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.

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.