One Nation, One Law

,

Senator Watt has circulated an edited version of my exchange with the Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia, which omits a large part of the discussion. This is the full exchange.

I asked the new Islamophobia Envoy about a report he delivered to the Government a few months ago which, in One Nation’s view, whitewashed Islamic terrorism and Sharia Law, while advocating for the suppression of criticism under the guise of stamping out Islamophobia. We have seen how this same approach in the UK has resulted in 65 Sharia law courts and the development of a parallel society between Islamic and Christian citizens—where criticism of Christianity is permitted, but criticism of Islam is not.

The Envoy lectures on Sharia Law at the University of Technology, so he should be well aware of its provisions and its incompatibility with Australian and Western civilisation.

One Nation will oppose Sharia Law and the development of parallel societies within Australia.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript (Draft)

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Malik for appearing on notice.  Could you please tell me how many staff you have?  What is your annual budget and how much of that budget did you report titled A National Response to Islamophobia cost? 

Senator Shoebridge: Good luck with that. 

Mr Malik: So in regards to budget, I can take that on notice. I don’t have that at hand.  In regards to staff, I began recruitment for my own staff from my office once the federal election results have been made clear. Up until that point I have been using or utilising the support of the Envoy Support team.   
Home Affairs did however provide me two staff full time staff, one of them is an office manager and the other is a communication Support officer. So they have been dedicated towards me, supporting me in social media, website management, proofreading, graphic design, printing and basically ensuring that my day to day affairs are in order. 

Senator ROBERTS: What do you how many staff do you expect to have? 

Mr Malik: I have recruited for five staff.  I’m hoping to close.  I’m finalising interviews for the final member of staff. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, thank you.  Your report, a national response to Islamophobia, does not mention Sharia yet.   Sharia law, should it be allowed in Australia, would replace Australian law, Australian courts, police and governance.  How can you talk about opposition to Islam without addressing the elephant in the room? 

Mr Malik: Sharia law?  I don’t believe it is an elephant in the room.  I mean, my role is to understand the reverse of that.  My role is to understand what have been the impacts of the past 25 years upon Muslim communities who are facing the brunt of discrimination, marginalisation, exclusion.  And so my job is to really understand that the question you raise is, is a good question because it highlights the misconception around Sharia law.  A statement I made in the House of Parliament at the end of July was that when people talk about Sharia law, it’s always good to ask them what do they mean by Sharia law.  So there tends to be different understandings of Sharia law.  And I further said that most Muslims would be, would be difficult for them to address one of the principles of one of the five principles of Sharia law.  So, a good question which highlights a challenge and which I hope to address in the coming months. 

Senator ROBERTS: Your report – thank you.  Your report does not include a definition of Islamophobia, but then makes more than 50 recommendations to solve the thing you haven’t defined.  How can you call for extensive legislation and a large bureaucracy to combat something you can’t or don’t define? 

Mr Malik: So the report does address that on the first page.  It’s 54 recommendations.  And there’s an argument amongst academics to how to define this term called Islamophobia.  What academics are not disagreeing about are the impacts of this prejudice or hatred or racism.  And one of the things I wanted to avoid is to avoid falling into the pits that Great Britain has fallen in and that is an annual conversation around the definition of Islamophobia masks all along the repercussions of this phenomenon of being ill advised or not being addressed.  And so what I do say however, is in the Commission of inquiry I do ask whether or not Australia requires a definition of Islamophobia in the Australian context and whether that will hinder or progress the cause. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, Mr Malik’s report does not accept that people who may have a legitimate concern about Islam.  For instance, the report does not mention ISIS, al Qaeda, nor does it mention that the latest briefing provided by the provided to the Senate by the ASIO Director General Mike Burgess showed 25 of Australia’s 29 prescribed terrorist organisations are Islamic based organisations.   
It seems that he’s simply redefining a factual and logical and genuine concern about Islamic terrorism as Islamophobia.  Minister, how would measures designed to combat Islamophobia differ from measures to combat anti Semitism or the growing anti Christian hate coming from the hard left?  Surely the words and actions directed to one group or the other would not differ in their legal implications. 

Minister Watt:  Well, Senator Roberts told you …  

Mr Malik: … 

Minister Watt: I think that question was to me. 

Senator ROBERTS: Yeah, it was. 

Minister Watt: Senator Roberts, I haven’t followed the work of either special envoy terribly closely. I’ve certainly followed media reporting of the work that both special envoys have done and I think that’s really valuable work at a time when social cohesion is deeply at risk in Australia because of the activities and language of a range of extreme groups in the community.  And the last time I looked, Mr Aftab’s role was to advocate for the needs of Muslim Australians, particularly in the face of gross Islamophobia that has been going on in our country.  Just as Miss Siegel has been engaged to advocate for the needs of Jewish Australians at a time when we are seeing gross anti Semitism in our country.  And I would encourage you and other members of your party to think about that Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, all of the three: anti-Christian, anti-Semitism and anti-Islamophobia are religion-based hate.  They’re not anti-religion. 

Chair: Thank you. 

Minister Watt: I don’t really know what point you’re making … 

Senator ROBERTS: I know you don’t. 

Minister Watt: But I have to answer questions from you and your colleagues on a regular basis in the Senate chamber, which I would describe as Islamophobic.  So I would I would encourage you to think very carefully about the sorts of questions and sorts of statements that you and your colleagues make in the public domain at a time when we are seeing social cohesion under threat and when we are seeing at a time when we are seeing the rise of neo Nazis and other extremists with whom you sometimes associate.  And you should think about that. 

Senator ROBERTS: False. 

Chair: Thank you. 

Senator ROBERTS: I do not associate with neo-Nazis. 

Minister Watt: ??? experience. 

Senator ROBERTS: But let me tell you.  You make comments about – let me tell you my comments are about pro Australia.  I put Australia first -pro Australia. 

Minister Watt: Well, you have your view of what Australia is … 

Senator ROBERTS: We want unity.    

Minister Watt: And it’s out of step with the majority of Australians. 

Senator ROBERTS: My party’s name is One Nation because we believe in unity. 

Chair: OK, I am going to rotate the call. 

/2 Comments/by

Bigger than the Burqa

,

Why Pauline Hanson was censured and our Bill – silenced.

They called it ‘a stunt’.

They being the hypocritical globalists in the Senate, the media mouthpieces waiting at the doors, and the predatory activists desperate for something to be outraged about.

The stunt being Senator Pauline Hanson’s decision to wear a burqa in the Chamber, which has brought the suffocation of our democracy to the public’s attention.

Since being delivered a majority – despite the lowest primary vote in history – Labor has made little effort to maintain Parliament’s veneer of debate.

Their deals with the Greens have allowed Bills to be rushed into law. Dissent is silenced by shuffling One Nation speakers to the bottom of the list and then cutting the speeches right before One Nation were about to speak – as happened to us on the controversial Environmental Protection and Reform Bill. Inquisitions are being staged where ‘concern for truth and safety’ are brandished as a way to enforce censorship.

Rapidly, Parliament has devolved into a protection racket for the worst policy imaginable.

When democracy is denied, ‘stunts’ become the best way to signal the alarm.

Big state politics thrives on bureaucracy. Its defenders pretend their air of ‘superiority’ and ‘maturity’ equals sensible policy when – really – they are performing the same role as a million pages of bureaucratic bullshit holding down the truth.

Boredom, bureaucracy, and silence. That is how democracy dies.

Politics was never meant to perform with the mannerisms of a hospital coffee shop or library foyer.

The Senate was not envisioned as a stuffy room.

When we consider political speeches that changed the world, they were not monologues in praise of moderation. They were brave. Indeed, the moment that won Donald Trump the election was when he rose from the stage, fist raised, shouting, ‘Fight! Fight! Fight!’

‘In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.’ – George Orwell

‘Truth’ is exactly what Pauline Hanson was seeking.

When a Muslim woman is forced – either by her family, society, or self-imposed culture – to cover herself in a piece of black a cloth banned in over 20 countries, she is invisible.

When a Western woman with red hair and a knee-length dress does the same, the oppression is instantly visible. It is uncomfortable. We see ourselves – the West – treading the edge of religious oppression.

Wearing the burqa in the Senate was an act of truth-telling.

‘Truth’ that lends weight to the lie that Islam is a purely neutral force in the West.

Like most religions, it has extreme edges. This intense variation of Islam is the largest perpetrator of global terror. It runs slave trades in its conquered provinces where Yazidi women are kept as prisoners. It subverts the political systems of its host country, running parallel Sharia court systems and strong – unwritten – cultural laws that run contrary to the accepted customs of the local population. It marries little girls to old men overseas (who they are often related to). It compels relatives to murder young women who fall in love with the wrong man under the false banner of ‘honour’. And it denies the hard-earned rights of women in the West to autonomy by enforcing a type of garment used to subjugate women.

This is what Australians thought about when black robes concealed one of the most recognisable faces in Australian politics.

The Senate refused the debate and threw Pauline Hanson out with screams of ‘racism’ because no one standing opposite could begin a debate – let alone win one.

Forgotten by the press is that this bill was also about security.

It was about banning a range of face coverings – not just the burqa. It included Antifa rioters concealing their identity, balaclavas which have become a symbol of fear on the streets of Melbourne, and those who hide their face while burning the Australian flag. If the debate had been allowed, the public would have seen that this bill was bigger than burqa.

When Pauline Hanson made a similar point in 2017, politicians controlled the press.

They were perfectly capable of fabricating outrage by reprinting copies of the same header over every broadsheet. There was a consensus within the Establishment. A pact to protect ‘multiculturalism’ over the far more sensible policy of assimilation.

Social media existed, however it was owned wall-to-wall by Democrat-leaning Silicon Valley entities and sometimes part-owned by Saudi figures.

Today, things are different. Elon Musk’s purchase of X might not be perfect, but its alignment with free speech principles has allowed the people of Australia to have a say on the burqa.

To the media’s shock, they agree with Pauline Hanson.

They probably agreed with her the first time too.

Not only did Australians agree, they were furious at the behaviour of the Senate for first stifling debate and then throwing Senator Hanson out.

Even conservative members of the Liberal and National parties – no doubt believing their own press from 2017 – were caught off guard when voters criticised them for censuring Senator Hanson.

A note to the Liberals: you cannot praise Scott Morrison for his coal stunt and then condemn Senator Hanson. Nor is it advisable to follow up the next day with a stunt of your own, waving bits of paper behind Sussan Ley to mock Labor for their power prices.

As usual, it is one rule for the Lib-Lab uniparty and another for One Nation.

It is evident that ‘stunts’ themselves are not a problem – it was the topic of the burqa they feared.

Voters are smart. They know something is wrong.

We fought too hard for our culture and our values to weather this moral descent without complaint.

Young people are coming to One Nation because they see this cultural shift in the streets they walk every day. The Canberra Bubble never truly sees what’s happening to Australia except through the sanitised fantasy of outraged activists.

One Nation will not abandon the women of Australia, the people who fled here for safety, or those whose families built this nation from the ground up.

And we will not sit politely while the safety of Australians is put at risk.

Even if the Senate throws us out a thousand times, we will remain, because you elected us to serve you, not those in the Chamber.

Bigger than the burqa by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Why Pauline Hanson was censured and our bill – silenced.

Read on Substack

/1 Comment/by

Connecting Inland Rail to Growth

,

The Government is currently spending what will likely amount to $20 billion building and upgrading the Inland Rail line between Melbourne and Brisbane. However, Brisbane is constrained. Its ability to handle additional container traffic is very limited, and the railway connection from Toowoomba to Brisbane is almost at capacity. Widening the line is not possible.

For this reason, One Nation supports extending Inland Rail to the Port of Gladstone, which has the space to expand to become Australia’s main container Port. This would reduce import and export times and lower the cost per container, ultimately reducing prices for consumers.

I asked the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) where they were with this connection. The answer was – nowhere! How can we grow the economy and provide for the millions of new arrivals the Albanese Government is allowing in without a corresponding increase in our productive capacity?

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. The current planning for Inland Rail includes consideration of a connection to the Port of Gladstone. Where are we up to on that?  

Mr W Johnson: I think I updated you last time that there were some interested parties, in terms of the Port of Gladstone, in connectivity to Inland Rail and the alignment of Inland Rail as it is. GreenLink, in particular, is the organisation that ARTC continue to have some interaction with. They’re progressing through what design operations and/or funding could look like for that in the future. We remain engaged with GreenLink, as ARTC. Inland Rail remain focused on delivering the project to Parkes, as it is today approved, and the enabling works north of Parkes. They’re not focused around any connection, at this point, with GreenLink.  That’s  what ARTC has been working with.  

Senator ROBERTS: Regarding GreenLink, do they have the finance?  

Mr W Johnson: I’m not sure of the exact status. I’d have to take that on notice, sorry.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do they also have the intellectual property, the property feasibility study?  

Mr W Johnson: My understanding is they’re working on both concept designs as well as funding programs, and they’re well advanced in those endeavours.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you working with IPG global?  

Mr W Johnson: No. Sorry, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Port of Gladstone currently does not have a major container-handing function. An application to build one has been delayed for 11 years. What steps have you taken to ensure the Gladstone port is capable of accepting container traffic when the connection is completed? For clarity, it makes no sense to connect Inland Rail to the Port of Gladstone if the port can’t handle container traffic.  

Mr W Johnson: There’s no work from ourselves in terms of the Port of Gladstone.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, just as an aside, the Port of Gladstone could be a development of major national significance, with regard to container terminals. Why is there a delay on that?  

Senator McCarthy: I can take your question on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. I’m deeply concerned with the delay, mainly, in the connection and the approval of Gladstone—the processing for a container-handling application. Going back to the ARTC, if the connection is not built, the Port of Brisbane becomes a primary container port. On notice, can you provide the data you have on the remaining rail spots to bring container trains to the Port of Brisbane, the capacity of the port and the expected volume of container traffic Inland Rail would generate from import and export traffic for the Port of Brisbane.  

Mr W Johnson: Sorry, I’d have to take the details of container movements on notice; I’m happy to do so. We continue some interaction and engagement with the Port of Brisbane around what connectivity would look like in the future, but there are a significant number of products that are domestic bound from both North Queensland and also southern states into Queensland. That is the purpose of the connectivity of the existing and the future inland rail.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, going back to the previous question, is there any way you can get onto the Gladstone Ports Corporation and ask them to resolve the application immediately?  

Senator McCarthy: I’d have to take that question on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. 

/by

The Institute That Breaks Families

,

The Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) should be renamed the Australian Institute for Breaking Apart Families. Their persistent pro-female, anti-male bias is unbecoming of a government agency.

During Estimates in October, I asked why they misreport domestic violence data to portray men as perpetrators and women as victims, when the actual data shows victimisation rates are almost equal.

I will continue monitoring this failed agency to see what other misinformation they spread.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My questions are to the Australian Institute of Family Studies. In June this year, this headline rang out: ‘One in three men report using intimate partner violence’. That was plastered across the news. There was widespread coverage of research from the Ten to Men study by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, which found one in three men reported being violent towards their partners. Are you aware of that study?

Ms Neville: Yes, I am aware of that research.

Senator ROBERTS: The institute failed to mention in their report that almost a third—30.9 per cent—of the men surveyed were victims of similar violence, which included both physical and emotional abuse. The correct headline should have been: ‘One in three men report using intimate partner violence, and one in three men report being the victims of intimate partner violence’. Why did you misrepresent the data presented in your own study?

Ms Roberts: You are referring there to what we call bidirectional violence, which is acknowledged in the report. We did not explore deeply the question of men’s experience of violence because we were focused primarily on the experience of gender based violence, which is situated within the ethos of the National Plan to End Gender Based Violence. That was a significant factor. There were other issues, too, in terms of the scope of the report. I will now hand over to Dr Sean Martin, who is the leader of—

Senator ROBERTS: Let me continue, before we go to Dr Martin. The AIFS reported data excluded all the men who were victims, yet not perpetrators, of violence—a total of 355 forgotten survivors, or seven per cent of the sample. Why was this data excluded? Even if the focus of the report was on male perpetrators, surely, it provides important context for the community to know that almost as many men are victims as perpetrators of intimate partner violence. Are you peddling feminist propaganda at taxpayers’ expense? The taxpayers fund you. This is misleading.

Dr Martin: If I could address that question, I was involved in that report that you’re talking to. First of all, in terms of men’s experiences around intimate partner violence, our approach is driven by external expertise which suggested that the acute need was around data on perpetration of intimate partner violence. Of course, there are other estimates around men’s experiences of intimate partner violence, like the personal safety study, which points to one in 16 men having recently experienced intimate partner violence, and one in four women. That was very much known. The report itself, as you indicate, did include some information around men’s experiences of intimate partner violence. The reason we did that, as our director has just pointed out, is that we wanted to get a sense of this bidirectional relationship with intimate partner violence. We wanted to know how many men perpetrated or used intimate partner violence and how many men both used and experienced intimate partner violence. That was the approach that we took, because we had to limit the scope of this particular report. What we didn’t include in that report was men who solely experienced intimate partner violence. Again, that was done purely because we needed to contain the scope of the study. If we wanted to have a look at that specific issue, it would require a different analytical approach which was outside the scope of this particular report.

/by

Your Battery, Their Grid: Read the Fine Print

,

I moved a motion in the Senate to refer the issue of electricity smart meters to the Economics References Committee for inquiry. Why? Because Australians are being misled and left vulnerable.

The rollout of smart meters was promised as “voluntary”, yet it has now been made mandatory by this Labor government. These devices allow power companies—and governments—to monitor and control your electricity use. Worse still, energy companies can switch you to other tariffs without your consent. That means higher bills and less control over your own home.

Smart meters were sold as a way to help households save money, yet the reality is very different. Complaints have skyrocketed about unexplained tariff changes and complex pricing schemes that punish everyday Australians. And now, with Labor’s household battery scheme tied to “virtual” power plants, there’s nothing stopping your battery—paid for by you—being drained whenever the grid operator decides in the future.

This is not about helping consumers; it’s about control. It’s about protecting an unstable grid caused by the rush to unreliable solar and wind, at your expense.

One Nation stands with Australians against greedy power companies and foreign multinationals. We want transparency, accountability, and real consumer protections. We want to know what Labor is hiding. This inquiry is about giving power back to the people—literally.

The Vote

Transcript

I move: 

That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 April 2026: 

The state of consumer protections in relation to electricity ‘smart meters’, with specific reference to: 

  • consumer rights to opt out from smart meter installation; 
  • ‘surge’, ‘cost-reflective power’ or ‘flexible’ tariffs and their impacts on household power bills; 
  • the Australian Electricity Market Commission rule change allowing electricity companies to change customers onto a punitive power tariff without their consent after two years; and 
  • any related matters. 

Three years ago, One Nation told the country: 

Australia is firmly on the path towards a dystopian future with households having their access to electricity taken out of their hands and monitored, controlled and restricted by governments. 

That’s control of your electricity use in the government’s hands and in energy company hands, including foreign multinational companies. That is control of your electricity and your access to it—whether you can use it and what you can use it for. This is only possible with the now mandatory rollout of smart meters, which are internet connected electricity meters. 

For many years, the rollout of smart meters was promised as purely voluntary. The experience of people who voluntarily got a smart meter was absolutely terrible. Daniel Mercer from the ABC reported in April that the New South Wales energy watchdog had sounded the alarm, saying too many consumers were being hit with poor service and left worse off from the smart meter rollout. He wrote: 

The watchdog said there had also been a major increase in the number of complaints related to sudden, unexplained changes to people’s electricity tariffs. 

There were changes to their tariffs with no consent. He continued: 

Such changes often involved customers being switched from flat rate prices, where they paid the same rate for a unit of power no matter when they bought it, to complex and dynamic charges. 

Among these were time-of-use tariffs, in which customers paid more for power at peak times, and demand charges, which involved charging someone based on their single biggest half-hour of use across an entire month. 

So, if you used a higher level of power for just half an hour, that put you onto a higher rate that was across all your electricity use for the entire month. He went on: 

“The smart meter rollout aimed to increase flexibility and customer engagement with the energy market, by allowing customers to manage their energy usage and save money,” Ms Young— 

the New South Wales Energy and Water Ombudsman— 

said. 

“But we aren’t seeing evidence of this in complaints that come to [the ombudsman], in fact, we are seeing the opposite.” 

What was the Albanese Labor government’s response to all of these problems? Did they try to fix them? No. They doubled down. The Labor government in June made the smart meter rollout mandatory. This federal Labor government made the smart meter rollout mandatory. They said anyone going onto a smart meter couldn’t be put onto a punitive tariff. They did say that. This, though, is only temporary relief that will last just two years. After that, it’s open season for power company profiteering. The smart meters are a key part of the government’s emergency plans. 

Think about why they need emergency plans. The energy minister, Chris Bowen, is spruiking his household battery scheme. What he isn’t telling Australians about is the fine print. To receive the government’s subsidy for a household battery, your battery must be ‘capable of participating in a virtual power plant’—virtual power plant; this gets more and more crazy. A virtual power plant, or VPP, is simply about being able to drain your battery, which you paid for, to the grid whenever your power company wants. Combined with an always connected smart meter, there’s nothing stopping the grid operator from draining a household battery whenever they want in the future—whenever they want—disregarding your need for electricity. By the way, you, the householder, pay for the battery. Home batteries—why are they needed? They’re needed to ensure stability—the stability of electricity supply. Solar and wind are inherently asynchronous, making them unstable. Coal, hydro, nuclear and gas are all synchronous; they’re stable, reliable, secure. 

As the proportion of electricity from solar and wind increases, the grid becomes unstable. This is fact. It has happened overseas; it has happened here. As the grid becomes more unstable, the ability to reach into Australians’ homes to take over their batteries will be too tempting for you lot, the government. It will be essential, in order to protect our grid, to reach in and control your battery, drain your battery, which you paid for. It will be essential to protect the grid from their onslaught of solar and wind asynchronous generation. The government won’t be able to resist. We already have the data to prove it. Last year, Queensland’s state owned power grid throttled almost 170,000 air conditioners six times in just two months. I’ll say that again: last year, Queensland’s state government owned power grid throttled back almost 170,000 air conditioners six times in just two months, under a scheme called PeakSmart, to try and protect the grid as it buckled under the net zero transition. Under the PeakSmart scheme—that’s a good name, isn’t it?—users were not even told their air conditioners were being throttled. They were not even told. I have, since the start, been aware of these meters being considered, because the so-called energy transition is really an energy reduction, an energy restriction, an energy control. The objective is control. I’ve been saying this since 2016. The objective is control—furtive, unexplained control of your access to electricity; furtive, unexplained, unaccountable control of your access to electricity. So much for transparency under you lot in the Albanese Labor government. 

That’s why One Nation is moving this motion to have an inquiry into the rollout of smart meters and what consumer protections are needed. Right now, there are no consumer protections—none at all—and the public has been misled. Deceitfully, the truth is hidden. Why would they hide it? Because they’re out to get you, to screw you. What protections are actually in place to make sure power companies aren’t going to gouge Australians through a smart meter? Right now, it looks like nothing. The smart meter rollout was changed from voluntary to mandatory without any notice despite the many problems that had been raised and pointed out. Australians pointed out the many problems to the government: Why? Who benefits? It’s certainly not everyday Australians, who this Labor government dishonestly pretends to serve. Instead, it’s stealing. One Nation wants this inquiry to answer these questions and many more. 

When it comes to Australians battling greedy power companies, including foreign multinationals, One Nation backs Australians every day of the week. We back you, Australians. I encourage the Senate to send the issue of smart meters to an enquiry and to back Australian consumers being protected from greedy power companies, including foreign multinationals in charge of vital parts of our essential infrastructure. Our electricity grid is arguably the most important infrastructure in our country. Will the government oppose this reference for a Senate committee inquiry and continue to hide the truth from Australians? Or will it be open? Will you be open, transparent and honest with the Australian people 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hodgins-May): There are no further speakers. The question is that the motion put by Senator Roberts be agreed to. A division is required. We will defer that division to tomorrow. 

Debate adjourned. 

/1 Comment/by