top and all the rest. We’re talking about the highest positions within the New South Wales Police Force, the most powerful positions. They were doing everything they could to try and stop this Royal Commission from happening. Take a look at what they did just two weeks following the establishment of the Royal Commission.

Speaker 3:

Within weeks, the New South Wales Police Force showed they wouldn’t accept this Royal Commission without a fight.

Speaker 4:

The police service has tried to prevent individual police officers approaching the Royal Commission directly. It says that the sole point of reference between the police service and Royal Commission personnel will be the police department’s own rather menacingly entitled Royal Commission Response Units. It goes on to say that on no account is information to be supplied direct to Royal Commission personnel.

Speaker 5:

That’s one of the predictable responses that raises alarm bells, because it calls in question the degree of true cooperation there is from those who are raising this flag. It’s a diversionary tactic, and it’s often the product of a strategy from people who have most to fear from a thorough investigation.

Speaker 1:

A diversionary tactic. The New South Wales Police Force were playing these games not more than two weeks after the establishment of the Royal Commission. Is it too much to suggest that Colin Fisk a paedophile, a convicted criminal who was directly connected to the criminal underworld in Kings Cross, who was arrested with the deputy of the then senior detective sergeant, Graham Fowler, who was at the centrepiece of this Royal Commission into police corruption, is it too much to suggest that he possibly could’ve been used in order to create another diversionary tactic, in order to steer the Royal Commission into a different direction in their investigation, to implicate other people other than themselves?

Speaker 1:

Because remember, at this time, the New South Wales Police Force had no idea, all the corrupt people within the New South Wales Police Force had no idea that the Royal Commission at that time had an undercover informant who was basically dishing out evidence on a daily basis, video recordings, and also audio recordings of all the corruption that was going on at that time.

Speaker 3:

Evidence of corruption led out of the cross to police commands covering the state, then crossed the border and pointed straight at the Australian Federal Police.

Speaker 5:

That was a deep shock for me as it was a deep shock to a number of people who’d known these officers. And it was an extremely sad day, not just for the New South Wales police, but obviously for the federal police.

Speaker 3:

The evidence broadcast to the world included detectives selling heroin out of the back of police stations, cops running prostitution rings, and senior detectives trading in child pornography.

Speaker 6:

Now listen [inaudible 00:12:32] as far as these kids porno movies go, all right, $150 [inaudible 00:12:38] I can’t do any deals for that.

Speaker 3:

Further evidence of entrenched corruption led all the way to the top.

Speaker 7:

Well, yesterday, it was an assistant commissioner. Today, it was a chief superintendent. The New South Wales police inquiry continues to move into the very top echelons of the force.

Speaker 1:

Don’t you think that’s more of a plausible scenario than just everybody’s in on it, everybody’s in on the conspiracy, everyone’s a paedophile protector? We’re talking about a corrupt New South Wales Police Force who were trying every trick in the book, all these different games to try and stop the Royal Commission from happening, to steer it in different directions, to cause these diversionary tactics. I think that’s more of a plausible scenario than the entire system is in on the conspiracy.

Speaker 1:

Now, all of this, all of these theories that even I’m suggesting here, they all rely on the basis that Bill Heffernan is telling the truth. That this list is actually a real piece of evidence, and we have to rely on the fact that Bill Heffernan is a credible source. Well, who is Bill and what’s his history in parliament? Well, in 2007, Bill Heffernan once posed as an ASIO agent in order to contact the general manager of a irrigation farm in Australia, in order to extract information out of him. The general manager says, “I know Bill’s voice now, so it wasn’t long before I realised who it was. It’s the sort of thing that would go on in kindergarten.”

Speaker 1:

Barnaby Joyce, the now leader of the National Party, he even once said of Bill Heffernan, that his antics still surprise him. And he says, “The other day he rang one of his constituents, Laurie Nola, and for the first 20 minutes of the conversation, he said he was me, Barnaby Joyce.” Joyce continues, “And he was full of questions about himself, as in, ‘What do you think of that Bill Heffernan?'” And he once prank called independent member of parliament, Rob Oakeshott. He introduced himself as the devil, except Rob didn’t answer. It was his wife who answered the call. He even later admitted to doing this. He once walked into the Senate, walked into Parliament House with a fake pipe bomb in order to test the security system out.

Speaker 1:

So, this is the real Bill Heffernan. This is who he really is. And if you still think fabricating evidence in order to make allegations against people in our judicial system, like judges, things like that, that’s going a bit far. As if something like that could happen in Australia. Well, actually, that did happen not more than five years after the Wood Royal Commission. And it was a senator who used parliamentary privilege in order to make allegations against one of our most respected judges, Justice Kirby. He made the claim that Justice Kirby was using government cars in order to partake in illegal activities, by having sex with underage boys. And the evidence that this senator claimed to have had was the logs of the actual Commonwealth car, so the logbook, proving that these allegations are true.

Speaker 1:

Now, guess what senator made these allegations under parliamentary privilege? That’s right, it was Bill Heffernan. And after a police investigation, the allegations made by Bill were not only found to be false, but the evidence he used was found to be completely fabricated. So, this is the real Bill Heffernan. We have to take this man’s word for it, that the document that he held in his hand during that day in 2015 was, in fact, a real police document. It wasn’t fabricated evidence by the New South Wales Police Force, of which the Wood Royal Commission uncovered many instances of when those sort of illegal activities occurred, or that it wasn’t more false allegations from a known liar, criminal and paedophile, Colin Fisk, who was directly linked to some of the main players within the corrupt New South Wales Police Force at the centre of this Wood Royal Commission. All these other allegations he made about Justice Wood and others, we have to take his word for it, that it was all correct. It was all legitimate.

Speaker 1:

So, this is who they’re using. This is their credible source. And I’m not just talking about people within, the cue community and the conspiracy community. I’m talking about politicians, I’m talking about independence and people within political parties are using Bill Heffernan as this credible source in order to undermine the government in certain areas just for political gain for themselves. But they’re using this guy, Bill Heffernan, as their credible source. This is their man, this is their knight in shining armour, a bloody jester in a two-piece suit. And that is being generous as well.

Speaker 1:

So, look, maybe I’m missing something. If you have any other information, if you have more information on especially the suppression order that allegedly is being applied by John Howard, what has it been applied to? Is it this secret list? Is it just simply documents of police investigation that was mentioned by Bill in his speech? There’s so many questions that need to be answered here. And I just don’t see any of these claims holding much weight at all, when you are digging into it. Let us know in the comments what you think. If you have more information, let me know. I’m open-minded. If you want to send me something, I’ll look into it further because I’m actually generally interested in this, in finding more information out.

Speaker 1:

But, look, you want someone to blame? Blame Bill. Where the hell’s Bill on all this? He’s supposed to be this guy who wants to bring down this alleged paedophile network. Yet, what has he done? What has he done after he left parliament? He’s just gone into hiding. He’s the only one who had this list in the first place. Who really does know whether it’s real or not, and the claims made by him are true or false? So, where is Bill? That’s what I want to know.

Transcript (click to read)

Speaker 1:

Well, this is a quick follow up to my latest video on Bill Hefferman and the secret paedophile list. If you haven’t seen that, I’ll leave a link above, go and check it out. Watch the whole video, especially if you’ve heard about Bill before in the past, because I go into tracking down the origins of these allegations, not when Bill first made them in 2015, but going way back to 1994, ’95, when they were first made.

Speaker 1:

Now, I have to say, since I published that video I have received a lot of negative feedback from a lot of people who are pretty disgruntled on the treatment of Bill Hefferman, the claims that I made against Bill. And look, that’s completely understandable. I get it. I’m not trying to do this to undermine your movement or to discredit you guys or anything like that. It’s actually the opposite, and I’ll talk more about that in just a moment.

Speaker 1:

But among all the negative, I noticed a massive positive, and that is not only how passionate you guys are, motivated, but also how determined you are to really not just get at the truth, but determined to really fix a lot of these issues, a lot of these problems, especially to do with child abuse. So, that’s a massive positive that I pulled out of it.

Speaker 1:

Now, one of the negatives, among many, is how much you’re distracted by misinformation. Now, I’ve received so many private messages from people sending me different pieces of evidence, different allegations and things like that, and I said I was going to follow a lot of it up, which I have. Now, one of them, which I received a number of times, was this claim that even our own prime minister is a convicted paedophile, and he’s got a very shady past.

Speaker 1:

Now I’m just going to read one message here from lady that commented on this post. She said, “I suggest that you go look up our Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s deep, dark paedophile past. It’s not pretty, but he served time on home detention. Go look it up.” Now, the evidence that a lot of these people used, and sent me, was a court transcript that confirms this.

Speaker 1:

Now I’ll just read here. “On August 2nd, 1991, Scott Morrison was convicted of one count of third degree child molestation.” And it continues to go on that he only ended up serving 30 days partial confinement on work release and 24 months of sexual deviancy treatment. And that’s what a lot of people were saying. They’re like, “He committed child molestation in the past. He didn’t even go to jail for it. The whole system’s crock.” So I thought, “Okay, I said I was going to look into it, I said I was going to be open-minded, so I’m going to check it out.”

Speaker 1:

So first thing I did was just to verify if the URL was legitimate. And sure enough, it’s a legitimate URL, and this court document is also legitimate and it’s linked to it. Now, the second thing I thought, “Okay, well, I’ll start at the top and I’ll work my way down.” So I started the header. Well, I only had to get to the fifth line, “The state of Washington.” And I thought, “I don’t know about you guys, but I’m pretty sure we don’t have a state in Australia called Washington.” So I thought, “Okay, well maybe it’s a typo. I’ll continue on.”

Speaker 1:

And sure enough, just a couple of words later, “Respondent v. Scott H. Morrison.” I thought, “Okay, I’ll check his middle name, just to confirm that it actually does start with H.” Sure enough, “Scott John Morrison.” So it’s a not a H. It’s a John. I thought, “Oh my God.” So it’s riddled with confirmation that it’s not actually from Scott Morrison, our Prime Minister, it’s not even from someone here in Australia, it’s from a Scott Morrison in the USA.

Speaker 1:

Now look, this… I don’t blame you guys. I don’t blame the people who get caught up in this, because here’s the thing. They take stuff like this, they repurpose it and they turn it into memes. This is like a meme that another person sent me, PMed me. It’s got the court document in the background with a photo of Scott Morrison as a young guy. It says, “ScoMo? Yes, our prime minister, and we allow this criminal to run our country. Get rid of him, people.”

Speaker 1:

So, I don’t blame you guys. I blame the influencers. I blame all these other groups, these conspiracy groups, who grab this information, they repurpose it and they send it out to you guys. And you have been following these groups, so you just assume that they’re a credible source, that they wouldn’t try to deceive you. And look, here’s the thing. I’m not suggesting that the influencer that you may have got it from is trying to deceive you or lying or anything. They may have got it from somebody else, and then that’s when it just goes on and on and on.

Speaker 1:

They probably got it from somebody else, from somebody else, and it could originate from some idiot at home just trying to play tricks on people. But the end of the day, you trust that source. So, it’s more confirmation in your mind. You don’t have to go through and do what I did. You don’t have to go through and check the URL, check to see whether Scott Morrison’s middle name starts with H, things like that. You just expect it to be real. You expect it to be truth.

Speaker 1:

Like I said earlier, I’m not trying to undermine your movement. I’m not trying to discredit you guys. I’m trying to help you focus on the real issues, help you focus on the truth, and not get distracted by fake news, which is what this is. This is misinformation and fake news. And all that does, it just takes up your time and energy focusing on the wrong things. And especially, it’s not going to get you all the public support that you want on the real issues, like child abuse in families and all the rest of it, because a lot of the public, they can see through this.

Speaker 1:

They can see this for what it is, that it’s just more misinformation, and then they can turn you into these conspiracy theory nuts. So all I’m suggesting is, focus on the real issues, don’t get distracted by this. And look, this isn’t just… Here’s the thing, conspiracy theories, right? There’s a number of main reasons why people or groups use conspiracy theories. There’s a couple of main ones, the main one being that it causes people to take action on social and political issues. It really can cause people to take action on things.

Speaker 1:

And the second thing is, a lot of people in groups use conspiracy theories, like I just said, to distract people, to cause division within society, within groups. And I’m not just talking about people in Australia. I’m talking about bad actors overseas in other countries. It’s a well-known fact now that countries like Russia and others, they use conspiracy theories in order to cause division in other countries, in societies and among groups and things like that.

Speaker 1:

It’s well-known now that that’s the game they play, essentially. Think about this. Do you really think Putin gives a shit about getting to the bottom of finding out who Ashli Babbitt’s murderer was? Do you think he really cares? Or do you think he simply came out with that statement at a time when there was so much division happening in relation to that in order just to cause more division in the US? A lot of people are looking at Putin as if he really gives a shit about us over here in the West. He doesn’t care. He doesn’t care about Ashli Babbitt.

Speaker 1:

That’s the game they play. They want division in other countries. And you just never know. You never know where a lot of this information is coming from, a lot of these memes are coming from. So, that’s all I’m suggesting. Are there paedophiles in government? Absolutely. There’s paedophiles in government. I’m not denying that fact. You only have to go back as far as this year. Was it south Australia? Nat Cook, MP in the Labour Party, one of her staffers was convicted of child molestation. He was convicted.

Speaker 1:

Does that mean that Nat Cook was in on it and everybody in the Labour Party was in on it? Absolutely not. I mean, you have a look at the interview. I remember watching the interview of Nat. I’m assuming she was a mother. She was absolutely beside herself, absolutely distraught. And you can go back again another year to the Greens Party. A member in the Greens Party was arrested for child pornography, sending tens of thousand dollars [inaudible 00:08:39]. Does that mean Bandt and the Greens are in on it? As much as I dislike Bandt and the Greens, obviously not.

Speaker 1:

So all I’m saying is, yes, they exist, but losing all your focus and putting all your energy onto these conspiracy theories, it’s wasted energy, is all I’m saying. So I’m not saying that I’m right all the time, or anything like that. I’m just saying double check everything and just expect, just assume that everything is a lie until you actually confirm it yourself.

Transcript

G’day, I’m Senator Malcolm Roberts. I want to talk now about a very serious issue that concerns all of us in our community. This issue offends every normal thinking person and it disgusts us all. I am talking about paedophilia, the sexual abuse of children by deviant adults for their own sexual gratification. There are a lot of stories circulating about this issue and I want to set the record straight. One such story relates to a document purportedly naming 28 alleged people under investigation for pedophilia-related activities. It was most famously discussed in a Senate Estimates hearing.

After extensive research by my office, we found that the Wood Royal Commission was provided a document that the Commissioner determined contained information outside the terms of reference of the Commission. It was returned to the provider. That’s it. The document is not in the public domain and is not held by the government. My inquiries revealed that it contained unsupported allegations against 28 people from an unidentified author.

Without an author, it’s wholly unverifiable and unusable in court. Publication of the contents may well constitute defamation in some circumstances. When starting this investigation, I had hoped to unearth evidence which if brought to light would prove and put away perpetrators of disgusting acts. Despite my best efforts, that is not what I found. There are plenty of urban myths about all of this. One of these is that the document is subject to some sort of suppression order, preventing its release. My inquiries revealed there is no suppression order on this document. There never was a suppression order.

The document simply isn’t credible enough without an author for anyone to publish outside of parliamentary privilege. My view, and that of One Nation, is that paedophilia is a blot on our society and that everything should be done to stamp it out. Offenders should receive the severest penalties when convicted as a deterrent to others and to keep our children safe. Those who would knowingly protect these offenders must also be identified and stopped, no matter what their roles in our society may be.

No one should be immune because of their status. Sexual misbehaviour in the legal profession has been highlighted in the media lately. Allegations have even been made towards the behaviour of judges, magistrates and senior lawyers. What is missing is a Federal Integrity Commission with power to review the behaviour of the politicians and the judiciary. An integrity commission with teeth would mean that any allegation of corruption, criminality or misconduct could be thoroughly and independently investigated. There’s no doubt there are still people in power that get up to no good; we need a commission that can properly investigate them and bring them to justice.

/by

Interrogating ASIC about Sterling First

Sterling First victims have been kicked out of their house and some are still under threat of eviction. ASIC received complaints about Sterling as far as back as 2015 but didn’t start investigating until 2018, when millions of dollars of retiree’s and other investor’s money was at risk.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Mr Longo and your colleagues from ASIC. Mr Longo, would you agree that, for ‘buyer beware’ to work, buyers need to have access to all available information?

Mr Longo : The general principle of ‘buyer beware’ is as to availability and also asking. Clearly, as your question proposes, information needs to be made available, but the classic application of the buyer beware principle is: the buyer also has to ask questions and take an active interest in ensuring they’re properly informed before doing things.

Senator ROBERTS: Before getting to my core questions, I need to reference information contained in the redacted internal ASIC chronologies that were provided to the Senate. I know some of the details have been laboured over, yet I need to reiterate them for the purpose of these questions. I’ll make four points. In May 2015, ASIC concluded internally that, firstly, Sterling had likely provided financial services while unlicensed; secondly, Sterling had likely not provided adequate documentation to retail investors; thirdly, Sterling had likely engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct; and, fourthly, Sterling may have breached the requirement to not engage in conduct liable to mislead the public. Are these details correct, or substantially correct?

Dr Bollen : Mr Longo, do you want me to take that?

Mr Longo : I was just talking to my general counsel. Go for it, Rhys.

Dr Bollen : Yes, that’s a reference to an early complaint we received—the first one we received—which was from FOS. At that time it appeared to be one breach without any prior or later concerns. It was about a three-year-old breach already at the time. In the circumstances, with the myriad of other complaints and referrals we had, we formed the view that no further action was needed at that time.

Senator ROBERTS: So they’re correct. Despite these conclusions, ASIC elected to not pursue an investigation at that time due to the age of the conduct and the other workloads et cetera. I will continue to check my understanding. In June 2015, an ASIC staff member raised fresh concerns about Sterling providing unlicensed financial advice or that it may be engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. Secondly, and this is the last fact I want to check, in September 2016, ASIC received a complaint that a Sterling victim had concerns about misleading and deceptive conduct and was unable to get information about what had happened to their investment and could not withdraw their investment as they had been led to understand they could. Are those two points correct?

Dr Bollen : That is a slight simplification, but, yes, basically, they are the second and third complaints that we received. They’re referred to in our submission as well.

Mr Longo : Can I ask about the line of questioning? These points have been dealt with comprehensively in our written material and I would respectfully ask, in regard to the rather simplistic approach that I’m hearing this afternoon, the committee to expect a supplementary written submission to comprehensively deal with the inferences it appears you wish to draw. But these matters have all been dealt with comprehensively in our written submissions and questions on notice and do not change my earlier evidence that I believe ASIC behaved reasonably at all material times. I do respect the line of questioning, but I would ask the committee to expect a supplementary submission to confirm the position we’ve taken on these earlier reports that I believe were properly handled at the time.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for repeating that conclusion of yours. In January 2017, ASIC assumed that Sterling’s conduct fell within the small-scale offer exception for professional investors, despite a track record of complaints relating to retail investors. ASIC suspected that a new and ongoing managed investment scheme was in operation—a managed investment scheme was in operation. Despite all of this, ASIC recommended that no further action be taken in relation to Sterling. Did ASIC commence any type of investigation before concluding no further action was required and, if so, specifically what were the investigation steps?

Mr Longo : Through the chair, could I ask Senator Roberts to ask a question, please?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I just did. Did ASIC commence any type of investigation—

Mr Longo : With all due respect there was quite a narrative that preceded your question, which makes it very hard to answer the question fairly, given the premises upon which it was based, which are very hard to follow. So can I ask senators to—

Senator ROBERTS: Certainly, Mr Longo. I’d be happy to do that. This is what I asked—

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, to make it as easy as possible for us all to follow, can you just go through one by one the introductory points that set up your question so that we understand the preamble that gives the context to our witnesses from ASIC?

Senator ROBERTS: What I’ll do, Chair, is address Mr Longo’s request and ask the question, and then I’ll go through the introductory comments. The question is: did ASIC commence any type of investigation before concluding that no further action was required, and, if so, specifically what were the investigation steps? Some of the earlier comments were—

Mr Longo : What point in time are we talking about?

ACTING CHAIR: Mr Longo, I think Senator Robert is now going to go through the preamble and give you that context so you can answer the question. In particular, Senator Roberts, we’re talking about the timing.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for understanding, Chair. In January 2017, ASIC assumed that Sterling’s conduct fell within the small-scale offer exception for professional investors, despite a track record of complaints relating to retail investors.

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I will just hold you there. There’s a point you’ve made there, and it’s based on certain premises, so perhaps we can ask ASIC to respond to that point first.

Mr Longo : Thanks, Senator. The idea is that there’s an assumption that we apparently made in January 2017. Rhys, can you comment on the assumption? Can you follow what’s going on here?

Dr Bollen : The senator is referring to the first three complaints and the redacted chronology that was tabled by Senator Hume earlier. Those three early complaints—the one from the Financial Ombudsman Scheme, the second from an internal staff member and the third in late 2016 or early 2017—were all assessed by our intake team, who receive all reports of misconduct, breach reports and so on. We have a large number each year—10,000 or so reports of misconduct and 4,000 or so breach reports. They were all assessed. I wouldn’t describe that as an investigation; it is an assessment. There are policies and procedures that the assessment team follow. They look at the evidence, the number of people who appear to be affected, the amount of money that appears to be involved, the age of the conduct and the likelihood of whether it’s systemic or not. They have to make a judgement, based on the information that we’ve been given by the complainant or in the report, about whether further action should be taken. They necessarily have to be quick judgements to get through that kind of volume. You’re referring to the views that that assessment team formed at the time as to whether it was likely to fit into the small scale exemption and so on. Yes, those assessments were made at the time based on the information in those three early complaints.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What we’re looking at here is trying to get an understanding. I work for and serve the people of this country. They pay my salary, they elected me and I have to serve them. I think that’s what all members of the Public Service have to do as well, including members of ASIC. So what we need to understand is: what does ASIC see as the breaches? Were there breaches of law? Were there breaches of good faith? What’s the core issue? Is it the capacity of ASIC? Is it the capability of ASIC? Is it structural? Is it a legislative or parliamentary fix? What’s the intent going on here? That, overall, is where I’m heading. I can either help you or undermine you.

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, there’s a lot there.

Senator ROBERTS: No, I’m just explaining. Let me continue.

Ms Armour : Senator, just to go back to your questions about the report of misconduct that came in in 2016 or 2017, I just think it’s important to note—we put this in an answer to a question on notice—that that report of misconduct was from an investor who appeared to have purchased shares in a company called Sterling Residential Syndicate Australia Pty Ltd, so it related to a different type of investment. I thought it would be helpful for you to be aware of that, because it’s a different type of investment from the Sterling Income Trust, which we’re talking about. It’s the same broad group, but that was the context of that one.

ACTING CHAIR: With your indulgence, Senator Roberts, I will ask Commissioner Armour about this: that complaint which was made did not have an attached or stapled residential tenancy—is that correct?

Ms Armour : I’m taking my answer from our answer to the question on notice, which was back in 2019-20. We’re happy to take on notice whether there was anything stapled to that.

ACTING CHAIR: I’m reading this. I have a few with me too. I would be interested to know in relation to it. As you know, in that question on notice which was provided, there were three prior issues which were raised. I think it would be helpful if ASIC could provide as much additional information with respect to those three issues as possible. I would certainly be interested to know whether or not any of them have the hallmarks of the attached residential tenancy as well as the purchase of shares.

Mr Longo : I can give you that assurance now. Those three matters are outside what this inquiry is looking at. I’ve said repeatedly—and I’ve tried to act in good faith with this inquiry—that the meeting with consumer affairs in March 2017 was a significant meeting. Without wishing to oversimplify, that’s when some of the dots started getting joined up and that’s when, as I think the evidence to the inquiry has shown, ASIC’s interest in this matter really started. There’s been a lot of evidence and back and forth about whether we should have done things more quickly or whatever, but, the way I’m looking at it—I wasn’t around at the time; I’m trying to be objective and trying to be professional with the inquiry—to my mind, around March 2017 is a realistic moment to say: ‘Well, there was that meeting with consumer affairs. We started talking with consumer affairs in a way that started looking at the issues that are the subject of this inquiry, and the rest is history.’ Pre March 2017—

ACTING CHAIR: You’ve been very consistent in your testimony about the three prior complaints that were the subject of the answer to the question on notice that Commissioner Armour refers to. From your perspective, you’re quite adamant and quite clear that these matters were totally disconnected from the matters which are the subject of this inquiry. Is that correct?

Mr Longo : That’s correct. But, with respect, I do appreciate that people are wanting to understand: ‘Why not? There were these three wrongs. Surely that must have got you thinking.’ I respect that curiosity, if I can put it that way.

Senator ROBERTS: Concern.

Mr Longo : Concern, absolutely. I was concerned. When all of this came to light, Senator Roberts, with the help of my team I put a lot of time into really trying to understand what happened, and this is my view. It’s my duty to give you my view. I think, from March 2017, as I’ve said to the team, to my mind, that’s when the dots started getting joined. I’m absolutely happy to come back to the committee. There have been a few QON submissions dealing with this point. It might be helpful to the committee to put it all in one place. Hopefully that will clear the air on it. As I’ve said from the beginning, we’ll do that as quickly as we can, and if there are additional questions from the inquiry, saying, ‘We still have some queries,’ we’ll deal with those, too, as best we can.

ACTING CHAIR: Excellent; thank you. Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Can ASIC explain to this committee how it interprets the phrase ‘reason to suspect’, as detailed in section 13 of the ASIC Act?

ACTING CHAIR: I’m looking forward to this answer, Chair Longo!

Mr Longo : Well, there’s a lot of jurisprudence on that question! We interpret that phrase in a conservative manner. If there are facts or circumstances that we think could point to a contravention then we may, but are not required to, commence an investigation. I think the practical answer to your question, just reflecting on it, is that it’s a pretty low bar. I don’t think anyone is going to tell you that a reason to suspect is a very high bar. It’s a very low bar, and so it should be. You want agencies like ASIC being able to investigate things without having to jump over a high bar, because that wouldn’t be in the public interest.

The critical question, Senator Roberts—and I hope you’ll forgive me for saying this, because I’ve been saying it repeatedly through most of my professional life—is that we can’t investigate everything. What tends to happen is that a lot of judgement, assessment and analysis goes into all the matters that come to our attention. The really hard part of our job, on the enforcement side, is choosing which ones to investigate, resource, have section 19 examinations for and issue document notices for and which ones not to. I know in this inquiry there have been a lot of questions about: ‘What’s going on here? Your investigation didn’t start until May 2018. Why didn’t it start sooner?’ I’m not here to tell you that there was a big legal impediment. The situation unfolded. We made judgements based on what we knew at the time. We commenced an investigation when we did and we took the steps we took. But it is a low bar. The short answer to your question is: it’s a low bar, and we have to make decisions about which things to investigate and which things not to.

Senator ROBERTS: Are there any internal criteria or operational procedures or guidance as to how section 13 powers are to be exercised by ASIC and when?

Mr Longo : Yes, there are.

Senator ROBERTS: Could we get them as a question on notice, please?

Mr Longo : This question has come up before. I’m looking at my general counsel.

Senator PRATT: That was me. I did ask that question before, and I think we were going to get that provided to us.

Mr Longo : It’s not an uncommon question. We’ll certainly share with the committee what we can. When I say ‘what we can’, there may be some material we would happily share with the committee on an in-confidence basis, because you will appreciate that, as to some of that internal material, it would not be in the public interest for the whole community to know about it! But we’ll certainly provide you with what we can, and, where we think there’s a sensitivity, we will ask the committee to accept that material in confidence.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Longo. Who, at what level of seniority within ASIC, is able to make a determination on whether ASIC can trigger section 13 powers?

Mr Longo : I was about to say ‘relatively junior’, but there’s a system of delegation of powers that we use so that the commission itself isn’t involved in every decision to commence an investigation. Because of the range of matters that come to our attention, we have a process and a system for figuring out which ones to investigate. There’s a governance structure, a committee structure, within ASIC that makes those decisions. I suppose we could include a description of that in the—

Senator ROBERTS: You’re reading my mind now! Thank you very much—that’s exactly where I was going.

Mr Longo : I have to tell you, Senator Roberts, it’s a very risky business thinking I can read someone’s mind!

Senator ROBERTS: I thought you were referring to my mind!

Mr Longo : Can I just generalise, then: I can’t read anyone’s mind.

Senator ROBERTS: I have difficulty, too, reading minds. That’s why I ask short questions, generally. Is there a threshold of evidence that a complaint to ASIC must meet before section 13 powers can be exercised? I think that’s really part of the earlier question, and I think you undertook to give us that.

Mr Longo : There’s been a lot of confusion about this over the years. Just stepping back: ASIC gets matters, issues and concerns brought to its attention by a whole range of sources, as you can imagine. We might learn about something by reading about it in a newspaper and say: ‘Whoa! We need to get on that.’ What you are focusing on—which is really sort of the big part of resources—are those thousands of complaints that Rhys referred to earlier. We have a very systematic—I would like to say, sophisticated—approach to figuring out what to do with each one of those matters, and we have internal benchmarks to make sure they get prompt attention. A lot of them are actually resolved by getting other agencies involved. Sometimes we’re just helping people with a query that we can’t take any further. So, long story short: an assessment is made. Now, some of those matters will become investigations, but that depends on a whole range of circumstances, and I think Rhys touched on quite a few of them. The general principle is: it’s not every matter that could lead to an actionable contravention that we would investigate.

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we’re running about 30 minutes over time, so do you have many more questions?

Senator ROBERTS: I think they’re all fairly short, Chair.

ACTING CHAIR: Okay.

Senator PRATT: I have a couple more, too, Chair. My apologies.

Senator ROBERTS: Given the track record of complaints, as to Sterling, how was this threshold not specifically met?

Mr Longo : I’m not sure—I think we really are at cross purposes now. As to the first three, I just don’t think they led us anywhere close to what the inquiry is looking at now. From March 2017, as I said earlier, we had the interaction with consumer affairs, and that triggered what we did and didn’t do. Clearly, we’ve had several days of hearings now and we’re trying to work through what we did do, what we didn’t do and why. So I’m not sure I can really add much more to that story—

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you—

Mr Longo : The formal investigation started early in 2018.

Senator ROBERTS: In the context of Sterling First, it took ASIC one year and two months, from March 2017 to May 2018, to exercise its section 13 powers and commence a formal investigation—only after receiving a complaint from a Western Australian government department, as I understand it. Wouldn’t a reasonable person expect that ASIC would have reason to suspect after receiving a complaint crammed with concerns from a state government department in much less than a year?

Mr Longo : I don’t accept the premise of, or the way you’ve put, those questions. As we’ve gone through in written submissions and evidence, we responded to the material. After all, consumer affairs were aware of this matter for several years. They were aware of the issues with the tenants. They then made the connection and came and spoke to us. We started looking at it, and we’ve taken the steps we’ve taken.

I’m not trying to make excuses. I’m just trying to work through what we did and didn’t do based on what we knew at the time. I respect the fact that some people might say, ‘Well, you should have started your investigation the moment you left the meeting with consumer affairs in March 2017.’ With all due respect, I think that’s entirely unrealistic. That was never going to happen. We’ve tried to work through why that’s the case. But I think the commencement of an investigation in early 2018, in the particular circumstances of this matter, is a reasonable time line.

Remember: we don’t have any visibility into these investments. We’re not there when the investors sign the leases and put their money into managed investment schemes. We’re not there when the product disclosure statements are given to these investors. Indeed, right up until the time we commenced the investigation, the investors weren’t even complaining to us. Then, by the middle of 2018, a lot of investors still seemed relatively happy with what they were getting. These situations, as I’ve tried to explain in earlier evidence, really require a lot of judgement as to when to intervene and how much you need to have before you intervene. It’s not uncommon for investors in managed investment schemes to say: ‘Why did you intervene so quickly? That was all going really well. It’s your fault, ASIC, that this scheme’s collapsed.’ Alternatively: ‘It’s your fault, ASIC, that you didn’t come in here sooner and stop this scheme.’

I’ve really given this a lot of thought, Senator Roberts, and I really think this inquiry is an opportunity to revisit. I’m not here to make excuses; I really want to reassure the committee about that. We have a number of management scheme matters that we’re working on right now that could lead to court action, and there are others that already have. The Sterling situation is tragic, but it is part of a much bigger picture. With all due respect, these are big issues. We’ll do whatever we can to be helpful, but, as far as this particular matter is concerned, I think ASIC acted reasonably. We did, I think, act reasonably quickly with what we had. Could we have moved more quickly? Probably. Should we have issued a media release more energetically? Probably. But with the time the investigation took and the issues we’ve had to deal with, I think we’ve handled that reasonably.

I do respect other views of frustration about this. We’ll do whatever we can to provide additional information to the inquiry to better understand the issues, but, as I’ve said in earlier evidence, this is going to happen again and again and again.

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that this is a complex situation. There are many levels at which it needs to be investigated, and I think that’s happening. Victims, as I understand it, thought they were paying rent in advance—some of the victims. Victims did not make a decision to invest in a managed investment scheme. I think that’s clear as well. Some of the victims did not make a decision to invest in a managed—

Mr Longo : I’m not sure that’s right. With due respect, I’ve got to disagree with you about that. I don’t know what the investors were thinking at the time. What happened here—and I’ve looked at the documents personally—is that they signed a residential tenancy document, and they also signed documents to invest in an income flow that would pay for the rent. They signed documents signing over the income from that managed investment—it went into a bank account—to pay for the rent. I do acknowledge that, many investors, if not all of them, didn’t fully appreciate what they were doing or the risks. But there’s no doubt they signed documents, because, otherwise, this couldn’t have gone ahead.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m done arguing that. Does ASIC not see that some of the victims did not know that it was a managed investment scheme?

Mr Longo : I can’t speak for their state of knowledge.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that a possibility? I don’t expect you to read minds. But where is the deficiency in Sterling? Is it in ASIC’s exercising of powers, ASIC’s analysis, ASIC’s capability? Is it the law? Is it the intent of the people who were putting out this scheme?

Mr Longo : Where I’ve taken your question, Senator, is it’s a bit like talking about crypto or why people buy stock exchange shares or why they put money into superannuation. I don’t know. When someone puts their money into a managed investment scheme or buys shares on the Australian Stock Exchange they are motivated by whatever is going on. I can’t tell you what they were thinking at the time. At the time they had the benefit of marketing material saying that there was an innovative product, that this would enable them to have a higher standard of living, that they could sell their home and put the proceeds into an investment, into something that would generate income to pay for rent. I know there’s sort of a feeling of ‘they’re not investors’ but where did the money come from to pay for the rent? It wasn’t coming from their bank account. It was coming from this other place where they put their money—I’ll call it an investment—and that income went into paying the rent at the so-called ‘stapling’. I’m the first to concede this is a complicated arrangement and it’s risky. With all due respect to the investors, I can’t speak on their behalf as to what they were thinking at the time.

Ms Armour : The responsibility for the success or otherwise of the scheme rests with the people who promote and develop the scheme. That is the model that we’re operating in, where degree of latitude is provided to firms and individuals to develop schemes and to attempt to attract investors into those schemes. They own, if you like, the success or otherwise. There’s a framework they need to operate in but it is really the responsibility of the promoters of the scheme.

Senator ROBERTS: Then we have regulators to oversee the promoters’ intent.

Ms Armour : The regulators work in a framework. We oversee the promoters’ conduct. So, as we talked about previously, a lot of what we do ends up being retrospective because that’s how we’ve set the system up. When things go wrong we take action. But we don’t have the merit powers that would substitute, say, my judgement for an investor’s judgement at the start of the investment.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s get to my final question then with a statement first that this is a complex situation. Mr Longo has acknowledged that. I’m saying regulations are a double-edged sword, because dishonest people can quite often hide behind regulations, especially complex regulations. What is the core issue in your view, Mr Longo? Is it capacity of ASIC? Is it capability? Is it structural? Is it legislative? Is it the intent of the promoters of the investment scheme? What is the core issue here, or what are the core issues here, and what’s needed to prevent it happening again?

Mr Longo : That’s a really generous question.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it is.

Mr Longo : We live in a free country. We’re a democracy. We encourage people to make their own decisions about what they do with their lives, their money and everything. I think one of the really big issues for all of us here is that we know from our life experience that good people, very often highly educated people, do silly things with their money. They put their money into things they shouldn’t put their money into and there are lots of examples over the years. So one big policy question for us all is: should we have a law that makes it harder for people to put their money into investments that a group of people like us in an inquiry like this would say, ‘Gee, that’s a bad idea, that’s really risky and you really shouldn’t do that without getting advice or whatever the rules are’? I think that’s one big question for the inquiry, because this system, as I think Commissioner Armour was just reminding us, is pretty liberal. It basically says that, if you follow what I think you’d have to describe as fairly liberal managed investment scheme criteria and responsible entity criteria under the Corporations Act, then a whole range of ‘investment opportunities’ are opened up to ordinary people. To me, the heart of it is: do we want to change the law to say we’re going to make it much harder for certain people—we’ll call them vulnerable consumers or retail investors—to put their money into something like this without a proper rating or proper counselling or access to proper advice or whatever the safeguards are? So I think that’s a legitimate issue and a legitimate question.

Senator PRATT: I’ve got a follow-up question to this, Chair, when we’re able.

Mr Longo : Then there’s the role of the regulator, and there are big issues there too. We know regulation can be costly, it can be inefficient and it can give people a false sense of security. One of the issues here, I think, is that people say, ‘This managed investment scheme has been registered with ASIC, and the responsible entity has a licence.’ It has this veneer of an imprimatur, if you like, from the regulator. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Our role is essentially a licensing administrative role. There’s some substance underneath it—I’m not saying it’s totally administrative—but the policy objective is to encourage investment and to encourage risk-taking. As Commissioner Armour reminded us, what happens after that is retrospective. It’s reactive. We don’t spend a lot of time—or, in fact, any time—looking at whether the business models work or not or whether the PDSs are accurate or not. That’s another big question for the inquiry: do we want to change that? I could go on and on, but I thought I’d just pick a couple of those. I don’t know whether I’ve missed something fundamental. It’s obviously a very generous question from Senator Roberts. Cathie or Rhys, do you want to add to it?

Ms Armour : It’s a very fundamental question, isn’t it? It’s quite apparent from reading many of the submissions that there is a disconnect between, potentially, what investors anticipate, or some investors anticipate, and what the framework is. It’s a very fundamental question, I think.

Dr Bollen : The only thing I’d add is something we mentioned in our submission. There have been a number of inquiries over the years suggesting improvements to the managed investment scheme regime around how insolvent schemes and nonviable schemes are managed. Indeed, this committee has made recommendations in the past. I think there is fertile food for thought in that area.

Senator ROBERTS: I’d just like to add, Chair, that Mr Longo made the statement that we live in a free country. Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you, Mr Longo, and your colleagues at ASIC.

/by

Is Anthony Fauci a genocidal maniac?

,

The evidence of Anthony Fauci’s previous bungles is available for all to see. This and more on Marcus Paul in the Morning.

Transcript

[Marcus Paul]

You know I’ve enjoyed my sparring sessions with One Nation Senator, Malcolm Roberts, throughout 2021. So much so that I’m gonna do it for years to come. Malcolm And I sometimes don’t see eye to eye on certain issues, and that’s okay. One thing I do appreciate is him holding the federal government to account on a number of issues. And Malcolm has been very vocal on issues that he is passionate about. Look, I don’t know a politician that seemingly does as much research and collates as much empirical data as what he does. And for that, he should be commended. Malcolm Roberts, good morning.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Good morning, Marcus, and thank you for the introduction.

[Marcus Paul]

It’s all right, Mate.

[Malcolm Roberts]

By the way, I’ve got two things. First of all, you’d be very pleased to know that you’re converting me. I’m reading a book by a lefty.

[Marcus Paul]

Ah, stop it.

[Malcolm Roberts]

And it is stunning. And the lefty is Robert Kennedy, who is Robert Kennedy Jr., actually.

[Marcus Paul]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Robert Kennedy, the assassinated Robert Kennedy’s son.

[Marcus Paul]

Right.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Marcus, It is absolutely stunning.

[Marcus Paul]

What’s it about?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, it’s called, the title is called, “The Real Anthony Fauci”.

[Marcus Paul]

Right, okay.

[Malcolm Roberts]

You know who Fauci is, of course.

[Marcus Paul]

I do, yes.

[Malcolm Roberts]

He’s the man who started this exaggeration around the world. And that man, according to Robert Kennedy’s work, is an absolute criminal. He’s an inhumane, genocidal maniac. And he has deliberately suppressed, and dishonestly suppressed ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and many other standard treatments, combinations of treatments that doctors around the world have been using highly successfully for one reason, to get injections into people around the world. And Robert Kennedy has sat down and wrote this book over a number of months. He’s got something like 2000 references in it from scientific peer reviewed papers, right through to newspaper articles. And he documents about his criminal behaviour over decades. And it is absolutely stunning. And we have all been sold a pup. And Fauci has got blood on his hands to the tune of hundreds of thousands of fatalities, and thousands of, tens of thousands. That’s hundreds of thousands of fatalities that could have not occurred because we would have been using other treatments. And tens of thousands of people who have died due to adverse effects from these injections. It is absolutely disgraceful and we need to be holding people to account.

[Marcus Paul]

All right, what’s the name of the book again?

[Malcolm Roberts]

“The Real Anthony Fauci.” I ordered it a couple of months ago when I heard it was coming, for my son for a birthday present, but it hasn’t arrived yet because I think it’s selling so well in America that they can’t print them fast enough. You could get it in Britain for around about $2.99 for the, what is it, PDF version and the Kindle version. It is stunning.

[Marcus Paul]

All right. What I want you to do as well, considering you’re into books written by lefties, there is another book that I would like you to read. It’s written by a good friend of mine, Vanessa Badham. It’s called “Qanon and On.” All right, so that’s another. In fact, I might even get a copy of you signed by Van herself, sent to your office for Christmas, from me to you. How’s that?

[Malcolm Roberts]

That’ll go well, yeah.

[Marcus Paul]

There you go. All right, Mate. What else are we?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yeah, the other thing, the other thing I wanted to raise was I’m still waiting.

[Marcus Paul]

I know you’ll be waiting forever. Look, I got you, I got you a listener. I got you a listener to debate with this year. Wasn’t tearing him a new one enough or what?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, Mate, he showed that there is no science because he didn’t present any science, no empirical evidence proving cause and effect. And that’s the thing that I see everywhere. I’ve held politicians accountable, senior politicians, Penny Wong, Anthony Albanese, no one has got this stuff, Mate, no one.

[Marcus Paul]

You’ve taken on the Wongster. There’s no way.

[Malcolm Roberts]

I wrote a letter to her asking her for the evidence.

[Marcus Paul]

Yeah, but what about if you and, now that’s a debate I’d pay to see, you and Penny Wong having a discussion about climate change.

[Malcolm Roberts]

I’ll donate the proceeds to a charity that you care to name, Mate. You arrange it and I’ll be there.

[Marcus Paul]

Well, I can only ask. I can but ask. I mentioned this before. Nearly 40% of Australia’s coal fired generation capacity will shut down by 2030 under the greenhouse gas emission cuts promised by Labour and the federal government. Both have proposed a massive expansion of renewable energy to cut pollution from electricity generation, which accounts for around 30% of Australia’s emissions. Now I already called for the oxygen for Matt Canavan. Do I need to send oxygen your way as well?

[Malcolm Roberts]

No, because the facts will dismantle it. Unfortunately, a lot of people are going to hurt and we’re gonna lose a lot of industry. Labour is saying they want to stop coal. And yet they’re saying they won’t cost a single coal miner’s job. That is complete rubbish. It’s the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull Marcus. It is complete rubbish.

[Marcus Paul]

Hey Mate, just repeat that.

[Malcolm Roberts]

How can you shut down an industry, yet not cost a single job? The people in the Hunter, the people in Central Queensland will be devastated. But more significantly, when you shut down the cheapest form of power in this country, you will export more and more manufacturing jobs to China. We export our coal to China. They use our high quality, high energy, cheap, affordable coal. They generate coal [energy] at eight cents a kilowatt/hour. Because of our restrictions, we sell it at 25 cents a kilowatt/hour. We’ve gone from the cheapest coal and the cheapest power in the world to the most expensive. We have exported, not only our coal. We have exported our jobs, our manufacturing sector to China. And now we are dependent on the Chinese for much of our manufactured products. We can no longer sustain a defence force in this country because we don’t make our own bullets. We don’t make our own armaments. We don’t make our own machines. This is absolutely disgraceful. This is a highly important security issue, an economic issue, a social issue, a moral issue, and an integrity issue. And Labour is destroying, plans to destroy the country. If they get into power

[Marcus Paul]

Wow.

[Malcolm Roberts]

It’ll be the Greens, that run this joint.

[Marcus Paul]

Oh, rubbish.

[Malcolm Roberts]

It will be the Greens.

[Marcus Paul]

What a load of rot.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Look at the two coalitions. We’ve had the Liberal National Coalition since 2013. Prior to that, the last government was the Gillard Miln Labour Green Coalition.

[Marcus Paul]

That’s because it was a minority government. And obviously she was beholden to crossbenchers. And I don’t think that’ll happen under Albo, personally. I think they’re making it pretty, no, they’re making it pretty clear. I’ll speak to Richard Miles about it very soon. I’ll ask him like I’ve asked Anthony Albanese in the past. Will you be forming a coalition, for want of a better word, with the Greens? Their answer will be at an emphatic no, Malcolm.

[Malcolm Roberts]

That’s what they say. That’s not what they will do. They want power more than anything else. Even if they’re slaves to the Green. The Greens will say jump and Labour will say how high. That’s what’s gonna happen.

[Marcus Paul]

I love it, I love it. This is why I love having you on cause you and I can, we can spar and have a bit of fun. But as I say, I meant what I said at the beginning of the programme, of our chat. I do appreciate and do respect how hard you work. And, you fundamentally stand your ground on all of the issues that you feel so strongly for. And you have a strong supporter base as well. And look, I wouldn’t be surprised, given what’s been going on in this country in the last 12 to 18 months, that the One Nation vote doesn’t head north to a great extent when we hit the ballot box next May.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, I don’t make predictions about what people will do in elections. That’s up to the voters. But I do know that there is a huge groundswell around this country away from Liberal Nationals and away from Labour Greens. So I’ll leave it to the voters. But more significantly, what’s going on in Queensland, Marcus, is they’re starting to dismantle the narrative around COVID. There’s a huge groundswell. I’ve addressed crowds, hundreds, thousands of people, and Marcus, more telling than the numbers of people, are the energy in the people. They are angry, but then they are hopeful. They’re united. We have got local councils passing motions up and down our state and increasing in numbers, saying to the Palaszczuk Government, they will not be enforcing the injection mandate. The federal government knows, we’ve put them on notice. We will be continuing to oppose government legislation in the new year until we get our freedom back. We’ve got liberal senators now, two of them, Gerard Rennick and Alex Antic, standing up saying they will abstain from all government voting. The government is powerless, and we have to get our freedoms back, and the people are ready for that. They want their freedom back. Think again how I opened this session. Anthony Fauci is a genocidal maniac who has killed, no, he’s killed hundreds of thousands of people. He’s responsible for their deaths. And he’s also responsible for the prevention.

[Marcus Paul]

Don’t get me sued, Malcolm.

[Malcolm Roberts]

The data is there. I’ve read the data. I make comments only based on data.

[Marcus Paul]

All right, Mate. I’ve got to go. So just repeat that phrase. One of the best I’ve heard all year, what was it? Something out of the southern end of a bull. What?

[Malcolm Roberts]

It’s the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull, but more significantly, Merry Christmas to you, Marcus. I love being on with you, as you say. It’s good to have a respectful debate and Merry Christmas to all of your listeners and a happy new year to all. Let’s get this place back to normal.

[Marcus Paul]

You look after yourself. And to you and your family, take care. And I look forward to our further sparring matches next year in 2022. Thank you, Mate.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thanks, Marcus. One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts. I love that. Well, what I would say is, he’s proposing that there’d be a Labour Greens coalition. Well, that to me sounds like something that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull.

/6 Comments/by

Hold the line – Undivided Gold Coast Meeting

,

Every day more and more people are joining community rallies against the vaccine mandates that the government is steamrolling ahead with.

Thank you to Frankie Dog Turner Productions on The Grounded TV Network for additional footage of my speech.

Transcript

So we know we’re doing that for the people, you just confirmed that. But we had calls from Josh Frydenberg, the treasurer, saying, please pass my such and such bill.

Sorry mate, but this is really important to you guys too, it is, but there’s something more important than all of it. Freedom.

[crowd] Yes!

I want to compliment some liberal and national party senators Pauline and I will work with anyone, providing them, working in the national interest. Senator Gerard Rennick, Senator Alex Antic from South Australia, Senator Matt Canavan from Queensland. Senator Sam McMahon from Northern Territory, Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells from New South Wales, Craig Kelly from New South Wales, And George Christensen from Queensland.

So we have to be united and hold the line. We are here for freedom. Many people in this room have been coerced into the injection. We did not say anything about those people. They’ve been forced into it. Many are in the room, injected, double injected and not wanting it and regretting it, but that’s the way it’s been. That is despicable. We do not make any judgement that was your circumstances. If you chose it freely, that’s your choice. That’s what we want. Choice. Not coercion. I’m going to disappoint you now, because I’m going to tell the truth about something. You are expecting me possibly to come up with solutions. Don’t expect solutions from politicians. I’m serious! The people who caused this mess in this country are us, the voters. We keep voting for the same donkeys.

[crowd] Yeah!

And those donkeys are not working for us. They have got it so tightly stitched up that a federal senator, even Pauline cannot do much. What we’re doing is working in the political arena through our ban on the government bills, actually voting against it, I’ll get to your questions at the end, at the end of the evening, but we’re also working in the most important court of all, of the court of public opinion. That’s the only court that ultimately matters. I’ve got a barrister here of 40 years of experience. That is the only court that really matters. And we are all in that court. All of us are in that court. There’s no easy solution. The state Premiers have got things tied up with their emergency declarations, emergency directives.

I wrote a letter to that stage, to Palaszczuk and the Prime Minister back in the 19th of October of this year. 67 pages, six pages of letter, seven attachments with details, facts. I normally get staff to do something like that we’ve got some very good staff, but I wanted to make sure I understood it myself, So I did it every bit of it. Now what we’ve seen is that Annastacia Palasczuk state came back last Friday with two pages, not a single question answered. These guys are spreading the same stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull, that’s what they’re doing. Virus characteristics, I asked the chief medical officer for the virus characteristics. The transmission building is high, not as high as South two, but the severity is low to moderate, low to moderate, not severe. That severity is less than some past flu’s. That is a fact, the death data. There is no pandemic of deaths. And you might say, well that’s because there’s lockdowns. No! There is no pandemic of deaths anywhere in the world! Sweden had a sharp rise in deaths, but that was just pulling stuff forward then now reverting to the mean. That’s facts. There is a change in the deaths and that is the Australian data shows deaths go like this, seasonal basis. There’s an upper range and a lower range. Since the injections started, the actual deaths have gone above the upper range, since the injections started. And then the government pulled a little trick. It used to release the death data two weeks after the month closed. 15 weeks and counting. Think about that. I asked the head of a TGA, some basic questions. I said, why have there been 564 deaths from the vaccines? He exploded. He says there haven’t been, there’ve been nine. So I went back to, I went back to my website, back to the internet later that afternoon and came back in the Senate estimates and asked the chief acting head, acting secretary, deputy secretary of the health department that I said, the figures actually show on the TGA’s website, 564 deaths due- this is doctors reporting deaths due to vaccines.

Only the ones that are reported!

They have a process for winding it down to nine. So I said, tell me the process. I want to know if they’ve had autopsies, I want to know if they’ve had blood samples tissue, cultures, et cetera. I want to know how I make 550 odd down to nine. This is one figure we all need to remember. Pfizer this year is forecasting an income of $43.5 billion. And the TGA, when I started asking questions of the TGA and started spreading the news that ivermectin, you’ve heard of that word, haven’t you? I’ve taken it for seven years ago. I’m still here. It didn’t shrink me, something else shrank me. So the TGA wrote me a letter, two and a half, three and a half pages long and they said I must cease advertising ivermectin. They quoted bits out of one of the acts. So how do you handle a bully? Stand up to them. So what I did was I wrote back a very short letter with the help of a barrister that said, I am a duly elected Senator of this parliament. How dare interfere with my communication to and from the citizens of this country. And secondly, I said the government has blood on its hands for refuting ivermectin. And do you know the answer I got? Thank you for your letter. These people, control freaks, are scared of us. They’re trying to control us because they’re afraid. Always beneath control there is fear.

[Crowd] Fear.

When people try to control, think about this leaders get up front, they listen and then paint the vision. And then they draw people with them. You only follow because you want to follow. Following is a choice. Leadership gives people a choice. All the way through this we’ve had the Prime Minister and all the Premiers pushing, kicking from behind and controlling. They are not leaders. They’re frauds. The government is the problem. The government is the problem with this country. Parliaments now, state and federal, serve the parties and their donors. They do not serve the people. That is fundamental. They tried to knock Pauline out, tried to jail her, because she was saying exactly that 25 years ago. But it’s more than that. The media is the problem. Who decides whether or not they buy the media? We do. I’ve cancelled my subscription to sky. I don’t listen to 2GB. I don’t listen to just about anyone, but it goes beyond that. It’s a global assault. This is coordinated from well outside us. It’s not just Western, it’s a global thing. The government is killing this country, to comply with a global order. The core problem is the United Nations, the World Economic Forum, WWF, Greenpeace, the Greens and I mean the Greens. The Greens are really strongly in favour of controlling people. Everything they do has control and they’re doing it on behalf of the UN. They knock back Pauline’s bill again, they knock back Pauline’s bill twice. They knocked it back from even going to committee. So that’s the core problem. But you know, if someone is offering you something like the UN is offering the government control over the people. It’s really the people who make the choice to implement the greed of the UN policies that are at fault and that’s being a Liberal National’s coalition and the Labour Greens coalition. And if you don’t remember the Labour Greens coalition, that’s what Gillard was in with Millon. Labour and Greens are in coalition, and God help us if they get back into power because the Greens will tell Labour what they want them to do. I want to touch on something in the last minute. Who knows about the digital integrity bill? Have a look at our Facebook page, the digital integrity bill, I haven’t got time to go into it, the government will sell your data to a corporation, store it overseas, and then charge you for access to your medical data. There are so many things that is heading towards bringing in a social credit system.

[Woman In The Crowd] Like China!

Like China, exactly. I haven’t got time to go into the details. I just want to leave you with two things. The parliament is the problem. The parliament is not holding government accountable, Pauline and I are trying, a couple of liberal senators are trying, but the parliament is the problem. The second thing is that Pauline and I, we’ll be voting against every government bill until we get freedom back for the people. But then I ask you to do something as well. I ask you to hold the line.

[Crowd] Yes!

I ask you to hold the line and recognise when people cannot- don’t blame them, blame Annastacia Palaszczuk and Scott Morrison. Scott Morrison could end this overnight. So hold the line, be in strong support of other people holding the line and stay united. One united.

/1 Comment/by

Rebuttal to Queensland Premier – COVID evidence

,

This letter is a rebuttal to Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk’s reply to me in late November.

Previous letters in this series (click to read):

Full LetterDownload
/2 Comments/by

Senator Roberts at the Millions March Against Mandatory Vaccines Gold Coast

, ,

Thousands marched on Kurrawa Park Gold Coast to protest the coming vaccine mandates and to stand for freedom. This is my speech to that rally.

Transcript

[Crowd] Hello!

Look at this! It’s wonderful. Look at what we’re doing. Someone over here said, “This is not…” Where’s your poster? Oh, thank you! “This is not scientific, it’s sadistic.” “Hands off our kids!” Look at over here, “End medical apartheid now!” “Forced jabs are crimes against humanity.” “A pedo has more privacy than we do”! This is wrong!

But, my basic message is, the momentum is changing. The momentum is changing. Let me just give you a few examples. Last night, I was at Redlands. They’re expecting in three days notice, they expected to get a couple of hundred people. The hall was packed, standing room only, 500. And I had to yell into the microphone so people outside could hear. And they were there because they want freedom. Freedom.

It wasn’t about being injected or not injected. It was about freedom. Think about some of these things, Daniel Andrews invoked the lockdown in Victoria, when there were around 200 cases a day. When they were 2000 cases a day, he removed the lockdown. Now, here’s why he did it. The CFMEU, rank and file, marks on the union bosses and gave ’em hell because they didn’t stand up for workers. The CFMEU, rank and file, marched in the streets, along with teachers, nurses, doctors, policeman.

They marched in the streets. They were fired upon in our country. But, they kept marching and Andrews realised he was buggered. So, what did he do? Remove the lockdown down. Palaszczuk hasn’t lived that lesson yet.

[Man From Crowd] She will!

She will. She will. The next thing, Up at Livingston Shire Council, which is in Yeppoon. Senator Pauline Hanson, the hardest working, most competent Senator in Australia’s Federal Parliament. She addressed him last Monday, Monday week, she addressed a meeting of 400 people in small business and residents in Yeppoon. They talked to the council the next day and Livingston Shire Council had a unanimous motion that was passed unanimously to tell the government what they could do with their mandate.

They were gonna stand up for their small businesses in Yeppoon and Livingston. Now, that doesn’t mean they’ll get it. But, they have said if the state government intervenes and fires them, who cares? They don’t mind. Then we had Fraser Coast Shire Council. Then we had Banana. And now there’s a fourth one. And the meetings in Redlands. Meeting tomorrow in Beaudesert. There’s a ground swell coming from the people. The people!

Pauline and I have said that we will vote against the government on every bill they put forward until they change this nonsense. And yes, on Thursday, the treasurer, Josh Frydenberg called us and said, “Can you please pass our bill on?” I won’t go into the details. And we said, “No.” Because we’ve got the balance of power at certain times in the Federal Senate, and we are exercising that for the people. Why am I in Parliament? To listen to you and then to speak for you.

That’s my role. Every speech I start in the Senate, there’s more than a couple of minutes long, I start with the words, this been the very first speech and every speech since, “I am a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia.” And I’ll come back to this because when I uttered those words first, the people in the Labour Party laughed. The people on the Liberal Party laughed. Are they laughing now? You’ve got to make that take that grin off their face.

I want to acknowledge Liberal Senators, Gerard Rennick, and Alex Antic… Yes! Give them a hand! They’re abstaining from voting from their own governments bills until they stopped some of these practises. So, thank you, Gerard. Now, I also want to mention, I heard this morning that ATAGI, I can’t remember what they stand for, but they’re regulating a lot of the health practises and the injections. They have broadened the exemption categories for getting exemption from the injections, last night.

They did it quietly, very quietly. But, now if you’ve had… I haven’t got all the details. A colleague of mine in their party sent me the link, I’m gonna look at the link later. But, this is one of them. If you have had an adverse reaction from the first injection, that can be a grounds for exemption from the second one. So, why are they doing this? Why are they doing it? Because of you!

That’s why they’re doing it. Because we’ve got to keep this pressure up. But, that doesn’t mean you should go and have your first one and say you had exemptions. Don’t have any of them in my book. I’m not gonna be injected! Not injected! Now, I want to reach out to those, because we know that 40% of people who have been injected, did so under coercion. Coercion! That is brutal and wrong. And some of these people are worried about what will happen to them.

So, I’m gonna talk to every person who’s been injected. One dose, two dose. We’re with you. We understand that many of you don’t want to be injected and you’ve been forced to. We don’t feel any worse towards you, any better towards you. If an injected brother came up to me and an non injected, you’re the same. You are the same.

But, I have empathy. I have empathy for those who’ve been injected under coercion. Nurses every day make sure people are given informed consent. And then they’re under instructions to be jabbed, to be injected. That is completely wrong. Teachers too. Federal workers too. Just think about this, the basic message from my first opening is stand the line, hold the line, stand up. I will not be injected! Pauline will not be injected. We know some others. Think about what’s happening in this country. How do you lead? What you do when you lead, I’ve done it in business, is you get the data.

You listen to the people, whether it be customers or employees, then you paint a vision. That honest vision. Then you paint. Then you develop the plan and then you pull people towards you. If they want to go, you’re only a leader if you’ve got people who want to follow. Who want to follow. If you are pushing at the back, you are a bully, not a leader. That’s what we’ve got in this country. We don’t have leaders in the Premiers. We don’t have leaders in the Prime Minister. We have lawyers, thugs, intimidators and bullies. I’ll ask you all question. A simple question. Always, beneath control, there is… Fear!

They are terrified of us! That’s why they’re controlling us. And we swallowed some of it. When I was say, “We”, most of the people have swallowed it. But, look at this, you’re waking up. That’s beautiful. I want to talk briefly about the virus characteristics, because I won’t go into the details, but I dug this out of the government. The virus is classified as highly transmissible. It is just like the flu. It’s also classified in severity as being low to moderate. You heard me, low to moderate, not severe, not high severity.

Like many past flus, it is less significant in terms of severity than many past flus. Think about this, in the death data, there is no pandemic of deaths. None at all. There is no pandemic. With a pandemic, you have to have a pandemic of deaths. None. And some people might say, “That’s because lockdowns in Australia.” It’s because there’s no pandemic of deaths. Sweden had an increase in deaths. But, now they’re coming back to the mean.

All it did was pull a few deaths forward, but they’re coming back to the mean. Taiwan has done a spectacular job. If you look at the global figures, there is no pandemic of death. This has been concocted. Now, people do die from COVID. I’m not denying that, but that means they have to be treated with a proper plan. So, let’s consider some of those things. The second thing about death data, is that the deaths in Australia follow a cycle from season to season and they follow a band from season to season.

There is no pandemic of death. But, there is now, above the upper range of deaths, significantly, deaths that are coinciding with the start of injections. That is fact. The second thing about that death data, is the Federal Government used to release it two weeks after the month. We haven’t got it now since the 20th of June. So, what are they doing? Are they hiding the deaths due to injections?

We know they are. They made a couple of changes in their website as a result of my questions, but they’re still hiding the deaths since June. We know that in America they’ve had 16,000 deaths as of the end of July. Europe, 30,000. 46,000 deaths from injections. Now, the third figure on deaths is that the TGA, Therapeutic Goods Administration, has had reported to them… it’s on their website, 546 deaths due to injections, according to doctors.

And when I challenged them and the Senate estimates on that, I thought that the TGA head was gonna have a heart attack. He exploded. And he said, “No! It’s only nine.” Nine, really? How come? And I went back to their website and found it is 546 reported deaths. They have revised the figures down. So, I’ve asked the question, and I’m waiting for the answer. Show me the process by which you reclassify a doctor’s verdict, and you reclassify that as not due to injections.

Did they have blood samples? Did they have an autopsy? Did they have tissue cultures? We want to know. There’s a lot of things we’ve got to dig into because the TGA has not tested these injections in Australia. It has taken the word of the injection manufacturers. That’s not working for us. I also want to talk about Pfizer. There’s one figure you need to know about Pfizer. They’re own income figures project an income this year of $43.5 billion. This is all about money and nothing else.

This is the first time in our country’s history that a government has injected healthy people with something that can kill them and is killing them. It is the first time in our country’s history that a government has withheld proven, safe, affordable, accessible treatment from sick people and let them die. They have banned Ivermectin. I’ve taken it myself. It is one of the top 100 drugs of all time, according to the UN itself. And we’ve banned it in this country for treating COVID.

Doctors are being smashed, practises destroyed, invaded, privacy being smashed. Yeah, it’s murder, it’s genocide. Withholding that is genocide. But, let me tell you something. The TGA sent me a letter a few months ago saying you’ve been talking about Ivermectin in public. Surely not. And they accused me of advertising it. They accused a representative of the people, listening to the people and talking about it publicly. Three and a half page letter, of threats, implied threats.

So, I went back to them and said… they expected me to count down, just say, “Give up.” No. With bullies what do you do? You stand right up to their face. So, what I said back to them was, “How dare you interfere with the work of a representative of the people duly elected, and how dare you, how dare you because the government has blood on its hands.” You know what their answer was? “Thank you for your letter.” The problem here is government.

The second problem is media. I’ve had experiences with the media where they turn the truth into lies. They turn lies into the truth. I’ve cancelled my subscription to Sky News because it has become a propagandist. I no longer listen to 2GB, 4GB whatever it is, in Brisbane because they’ve become propagandists. They get enormous funds through advertising from the government. Same with The Weekend Australian. We don’t buy papers.

My wife buys The Weekend Australian to look for the magazine. That’s it. There’s nothing else of value in that paper. But, remember who decides what media they buy? You do! So, cancel your subscriptions to these globalist media. I also want to make another comment. It’s not just the media. It’s not just tax state and federal and territory governments. It’s a global apparatus underway. We know that. It’s not Western. It’s not white. It’s not European. It’s not to hurt any distinct race, religion, anything like that.

This is about hurting humanity, about controlling humanity. That’s what this is about. What they’re trying to do is separate, injected versus non-injected and then tell me that I’m hurting, I’m a threat to the injected. If your damn injections are so good, why am I a threat to you? Isn’t that the truth? Government is being used to control people. They won’t release to a peoples representative, anything about the contracts they’ve signed with Pfizer, AstraZeneca, because it’s commercial in confidence. I am authorising these expenditures when I stand in the Senate and vote for them.

But, I’m not doing it as my money, I’m doing it as our money, on our behalf. And that’s wrong. We need to know, you need to know. India. I just saw this morning, the Indian Prime Minister has stood up. We know they’re using Ivermectin, they’re using it successfully. They know that the Ivermectin is a prophylactic. It prevents access to the disease of the virus to your body. It also prevents it, it cures people very quickly. Safe for more than 40, 50, 60 years.

No serious adverse side effects, minor adverse effects on a few people. But, this will stop the vaccine…the virus in its tracks. I had a slip up there. It will also stop the vaccine in its tracks. And that’s why it’s banned. That’s why it’s banned, because our TGA is not protecting us. They’re savaging us and killing us because they’re not using Ivermectin in this country for COVID. And a doctor cannot be frank with his patient, because if he is, he or she… the doctor will lose their practise.

What’s happening in this country? In Germany, I met one of the ladies at the Redlands Bay last night, came up to me afterwards and said, she’s a German, of German descent. Her brother in Germany. Un-injected, is now facing a curfew. This virus only hits the un-injected apparently and only at night. Very clever virus.

Yesterday, I came down here and went further south to the border. According to the border residents, there’s a while I saw the , I touched the . I didn’t get infected, but there are 20,000 people, Queenslanders, who can drive home… And right now, if they were allowed to, they’re prevented from coming in by the Premier of this state. Boo. Now the Premier of this state has told them, first of all, there’s no virus at Northern New South Wales. There was a virus case in Tugun just a couple of weeks ago. There is virus in Sydney.

[Man In Crowd] Not now!

No, probably not now. So, what our Premier is telling them to do, she won’t let them drive, fill up their car in Tweed Heads with fuel and drive all the way to Bundaberg. She’s stopping them. She’s saying, “Drive to Sydney, fly to Brisbane, interact with other people on the plane, interact with other people on the ground, and then you can go home.”

So, I’ll tell you the core problem, then I’ll finish. The core problem is the United Nations, the United Nations World Health Organisation, the World Economic Forum, World WWF, Greenpeace. The greens because the greens are pushing injections, mandated injections they completely lost the plot. The Labour Party, The Liberal Party, and The National Party. If you think this is bad, have a look at the 700 page Digital Integrity Bill.

It’s coming, and it’s laying the groundwork for your data to be sold to overseas corporations. And then for you to have to pay, to access to your health data. Other things… I’m serious. It’ll set up a social credit system, which we don’t want. So, the core problem is Parliaments and lack of Parliamentary Accountability.

Why? I’ll tell you why? Because we as voters have just kept voting for the same old donkeys. It’s our fault, and we have the power to change that. If you want to stop this, and I know you do, change the Parliament.

Change the Parliament.

/7 Comments/by

Respect and Senator Thorpe

This week on Marcus Paul I talked about the revelations in Parliament this week and politicians failing to lead by example.

Transcript

Malcolm Roberts, good morning.

Good morning, Marcus. How are you?

Well, thank you, mate. Did you hear that?

I did. It’s disgusting, isn’t it? But you know what it shows, Marcus? It shows complete disrespect for the people of Australia. The people in that parliament house are supposed to be representing the people of Australia and they’re supposed to listen to the people and then serve the people. And what we have is a complete disregard for the people and the people’s assembly house. And what it shows is that voters have lost control of this country. This is supposed to be a democracy in which the citizens are served by the parliament and by the parliamentarians. We now have voters in this country, citizens in this country working for the parliament. The parliaments today, state and federal level, both are serving the parties, the the tired old parties and their donors, that’s it. And so what you have is this nonsense going on in the parliament. I have never yelled out and I never will. Pauline has only yelled out about twice because she just couldn’t contain herself. But she’s never yelled out anything vile or anything crazy. It’s just a matter of, you know, respect for each other. And even if you don’t like someone’s view, they are there to supposedly serve the people of Australia. You have to respect it then listen to them and then beat their argument with data and facts not with slurs and lies.

Yeah, just on one issue that we’re asking our listeners this morning and it’s made news as well. Alcohol should not be tolerated in parliament houses. The senior coalition minister backing a booze ban in the wake of a damning Report on the rates of bullying and harassment in Canberra. We know that Home Affairs minister, Karen Andrews has thrown her support behind an alcohol ban in federal parliament, saying she would be quote very comfortable if it was no longer allowed. This is a workplace. Alcohol should not be tolerated. Well, she’s right. It’s not tolerated here at the radio station. I’m sure it’s not tolerated in any other workplaces where there’s business to be conducted, Malcolm.

Yes, that’s a very good point. I drink very little. The strongest thing I have is a light beer, probably a one or two a week and that’s it. So if they banned alcohol in parliament house, I’ve got no problem with that whatsoever. It is important though, to recognise that it is a workplace and so it is important to recognise that and I agree with you. At the same time, there are so many hours that we spend in parliament house, that it is important to recognise it’s also a social place. And so, it’s not a simple cut and dried issue.

Oh, I understand, yes.

And you know, there are quite often some things, people relax, I relax just depending on the company. So I don’t need booze to make me relax. But some people do. And so there can be some things happening over drinks that will really facilitate politics. And I don’t mean getting drunk. I mean, just, you know, some people relaxing.

Well, a glass of wine over lunch is fine but you know, without going to excess, particularly if you’re expected in the chamber a little later to vote.

Exactly. And see, I wouldn’t drink at all during the day and I never do because even the light beer can affect me slightly. It doesn’t affect my thinking.

You’re lightweight like me, Malcolm. I am a lightweight.

Exactly. Yeah.

Absolute lightweight.

Well, we prefer to call ourselves heavyweights and that we focus on the work rather than the alcohol. But I think, you know, it’s like everything in moderation. The key issue in parliament is that it’s a place where data and facts are no longer used to drive policies and decisions markets and what happens then is that people resort to the other things which has power over others. And we can see that in the rape allegations and in the violent behaviour and the intimidation and the bullying, that starts at the top, you know. And, so it’s up to the prime minister and it’s up to the leader of the opposition to behave properly, respectfully and above all, honestly.

Yeah. I mean, look there was an incident with Anthony Albanese earlier this week that was much publicised. I don’t mind a little bit of banter across the chamber. I mean, I don’t want it to be stayed and you know, where people can’t be emotional if you like. And I understand that there will be interjections, there will be sighs, there will be groans. There will be all this sort of stuff. But I mean, the comments that were made, obviously that’s been reported and you say you heard it in the Senate. I mean, that’s where it goes way too far.

Yeah. I didn’t hear them in the Senate. I just heard what you said.

Oh, okay.

I wasn’t in Senate. We’ve been doing Senate remotely because Palaszczuk up here has got us in quarantine if we come back from Canberra for two weeks and you just can’t be out of the constituents for two weeks. But you know, those comments by Lidia Thorpe were just disgusting and there’s just no room for that at all. And, she does that quite a bit. She has called various people, old men, old grey head men, just slurs and you know, just denigrating people. And that shows that she, shows something about her past but it also shows that she hasn’t got an argument and she’s looking for attention. And I’m guessing that poor old senator Thorpe has not had a good time because she doesn’t feel like people are listening to her or paying any attention. You don’t get attention and respect by behaving in the way she does and she has yet to work that out.

Yep. All right, Malcolm. Just a short old chat this morning, just on what’s been transpiring in parliament this week. You and I will talk again next week. Thank you very much.

All right, mate.

One Nation’s, Malcolm Roberts on the programme.

/by

Greens need division and victims

,

The Greens profit from division and discrimination. You cannot label someone an oppressor without making a victim, so it is not in their interest to actually save victims.

Transcript

I want to refer to speeches that you gave yesterday and also Senator Thorpe. In your speech, you mentioned the term far-right extremist or extremist, every third or fourth line that enshrines separation. Five times in just 18 lines. Senator Thorpe used the term white privilege 11 times on average every fourth line, driving hate and conflict.

Now in private talk with Senator Thorpe, and not meant to be kept private but personal talk, she recognises to me that the Aboriginal Industry is doing enormous damage, but she doesn’t say that in public. What we’ve got is gutless, woke bureaucrats shovelling money continually to keep the gap open so that the people in the Aboriginal Industry, both black and white, can make money off it.

Care requires data and facts, not emotive slogans and labels. Care requires understanding. Senator Thorpe talks about climate and Aboriginals, the UN and Aboriginal, property rights and Aboriginals. They are not the same. These very things are hurting the Aboriginals, but not as much as the resort to labelled. Keeping people locked in victimhood makes them dependent so that The Greens can control them.

I’ve never heard anyone condemn you for your race, your gender, your background, only for your incitement to division and hatred. You have the privilege of being in the Senate and representing Australians. But your rhetoric is dividing on basis of race. Yet every Australian recognises we all have red blood, regardless of our skin colour. We all have a human spirit that we share with every human regardless of ethnicity, regardless of background, regardless of prejudices. And it’s about time that people in this Parliament, especially in The Greens, started to recognise that we should be united, we are one people.

/by

Peter McCullough, Senator Ron Johnson and Australian Politicians Webinar

,

Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Tess Lawrie, Peter McCullough and Dr Brian Tyson. Attended by four Australian Senators and three current House of Representatives members. Australian Politicians Present include:

  • MP Craig Kelly
  • MP George Christensen
  • MP Neil Angus
  • Senator Malcolm Roberts
  • Senator Gerard Rennick
  • Senator Alex Antic
  • Senator Matt Canavan

Frontline Doctors can save lives and freedoms and paint the way forward to quickly end declared Covid19 pandemics in Australia and around the world.

With Mainstream Media Campaigns often funded by the People’s taxes, have been shown young victims of Covid19 gasping for air in Hospital

The people have been told medications with Decade’s old use and safety records are Poisons or are only good for use on horses.

The people have been obstructed from Medications.  

In Australia, John Skerritt heads the TGA and they have actually classified  Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin as Poisons;  one explanatory note actually explained that it was to funnel people into adopting the Clinical Trial Vaccines (to prevent the perception that there is an alternative to the Vaccines Available).  

The people have had a wedge driven between themselves and Doctors.

This has been achieved in Australia through the TGA obstructing Medications and

through AHPRA, led by Mr Martin Fletcher, via a campaign of warnings and suspensions of

medical professionals who have given their honest and researched risk benefit assessments of the vaccines and who may believe the current clinical trial vaccines are not in the best interests of some, many or almost all Australians.

The people have been tricked into thinking they are all in harm’s way with minimal chance of surviving Covid19.

The People have been tricked into thinking Vaccines will slow or stop people from catching or transmitting Covid19.

The People have been tricked into thinking the Vaccines offer the best way to reduce death and Hospitalisation.

The people have no idea of their own risk profile for Covid19; to get some idea see: www.mycovidodds.org

The Doctors have had their rights to practice their profession compromised in a way where they can no longer express their honest risk benefit assessments of Novel Technology Clinical Trial Phase Vaccines and where they can no longer offer normally what they beleive to be available safe and effective medications for the prevention and early treatment of Covid19.

As Peter McCullough states, the only court (given the legal court systems around the globe are failing at almost every turn to preserve the people’s freedoms and the people’s rights to choose what medications and experimental medications go into their bodies) is the people’s court.

To this end, our Australian Politicians have never had a more important or more responsible role to play than to help these doctors educate the people to the solutions at hand and the dangers to avoid; people kept so long in the dark by the forces losing theri grip on maintaining this darkness.

In this video Robert F. Kennedy’s book ‘The Real Anthony Fauci’ is strongly recommended by Senator Ron Johnson.

Peter McCullough shared 5 key usable, provable and clear principles:

a.      Covid ONLY (⁣practically) spreads from people who are symptomatic.

b.      Thus, NO asymptomatic testing is needed or is of any value.

c.      Natural immunity is much better than the current Novel Technology Clinical Trial Vaccines; You CANNOT ⁣(⁣practically) get Covid again if you have had it.

d.      Covid is quite easily treatable when treated early

e.      ALL current ⁣Novel Technology Clinical Trial Vaccines are NEITHER safe NOR effective.

/2 Comments/by

Reply from Queensland Premier – COVID evidence

,

This letter was in reply to my letter to leaders about the data and evidence on COVID, available here.

Other letters in this series (click to read):

211126-Premier-of-QLD-2

/by