Malcolm Roberts Sets Record Straight on Media Conspiracy Meltdown

,

According to some MSM journalists with a handful of viewers, ‘no one knows who I am’.

After a week of targeted headlines, erroneous and malicious they may be, at least I have brand recognition…

For years, media have ignored my work as a Senator because it was inconvenient to the lock-step government of Labor and Liberal.

Their destructive policies were left unquestioned by the same mastheads that have repeated, without the faintest interest in fact-checking, false and misleading statements about my beliefs.

These accusations have been patched together from interviews published on both mine (and other) social media accounts. Far from ‘uncovering’ anything – as some chose to claim to make the story sound more cloak-and-dagger than it actually was – these journalists merely opened Google.

One Nation voters are used to this sort of treatment from the press.

Most have personal experience, having been called ‘cookers’, ‘racists’, ‘conspiracy theorists’, ‘domestic terrorists’, ‘far-right’, and everything up to ‘literally Hitler’.

If you have concerns about machete wars at the local shopping centre, well, you must be trying to resurrect Labor’s White Australia Policy.

If you think biology is settled on the gender front – you’re probably committing a hate crime.

It’s a level of un-reality that turns podcast chats into click-bait. I really do pity the journalists that wasted their time on the hit job. They shamed themselves with such poor quality and dishonest work.

On that note, MSM has entered the ‘crying wolf’ phase where very few Australians believe what they print, with most having abandoned the legacy press long ago.

Do I subscribe to the chemtrail conspiracy? No. That claim is false. My office decided to answer community concerns with a podcast to explain the difference between contrails, geo-engineering, and cloud seeding. My mistake was expecting the media to have more than a five-second attention span.

Do I subscribe to 9-11 conspiracy theories and school shootings? Of course not. I’m appalled editors let that carefully constructed insinuation go to print.

Shame on them.

Being a guest on someone’s podcast does not imply ‘guilt by association’, unless Coalition MPs want to start being held accountable for the views of ABC activists.

I wager they don’t.

And, since when is ‘globalism’ considered a Jewish banker conspiracy theory?

Do I think the December 2025 Bondi massacre was a ‘false flag’?

Of course not.

It’s all a load of nonsense designed to paint the subsequent discussions listed below as ‘crazy’ when actually, these are the inconvenient truths the media don’t want to discuss.

Are there concerns about Covid vaccine safety?

Definitely.

Is Net Zero a scam?

Absolutely. And you’re paying for it.

Was the origin of Covid originally covered up? Yes.

For years, the same media organisations who called me a ‘cooker’ labelled anyone who mentioned the Wuhan lab leak a ‘far-right racist conspiracy theorist’. I’m yet to see an apology grace their columns.

Is One Nation a threat to Labor? You bet.

Is One Nation polling higher than the Liberals and Nationals combined? You bet we are.

If One Nation are the ‘Populists’ – does that make the other parties … unpopular? I’ll let you answer that one.

One Nation has spent years listening to Australians to find out exactly where our economy has broken – and created ways to fix it. These solutions benefit Australians, not large corporations, unions, or foreign billionaires. As these solutions gain mainstream public support, we’ve seen attacks against One Nation, and myself, intensify.

The most obvious of these is my work dismantling the Climate Change conspiracy and Net Zero con that has ripped hundreds of billions out of this nation, causing untold amounts of damage that our children’s children will be paying off.

It’s no surprise that both sides of politics have fought bitterly to keep Net Zero in place, even if One Nation has successfully shamed them into dropping specific dates for achieving the official Net Zero targets that they quietly retain.

Why won’t the Coalition shred the Paris Agreement?

Because it’s the ‘piece of paper’ that keeps the endless climate wealth flowing out of the Treasury.

You can read my viral Substack on the full horror of the Paris Agreement here and, indeed, it was shortly after this started doing the rounds that our political opposition turned rabid.

When we say ‘get rid of the Department of Climate Change’ and all its ‘subsidiaries’ – we know that with the money saved, there’s more than enough to rebuild our grid with reliable baseload power, guarantee pensions for our elderly and veterans, and cut taxes that are sucking the life out of businesses who provide critical employment to Australians.

To prove my point about the obscene waste of this unnecessary department, I draw your attention to recent headlines regarding its Minister, Chris Bowen.

The decision to earmark $4.2 million of your money to treat his department and foreign bureaucrats to luxury accommodation in Fiji, is nothing short of insulting.

And fraudulent.

Bookings apparently cover the Sheraton Fiji Golf and Beach Resort, Sofitel Fiji Resort and Spa, and the Radisson Blu Resort Fiji on Denarau Island. Fair-minded Australians would think the same journalists who published hit pieces on Pauline Hanson’s trip to Europe (which did not cost the taxpayer) will be doubly scornful of this taxpayer tropical getaway.

In an honest version of politics, Mr Bowen would have been told to resign. Immediately.

This expense has been ‘justified’ for a pre-COP31 meeting to be held between October 5-8 where, in his moonlight job as co-president, he will oversee the conference. Why COP31 has anything to do with Australian taxpayers remains a mystery.

Australian businesses are closing. Families are sleeping in tents. Pensioners are freezing, unable to afford their power bills (which Labor promised at the last election would drop). And young workers cannot afford rent.

Yet somehow the Minister thinks it’s appropriate to splash out money hosting staffers, bureaucrats, and himself at a beach-front resort. We’re not even going to talk about the ‘carbon cost’ of flying everyone to Fiji for a meeting that could have been done via Zoom.

It’s as if the head of the Climate Change Department doesn’t really buy into the imminent threat that underpins his role in government.

When pressed, a spokesperson from Mr Bowen’s department said, ‘The venues are the only suitable locations capable of accommodating an event of this scale with the required accommodation capacity.’

It sounds like they’re having their arm twisted for some sort of hardship rather than hosting an entirely voluntary beachside champagne conference.

What, exactly, does the average Australian gain from having their government burley the water of Climate Change hysteria? When has this conversation ever benefited taxpayers?

It was only a few months ago that a decision from the International Court of Justice, recklessly backed by Australia, left us open to potentially trillions in climate reparations. Even the UK sat up and realised that might have been a mistake and yet barely a word has been said about it.

The $4 million plus bill isn’t the end of it.

The Albanese Labor government has been offering $20,000 taxpayer-funded grants for activists to attend the COP31 conference.

The total cost of this grant program is something in the realm of $650,000, deepening our almost trillion dollars of national debt.

Remember, you’re not allowed to have tax cuts because it might threaten ‘roads, hospitals, and schools’.

Yet the truth is, there is plenty of money for those things. Tax cuts would mean this sort of climate-grifting would dry up and Labor’s activist electoral padding would get ‘quite upset’ and threaten to walk off to the Greens.

And who is going on this vacation?

‘Diverse and underrepresented groups, primarily First Nations Australians and youth.’

The purpose?

‘Promote voices and perspectives of First Nations’ and ‘enhance inclusion and diversity’.

And what are you doing? Working long, thankless hours to pay for their privilege. Skipping meals to cover the rent. Giving almost half of what you earn to this heartless machine of state-approved grievance.

Why is One Nation rising in the polls?

No idea. Must be some sort of social media algorithm sorcery. A mythical bot army fresh from the Odyssey.

Australia wasn’t asked to incur these expenses. The Minister went out of his way to co-chair COP31 with his ‘title’ of co-president bestowed on him as if it were a participation award to stop a child bursting into tears.

The government insists the ‘final cost’ will be ‘lower’ than what they’ve reserved – the point they miss is that there shouldn’t be any cost at all.

It’s not only a $4.2 million (ish?) tropical getaway that’s angering taxpayers. It’s the almost $150 million set aside for Chris Bowen’s role as the COP31 co-president, which includes 70 full-time equivalent staff. Plus his taxpayer salary as the Minister, who should be focused on his local electorate.

The arrogance is truly astonishing.

And you can add to that another $100 million for ‘broader Pacific engagement’.

Realistically, what is this bringing to Australia – other than a poverty-inducing tax burden?

The media can label me a ‘conspiracy theorist’ all they like.

I’ve got something a lot stronger that I’d like to label the Minister for Climate Change.

/7 Comments/by

Why Is Australia Still Approving Gain-of-Function?

In this session with the Australian Centre for Disease Control (CDC), I pushed for a straight answer on whether it will conduct or drive research. The response I got? A “bit of yes and a bit of no”.

They admitted they’ll “participate” in research yet won’t actually do it. No beakers, no test tubes, just another layer of bureaucracy.

I raised the seriousness of gain-of-function research. I pointed out that the regulator hasn’t met since 2023, its website hasn’t been updated since 2024 and the body responsible for overseeing gene technology won’t even use the term “gain-of-function”, yet it’s still approving these projects.

When I asked whether the government would ban gain-of-function research, the Minister dodged yet again.

So, I made it clear – One Nation will ban gain-of-function research. It’s simply too dangerous to allow.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here tonight. I refer to an answer by Ms Wood in the December 2025 estimates regarding the potential research function of the CDC. Your answer was very carefully worded. You said: The CDC won’t be … conducting research on matters that are in the remit of other organisations. The CDC is a complement to the Commonwealth public health capability. It will not be taking over or otherwise leaning in on research conducted by any other Commonwealth entities … That’s not a no. Can I have a clear answer, please? Will the CDC be conducting research or causing research to be conducted—yes or no? 

Mr McCormack: One of the functions for the CDC in our legislation is to advise on research requirements specifically as they relate to public health matters. We will be undertaking that, and we’re therefore an active participant in research. We are not researchers ourselves in the sense of producing primary evidence, though we are an expert organisation, and we would expect a number of our staff, through the course of their work, to be participating in research undertaken cooperatively with institutions such as universities et cetera. But we’re also not a funder of research. The principal funding mechanism for medical research in Australia is, of course, the NHMRC, complemented by programs administered by the department, including the Medical Research Future Fund. It’s not a question that necessarily provides for a very simple yes-or-no answer. It’s a bit of yes and a bit of no. We’re a participant. We’re not a principal researcher. We’re a supporter of research strategy. We’re not a significant funder of research.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ll be participating in research, but you’re not researching.  

Mr McCormack: It’s not a simple yes-or-no thing.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s right. I understand.  

Mr McCormack: We have a role in research under our legislation, but it’s not to be a prime driver of research.  

Senator ROBERTS: You haven’t got hold of the beakers and the test tubes.  

Mr McCormack: We do not have hold of the beakers and test tubes. No.  

Senator ROBERTS: A further part of that answer was that the Gene Technology Standing Committee oversees gain-of-function research through the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. The standing committee has not met since 2023, and their website was last updated in 2024. The website of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator does not mention gain-of-function research. The only time they have interceded on the topic was for medical research, where they defended and approved the application. I’m pursuing this line of questioning because gain-of-function research gave the world the MERS virus and the COVID virus. President Obama banned gain-of-function research funding in 2014 owing to lab mishaps with anthrax, smallpox and avian flu. Every time I ask this government about this topic, I get an evasive answer. The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator just approved a public trial of gain-of-function research that produced an influenza virus replica. Australia is doing gain-of-function research, and the regulator is approving it. Minister, will this government ban gain-of-function research?  

Senator Green: I don’t have anything to add to answers that, I assume, have been given to you over many estimates and the information given by the officials tonight.  

Senator ROBERTS: You won’t. One Nation would ban—will ban—gain-of-function research.  

Senator Green: It’s great to hear about your policies, because then we know exactly what the Liberal-National policies will be in a few months.  

/0 Comments/by

Labor’s Tax Break for Gender Lobbyists

,

One Nation opposed granting Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) tax status to Equality Australia.

The Labor government is ignoring rulings from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court that found Equality Australia ineligible for DGR status.

Equality Australia is a political lobby group rather than a benevolent charity, which advocates for LGBTQ+ rights and gender-affirming care.

Typical of this Labor government, Senator Chisholm dismissed our concerns as political motivations.

There’s nothing political about protecting our children from harmful, irreversible treatments.

It’s about doing what’s right for our youth.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I have some questions, as I implied before. We’re generally supportive, One Nation, of these superannuation modifications, except for what we see as dishonest provisions. In February’s Senate estimates hearings I asked the office of the Governor-General about Equality Australia, because Australia’s Governor-General is supposed to be neutral—to not take political positions. This leads to many questions of the government. Firstly, Minister, how is it that the Governor-General can be a patron of a political activist group, Equality Australia, that actively supports irreversible gender treatments for children—mutilation of children?

This is not about people’s support for Equality Australia, because that’s what is essentially happening by giving it DGR—deductible gift recipient—status. This is about the law and Equality Australia’s DGR status. My questions include: Why did assistant charities minister Mr Andrew Leigh intervene to give Equality Australia charity status when on three occasions the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and two Federal Court hearings had held that Equality. Australia was not established for a benevolent purpose and should not be entitled to deductible gift recipient status?

Deductible gift recipient status allows donors to claim tax deductions for donations. Why did the Labor government give Equality Australia a massive favour against the findings of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
and the Federal Court’s full bench, on two occasions? Was it because the Governor-General is a patron of the activist group Equality Australia? Isn’t this a clear conflict of interest and a breach of the requirements of neutrality by the Governor-General?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR (Senator Kovacic): Senator Ghosh.

Senator Ghosh: I hesitate to interrupt my colleague, but I think it’s a contravention of the standing orders to cast aspersions on the motives of, or reflect disrespectfully on, the Governor-General of Australia.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Noted, thank you. Please withdraw, Senator Roberts, and refrain moving forward.

Senator ROBERTS: I withdraw.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you.

Senator ROBERTS: Observing the government’s blatant contradiction of the law in giving DGR status — deductible gift recipient status—to Equality Australia in defiance of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and two Federal Court hearings, I ask: Does the law mean nothing to this government? Is the lobby group Equality Australia, when it attacks Christian schools, acting in any way on behalf of the government? Is the lobby group acting on behalf of the government in any way when it supports children’s futile attempts to change sex? Essentially, what you’re doing, Minister, by giving Equality Australia deductible gift recipient status is asking taxpayers to subsidise the mutilation of children. Why are you going against the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and Federal Court rulings? We want to protect superannuants—adults—but not at the sacrifice of children.

Senator CHISHOLM: Thanks, Senator Roberts. My understanding, having just taken over this bill this morning, is that Senator Gallagher responded to similar statements that were put by Senator Whitten when this was last in committee stage. The government rejects the claims of Senator Roberts. All of the entities that are being provided with DGR status in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025 were found to be legally ineligible for DGR status through routine channels. This prior ineligibility is the precondition for a government to consider applications for a specific listing. Let me be clear: all the entities that are being provided with DGR status through this bill have been supported in this way because, in spite of the benefits they bring to communities, they did not fit into the defined DGR categories. Our tax system is set up so that when this happens—and it has happened routinely since 1948—a government can decide that a charity, in spite of not fitting a specific DGR category, nevertheless warrants the support that DGR status provides. That’s what is part of this bill . There are other organisations that are recipients. It says a lot about One Nation that they are just singling out this group in particular for their political motivations.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand your response, Minister, but can you explain why the government is supporting a group that is a lobby group, an activist group, not a charity, as the Full Bench of the Federal Court ruled twice and as the Administrative Tribunal also ruled? Why are you supporting a lobby group, an activist group, that’s harming children and is not recognised as a charity?

Senator CHISHOLM: I disagree with Senator Roberts there. Contrary to false media reporting, Equality Australia is indeed a registered charity. Equality Australia has been registered as a charity under the ACNC Act since 4 January 2016. Specifically, Equality Australia has been registered as a charity with the subtype ‘advancing public debate’. Advancing public debate and engaging in public advocacy is a valid charitable purpose. Equality Australia is a registered and compliant organisation, meeting the required governance standards and making a significant contribution to Australian communities.

Senator ROBERTS: With respect, Minister, you didn’t answer my question. Why are you going against a Federal Court ruling on two occasions and an Administrative Appeals Tribunal ruling?

Senator CHISHOLM: I already answered that in the previous answer. The entities being provided with DGR status in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025 were found to be legally ineligible for DGR status through routine channels. As I said before—let me be clear—all the entities that are provided with DGR status through this bill have been supported in this way because, in spite of the benefits they bring to communities, they did not fit into the defined DGR status. Our tax system is set up so that when this happens—and it does happen regularly and has occurred since 1948—a government can decide that a charity, in spite of not fitting a specific DGR category, nevertheless warrants the support that DGR status provides

/0 Comments/by

Going Backward: The Reality of Labor’s Economy

,

Labor’s record spending and trillion-dollar debt are smashing living standards — driving inflation, hiking interest rates and leaving Australians worse off.

Families are going backwards while Labor taxes harder and spends faster.

One Nation will shrink government, drive down inflation and put more money back in Aussie pockets.

Transcript

Today, Treasurer Chalmers has taken to social media to claim credit for the 2.6 per cent increase in annual GDP, calling the rise the strongest growth in the Australian economy for three years. Has the Treasurer forgotten he’s been in office for almost four years—meaning the Treasurer took over the economy and made it worse! 

Putting that aside, how did the Treasurer create this increase? To haul GDP out of negative territory, the Treasurer has spent like a drunken sailor. Almost all of the increase in employment and economic activity in the last year has come from increased government spending, which has to be paid for with? Higher taxes. In effect, the Treasurer has taxed everyday Australians more, and then spent their money faster than the taxpayers would have. As a result, the money supply has expanded 11 per cent in the last year, and our national debt has now passed $1 trillion. 

A funny thing about spending other people’s money: it eventually runs out. Already, the government is looking for ways to raise taxes. Capital gains tax increases and increased taxes on superannuation are on the agenda. Even worse, the government is selling off the silverware. The sale of Defence Force property has already been announced—$3.5 billion in extra cash. What was once a strategic asset, which didn’t add to the money supply, will be cash in the bank for the Treasurer to spend—more solar and wind subsidies; more money to the Taliban. Already this government has given the Taliban $320 million. 

Selling off the silverware to keep the GDP out of recession leads straight to even higher inflation than we have now. To counter this inflation, already the Reserve Bank has been forced to increase interest rates. The result will be a loss of spending power for everyday Australians, who will have to spend more of their income on their mortgage or rent. Government spending is approaching 28 per cent of our GDP and is heading to over 30 per cent, which offsets the reductions in private sector spending that have resulted from overregulation and a lack of confidence in this Labor government. In the short term, this approach makes the data look better. In the medium term, inflation spikes, and wage growth goes negative, as it has been for much of the Treasurer’s term. If everyday Australians feel like they’re going backwards and working harder, it’s because they are going backwards—especially if they’re paying off a home or renting. One Nation will solve this vicious cycle of economic decline with our policy to shrink the government to fit the Constitution and to fit our means. One Nation took a policy to the last election to reduce the size of government by $90 billion in our first term. That number, from what we can see from Labor, is now looking much, much bigger than we can save. Our policy will reverse Labor’s deficits, stop Labor’s inflation, cancel Labor’s interest rate rises and leave more money in the pockets of everyday Australians. 

/0 Comments/by

Facts Over Fashionable Politics

,

Months ago, we saw a pivotal moment in the Senate.

It showed exactly what the 2028 election will centre on for One Nation: protecting Australians, strengthening families, keeping education affordable and defending the values that make this country work.

I made it clear that One Nation stands for facts over fashionable politics and for confronting violent extremism wherever it appears.

When Senator Hanson was attacked for raising concerns about radicalisation, I reminded the chamber that her comments were about extremists, not ordinary people of faith. I also warned that shutting down honest debate only leaves Australians exposed.

As we head toward 2028, my message remains the same. One Nation will defend Australia’s values, culture and security – and we won’t be intimidated out of telling the truth.

Transcript

Yesterday, the 2028 federal election battlelines were drawn. The first and foremost job of government is to protect its citizens, to allow them to lead their lives with a minimum of government interference and to provide the infrastructure to grow our productive capacity and create breadwinner jobs for all who are here. Government must educate our children without imposing a lifetime of debt. We must guarantee that someone who takes their place in society and the workforce can afford their own home and start a family. These are the things to which One Nation is dedicated. 

Australia can return to being the best country in the world. We can provide wealth and abundance for all. We’ll cast off the oppression of identity politics and implement government policy based on facts, not feelings or fashion. One Nation has always defended and will always defend the safety of everyday Australians against radicals committing violence, whether that’s radical Islam, antifa, ‘trantifa’ or any other group. 

Yesterday, our leader, Senator Pauline Hanson, was attacked here with a ferocity I’ve not seen in three terms in the Senate—for the crime of speaking the truth. Senator Hanson called out radical Islam as incompatible with Australian values and Australian security. Then it was on for one and all. 

As commentator Andrew Bolt said last week, the assertion that Senator Hanson said, ‘There are no good Muslims,’ is a lie. Her exact words were as follows: 

I’ve got no time for the radical Islam. Their religion concerns me because what it says in the Koran—they hate Westerners, and that’s what it’s all about. You know, you say, ‘Oh, well, there’s good Muslims out there.’ Well, I’m sorry—how can you, you know, tell me there are good Muslims? 

The context was clear. It was about radical Islam—not all Muslims. In her interview later with Sharri Markson, Senator Hanson confirmed she agrees there are good Muslims. Of course there are. 

Yesterday, in the Senate, I read a letter from Persian refugee Janet Shay. It explains the difference between ‘good Muslim’ and radical Islam perfectly clearly. I’ll repeat Janet’s words: 

There are two types of Muslims: a Good Muslim a True Muslim. I know Good Muslims. They are kind, generous and they want exactly what the rest of us want: 

safety, family, a future, a decent life. But they are good Muslims because they do not follow all that Islam actually instructs them to do. That is why they are good Muslims. 

The Islamic government of Iran, the IRGC— 

the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps— 

Hamas, al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Houthis: these are not people who went rogue away from their faith. 

These people read their Quran and said: we will do exactly as our holy leader instructs. By their own scripture’s measure, they are the True Muslims. 

The good Muslim and the true Muslim are two different people. 

Yesterday, when I read Janet’s comments, the Greens objected to Janet’s differentiation between good Muslims and true Muslims. My message to the Greens is simple: get used to it. To tar all Muslims with the crimes of the few is an insult to the hundreds of thousands of good and decent people who’ve assimilated into Australia and who maintain their religion in no different a manner than that of any other religions, including the orthodox religions, Taoism and Judaism. 

The political left’s refusal to differentiate good from true is deliberate. It provides protection to true Islamists, allowing them to hide behind the innocent. This is, of course, an action which will lead Australia to ruin—as it is in the United Kingdom and as it did in Iran, which fell to the ayatollahs after the Left formed a suicide pact with radical Islam to overthrow the shah. They expected a socialist paradise; instead, they got a short flight off a tall building. Thirty thousand leftists died in the first few months of the Iranian Islamic regime. That’s fact; that’s history. As much as the Greens and the Labor Party wish they could rewrite history, they cannot. Iran was a warning. If true Muslims can subvert a Western culture like Iran, true Muslims can subvert any nation. 

In the last few weeks, I’ve spoken with many Australians from Persia, Lebanon, the Middle East and, today, Armenia who warn of the dangers of true Islam. I’ll be clear: the Bible contains some objectionable verses. Christianity, though, had a reformation 500 years ago, which saw those verses excluded from worship. Islam has not had a reformation, and true Islam celebrates the penalties prescribed in the original works. The word Islamophobia is used in Australia to shut down the freedom to have crucial conversations about the religion—the ideology—of Islam. A phobia is an irrational fear. Reading the Koran and asking whether its teachings align with Australian values is not irrational. 

Christianity is openly mocked in Australia without legal protection from criticism, nor should there be such protection. In a free society, any belief system can be questioned. Except, when Islam is questioned, the conversation is shut down and the person asking the question is labelled the problem. The question about Islam never gets answered. In the words of Senator Hanson: 

If there is a person out there who is a Muslim and does not support sharia law, female circumcision, child marriages, who (does) support our culture our way of life and our laws, then I apologise to you – if my comment has offended you … 

I repeat the apology, and I am concerned about where this persecution of truthful senators will end. 

The recently passed hate crimes bill contains provisions which may be used against One Nation, and it seems to me that the disproportionate response from the Senate’s ruling cabal is designed to warm Australia up to doing exactly that. The hate crimes provisions added to the Commonwealth Crimes Act back in 2010—and twice since strengthened—have never been used. The only prosecutions for hate crimes have been under state legislation. This shows the federal legislation is not needed. The states already have hate speech covered. As I said during the bill debate: 

For many years, the left-wing commentariat, politicians and media accused those who sought to raise the alarms around rising antisemitism and Christianophobia with the crime of ‘threatening social harmony’. The very elastic crime of racism has now been extended to describe as racist anyone who defends Australia and our way of life. Many Australians have been guilty of shooting the messenger— 

Behaviour we saw again yesterday in this chamber— 

while the message itself—the hatred and radicalisation—went unchallenged. 

And it remains unchallenged. The hate crimes bill was sold to the Australian public as the only way the Islamic terrorist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir could be banned. Well, it’s been more than three months, and that organisation has not been banned. For the third time, parliament has passed hate speech laws that have not been used because Islam was never the target. In the latest polling, One Nation is four points behind the government, and the panic—the political revenge—is starting. 

The left is using the same playbook, as did Germany, recently, where the ruling coalition just tried to ban Germany’s version of One Nation, Alternative fur Deutschland, AfD. Fortunately, the appeals court blocked the move, for now—the point being, they tried. The Left hate contesting ideas in the court of public opinion and prefer to use thuggery, tyranny, censorship and control. One Nation will repeal the hate crimes legislation and leave the matter to the states. 

Meanwhile, true Islam in Australia continues to flout our laws, our culture and our language. In this Senate, yesterday, Senator Faruqi spoke in Arabic, which I would have thought breached the standing orders—though apparently not. It does, however, assist communication between the senator and her electorate, the same electorate which, as we speak, is holding tearful vigils for the deceased Iranian dictator and terrorist, Khamenei, at their largest mosques here in Australia—the same Khamenei whose photos Hamas supporters recently carried above Senator Faruqi’s head as they marched together across the Sydney Harbour Bridge. What more of a demonstration of the allegiance of true Islam in this country can there be than carrying the photo of a terrorist leader proudly over the harbour bridge? Protestors included the Bondi murderer Naveed Akram. The Greens are the party of the Islamic Australian caliphate. 

Without the Islamic vote, this Labor government is unlikely to be re-elected. Apparently, no betrayal of everyday Australians is beyond their chase for votes and power. Our refugee program is being used to import 25,000 true Islamists a year from countries who’ve already destroyed their own Western culture and are coming for ours. For clarity, One Nation will oppose any religion, any ethnicity and any social movement that is an affront to Western civilisation. My motion next week relating to childhood gender mutilation is an example of just that. To defend Australian culture, language and heritage is not racism, xenophobia nor whatever label the Left chooses to attach. It’s common sense. It’s designed to protect everyday Australians from the hatred and violence of radical activists and terrorists. True Islam is one element of that, but it’s not the whole problem. 

I’m a migrant who values the country to which my father brought my family in 1962, and so do the many migrants who have joined One Nation to protect our Western culture, social harmony, coherence, safety and security. One Nation will join with those who were here first and who have come since to accompany us all in our beautiful country. In fact, we represent you. Why the rest of the Senate does not will be the question to be settled in 2028. 

/0 Comments/by

Legalised Wage Theft

,

Once again, I am calling out Fair Work officials.

This time it is for the blatant contradiction between their own statements and the Ombudsman’s findings.

I pushed Mr Furlong to reaffirm that enterprise agreements cannot legally undercut award entitlements — then confronted him with written evidence from the Ombudsman claiming the exact opposite, that an enterprise agreement “overrides” the Black Coal Award.

I pressed further, pointing to the Penny Vickers case to show this pattern isn’t new. Unions and big businesses have used enterprise agreements to “legalise” underpayment before, and only whistleblowers exposed it.

Despite every attempt to deflect, the failure is undeniable. The Fair Work system has allowed wage theft before, it’s allowing it again, and regulators refuse to confront it.

I won’t let them hide behind the process.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr Furlong, and your colleagues for being here and minister. 

Senator Watt: It’s great to see you again, Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Same here, Minister Watt. 

Senator Watt: We spent a lot of time together last week. 

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Furlong, on 9 November 2022, I asked you a question in Senate estimates, specifically: 

Can an enterprise agreement remove the entitlements that the Fair Work Act and the National Employment Standards provide employees? 
 
You replied simply, ‘No.’ Clear. So you recall this? Now you are aware, I believe, that the Fair Work Ombudsman has been investigating allegations of the underpayment of coal workers where the enterprise agreements have underpaid in comparison to the black coal industry award. Are you aware of that?  

Mr Furlong: I am broadly aware that they were conducting an operation in relation to that, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking to put you on the spot for the verdict.  

Mr Furlong: Very broadly, I understand it.  

Senator ROBERTS: You are aware. You answered. The ombudsman has recently completed a number of investigations. I will quote from one of those investigations where the ombudsman has stated in writing to the coal worker who lodged the complaint: ‘As the Fair Work Ombudsman has determined that’—the named person’s—’terms and conditions are governed by the’—named labour hire enterprise agreement—’we do not consider that the Black Coal Mining Industry Award 2010 applied’—to the named person’s employment. ‘Consequently’—the named person’s—’wages and entitlements during the relevant period should not be derived from the award but from’—the named labour hire enterprise agreement. Would you agree that on the surface and to an everyday person the Fair Work Ombudsman’s statement that an enterprise agreement overrides the award seems to be in contradiction to your statement that the fair work requirements—in this case, the award—override the EA?  

Mr Furlong: I think that they’re actually perfectly consistent. An award will persist unless there is an enterprise agreement that is in place for a workplace. But an enterprise agreement, in terms of the minimum hourly rate of pay, can’t be less than what is stipulated in the underpinning modern award.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s what I was looking for. Are you aware of the SDA case involving Penny Vickers?  

Mr Furlong: It’s been such a long time since I’ve looked at that case.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let me refresh your memory. In 2016, Penny Vickers, a shelf-filler at the giant supermarket chain Coles, exposed huge underpayments of Coles workers. The underpayments occurred because the union, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association, had signed an enterprise bargaining agreement with Coles that ‘legalised’ the underpayment. The independent umpire, the Fair Work Commission, had authorised the agreement which gave it legal cover. Are you aware of that?  

Mr Furlong: Yes, I’m aware of the circumstances broadly.  

Senator ROBERTS: The union and big business did a deal. The deal enabled Coles to pay workers less than they should have been paid when they worked on weekends. Penny Vickers took on the union and big business giants and successfully had the underpayment deal overturned in the Fair Work Commission. Are you aware of that?  

Mr Furlong: Yes, I am.  

Senator ROBERTS: And it was not just Coles. I initially thought it had been just Coles. It was not just Coles that had been in on the union deal. Other huge retailers were also in on the deal, including Woolworths, Bunnings, Target, Kmart, Big W and others. Are you aware of that?  

Mr Furlong: No. I’m interested to know—and Mr Corcoran might be able to assist you with this—if the application that was brought to the commission was post the nominal expiry date. Mr Corcoran, can you remember the circumstances of the case?  

Mr Corcoran: Not completely, but I think it might have been within the nominal expiry date of the agreement.  

Senator ROBERTS: Media reports suggest that, by themselves, just three of these big businesses were underpaying workers by around $150 million a year back in 2016. Are you aware this is extreme wage theft well beyond payroll errors?  

Mr Furlong: It’s been such a long time since I’ve looked at that or reviewed that decision. I don’t feel like I can reasonably respond to these questions without going back and reading the decision closely.  

Senator ROBERTS: This was, of course, a huge scandal that sent shock waves through the retail sector in particular—I can remember it was in the papers once it got exposed—and forced the rewriting of retail enterprise agreements almost across the board. Yet, if it hadn’t been for the tenacity and persistence of one person, Penny Vickers, and of the media, including, I believe, Judith Sloan and Rob Gottliebsen, the underpayments would never have been exposed. Mr Furlong, I put it to you that the Fair Work Act has failed. Doesn’t it need to be replaced with a system that protects workers, protects small businesses and protects the primacy of the employer- 

employee relationship instead of protecting the IR club at the cost and harm of workers and the cost and harm of small businesses?  

Mr Furlong: As you’re aware, Senator, my role doesn’t extend to matters of policy. Those questions should be addressed to the department in the normal course of things.  

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I caught the tail end of your question. I’m happy to have a go at answering it if you’d like to put it to me again.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Fair Work Act has failed. It’s been needlessly complex over many, many years. It’s not understood by workers. It’s not understood by small business. It’s not understood by many employers without a lawyer. Doesn’t it need to be replaced with a system that protects workers, protects small businesses and protects the primacy of the employer-employee relationship instead of protecting the IR club at the cost and harm of workers and of small businesses?  

Senator Watt: I, of course, have a different view about the Fair Work Act, especially after the reforms that our government has undertaken. It’s very clear that, due to the reforms our government has put in place to the Fair Work Act, wages are rising, more agreements are being reached between workers and their employers and industrial action is lower than it was under the coalition. So, in a range of ways, I think that the Fair Work Act has been very successful for Australian workplaces. I know you and your colleagues from One Nation voted against those reforms. I did note, Senator Roberts, on the weekend, the interview with Senator Hanson, where she didn’t support an increase to the minimum wage. Is that a general One Nation position?  

Senator ROBERTS: Workers are going backwards. The cost of living is rising faster than wages. Workers are going backwards under your government.  

Senator Watt: Actually, I don’t know if you saw this, Senator Roberts, but just today the Fair Work Commission handed down its decision in the annual wage case, which granted a pay rise for the lowest paid workers in the community of 4.75 per cent, which is ahead of inflation. Senator Hanson on the weekend said that she didn’t support an increase to the minimum wage, so I presume that means One Nation doesn’t support that pay rise.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Fair Work Commission has made its decision.  

Senator Watt: But it sounds like your party didn’t support that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move back to Mr Furlong. I’ve asked this question once. Having listened to me talk about Penny Vickers and the illegal enterprise agreement that was reversed, would you agree that, on the surface and to an everyday person, the Fair Work Ombudsman statement that I talked about, with the black coal mining industry award, that an enterprise agreement overrides the award seems to be in contradiction to your statement that the Fair Work requires, in this case, that the award override the enterprise agreement?  

Mr Furlong: I haven’t seen the Fair Work Ombudsman correspondence that you’re referring to.  

Senator ROBERTS: I read you quotes.  

Mr Furlong: But I haven’t seen it. I haven’t had the chance to review it.  

Senator ROBERTS: Would you undertake then, Mr Furlong, to make inquiries of the Fair Work Ombudsman as to why they have taken that view and whether the view is right or wrong and report back to me on this question on notice?  

Mr Furlong: I’ll certainly take up the opportunity to read the correspondence, but, in terms of my role at the commission, I’m required to support the president in the efficient operation of the tribunal. I have two statutory roles. I can certainly look at it and read it, but I’m not too sure what statutory power I could rely on to actually make any sort of commentary around whether or not the provisions of the act have been complied with in these circumstances.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Furlong.  

CHAIR: Are you ready for me to rotate?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. 

———————————————————————————————————————————— 
 
CHAIR: I’m going to go to Senator Roberts—to give you a moment to see if that’s possible. I’ll come back to you after that. Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Furlong, I’ve got a constituent who wants to ask you a question, so I’m going to ask it for them. You’ll probably have to take it on notice, because I don’t think you’ll know the answer off the top of your head, based on what you said earlier. Section 134(1) of the Fair Work Act provides:  

FWA must ensure that modern awards, together with the National Employment Standards, provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions …  

The use of the term ‘must’ imposes a mandatory legal obligation on the commission. My question is: does the commission have the liberty to bypass, dilute or ignore this statutory duty?  

Mr Furlong: I’m happy to provide a detailed response on notice. We—  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/2 Comments/by

From Iran to Australia: A Defiant Warning

,

On a motion supporting the people of Persia and the safety of all in the Middle East and globally, I read a letter from Janet Shay, an Iranian woman who escaped the Islamic regime, converted from Islam to Christianity and now lives safely in Australia.

Janet calls for honest debate, the freedom to question belief systems, and for clear distinctions between those who live peacefully and those whose convictions threaten public safety.

She urged the government to apply consistent standards, learn from Iran’s experience, and put Australians’ security first.

Her message is clear: It’s not good enough for our government to call behaviour ‘Terrorism’ when it’s outside of our country and refuse to say the name when it’s inside.

The safety of Australians must never be sacrificed because politicians are too afraid to have difficult conversations.

Transcript

This morning, I received an email from a constituent who was born into the Islamic regime in Iran. Her parents were Muslim yet converted to Christianity, and they were successful in fleeing Iran and moving to Australia. These are her words, based on her lived experience and that of her family: 

My name is Janet Shay. I’m an Iranian-Australian. 

Yesterday, on the 1st March 2026, the Leader of the Islamic Government of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, was killed. 

The Iranian people have waited 47 years for this moment. 

This is a historical and joyful time for Iranians and for the world. 

Although I am joyful for them, and hopeful that soon I may visit my family the graves of my loved one in Iran, I am deeply concerned for us here in Australia. 

I’ll say that again: she is ‘deeply concerned for us here in Australia’. She continues: 

In 2025 Prime Minister Albanese declared Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (the IRGC) a terrorist organisation. Thank you Prime Minister. 

However, declaring a group a terrorist organisation means very little if the ideology that drives that group continues to be taught and defended on Australian soil without consequence. 

What does our government intend do about those living among us who actively promote and defend the same ideology that endorses killing of apostates, abusing women and the sexual violation of children. 

On the 14th of December 2025 there was an attack on Bondi: on Australian soil, against Australians. The Prime Minister said sorry. Ok. 

But sorry is not honesty about what we are dealing with. An ideology cannot be called terrorist overseas but acceptable when it’s in our own country. 

See, the people protesting in Iran are not afraid of being politically incorrect, to NAME what they endured under Islam. They are not going to be gaslit into calling it a misinterpretation. 

So I’ll follow in their footsteps and speak plainly. 

There are two types of Muslims: a Good Muslim a True Muslim. I know Good Muslims. They are kind, generous and they want exactly what the rest of us want: 

safety, family, a future, a decent life. But they are good Muslims because they do not follow all that Islam actually instructs them to do. That is why they are good Muslims. 

The Islamic government of Iran, the IRGC, Hamas, al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Houthis: these are not people who went rogue away from their faith. 

These people read their Quran and said: we will do exactly as our holy leader instructs. By their own scripture’s measure, they are the True Muslims. 

The good Muslim and the true Muslim are two different people. 

The word “Islamophobia” is used in Australia to shut down the freedom to have opposing conversations about the religion of Islam. 

A phobia is an irrational fear— 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sterle): On a point of order, Senator Shoebridge. 

Senator Shoebridge: The inflammatory language here of ‘good Muslims’ and ‘true Muslims’—attacking the Muslim faith in the way that this senator is—is contrary to the standing orders. I’d ask you to have him withdraw that commentary and ensure that the debate we have in this chamber does not lead to that Islamophobia that we just heard from Senator Roberts.  

Senator Hanson-Young: Or hate speech. 

Senator Shoebridge: Or, as my colleague says, hate speech. 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Shoebridge, I don’t quite see it as you do, but I’m going to check with the Clerk to make sure. The Clerk has concurred with me. You have the floor, Senator Roberts. 

Janet Shay continues: 

The word “Islamophobia” is used in Australia to shut down the freedom to have opposing conversations about the religion of Islam. 

A phobia is an irrational fear. Reading the Quran and asking whether its teachings align with Australian values isn’t irrational.  

Christianity is openly mocked in our country without legal protection from criticism. Nor should there be such protection. In a free society, any belief system can be questioned. 

But when Islam is questioned the conversation shuts down and the person asking the question is called ‘the problem’. And the question about Islam NEVER gets answered. 

She says: 

Australia, we have the right to read, question and think for ourselves. Go to your local library. Pick up a copy of the Quran. Read the Hadith, the recorded words and example of their Prophet Muhammad. Draw your own conclusion and decide if Islam should be shielded from scrutiny in a democratic nation. 

Demand that our government clearly distinguish between those who wish to live freely alongside us and those whose convictions oppose the safety and freedom of Australians. 

And let us build our immigration, our policy and our national values accordingly. 

That is not hatred. That is not phobia. That is us protecting ourselves. 

It is not good enough for our government to call behaviour Terrorism when it’s outside of our country and refuse to say the name when it is inside. 

The people of Iran were duped into accepting an Islamic government and have paid for it in blood for 47 years, while the world stood by and didn’t listen. 

Do not let Australia learn that lesson the way Iran did. 

Long live a free Australia. 

Thank you, Janet Shay. I will return to this topic later today—the interests of Australian people at a time of threats to our security. This is what matters. The security of Australians is paramount to One Nation, and it should be paramount to every member of the Senate. 

/2 Comments/by

The Aboriginal Industry Is Failing Aboriginal Kids

In March, I warned that the plight of Aboriginal children remains an indictment on governments past and present, while taxpayer funds are being swallowed by a sprawling “Aboriginal industry” of consultants, activists and bureaucrats that delivers little to the communities it claims to serve.

The gap is widening because there are too many people feeding off the system.

Adding yet another commission will only deepen confusion, waste and dependency, instead of delivering the basics children need.

Cut the bureaucracy, stop the hiving-off of funds, celebrate Aboriginal potential, and direct support based on real need, not race, so Aboriginal kids get real outcomes and taxpayers get accountability.

— March | Senate Question Time

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: The plight of Aboriginal children is well documented. We know that from so many people. Senator Pauline Hanson has been raising this issue for around 30 years. Senator Nampijinpa Price has done an exceptional job as well, and Senator Kerrynne Liddle and indeed the minister there. The plight of Aboriginal children is an indictment on parts of our society and especially on the government. I’m not just talking about the Labor government; I’m talking about previous uniparty governments and the Liberal-National coalition. 

I was visiting Badu Island a few years ago in the Torres Strait. A wonderful young councillor stood up and said, ‘While there is a Closing the Gap initiative, the gap will widen, because so many people are feeding off the Closing the Gap campaign that they have become dependent on it.’ I’m talking about the parasites who are pushing some of the Aboriginal industry. They’re white as well as black. The bureaucracy is massive and self-perpetuating. So many of the campaigns are to keep bureaucrats in a job. The bureaucracy is massive, and that means no accountability, and there is the heart of the problem. We now have an Aboriginal industry. 

Basic management shows that this commission will have negative effect. It won’t help. It will hamper and hurt. The aim is to look good, not do good. There are so many things we see every year in the House of Representatives. The Prime Minister—it doesn’t matter who it is, whether Liberal or Labor—and the opposition leader stand up and tell us things about how Closing the Gap is going backwards, and we’ve still got work to do, but it’s all rosy. It’s the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull. 

Minister, surely basic management shows that a system that is clogged like the Aboriginal industry is, with so many people feeding off it—consultants, activists, politicians, lawyers, academics—will be only clogged up further. What are your intentions for managing this properly so that it doesn’t clog up the system? 

Senator McCARTHY: Thank you, Senator, for the question. I certainly reject the assertion about ‘Aboriginal industry’ being a negative, Senator Roberts. We have, in fact, just this morning, certainly come together with the Coalition of Peaks—bodies that are clearly defined in the way that they work with local communities on the ground.

You mentioned Badu Island in the Torres Strait. I certainly commend our new convener—the joint convener, with me, on the joint council—and that is Donnella Mills, a Torres Strait Islander woman who is very passionate about wanting to ensure that, on the ground, in terms of local people having local solutions and support, they are supported by community controlled organisations. And those community controlled organisations are accountable, Senator Roberts.

They’re accountable every year, just like any other business in this country that’s provided with either federal or state or territory funds. They are accountable. They’re accountable to the parliaments. And they are certainly accountable to this Senate. That accountability is about transparency, Senator Roberts. So I would just caution you, if I may, around the language that you use that really stereotypes, in a very negative way, the good work that is being done by First Nations organisations and individuals across Australia.

I’ll just take this moment, Temporary Chair, if I may, to acknowledge the commissioner, Commissioner Hunter, in the gallery, and members of the Coalition of Peaks, and those who came this morning for the launch of our latest peak body.

Senator ROBERTS: You mentioned the Coalition of Peaks, Minister. There’s part of the issue. This is a massive bureaucracy. You’ve got to have representatives of the peaks. There’s no audit. And I’m speaking now on behalf of taxpayers, as well as Aboriginal children and Aboriginals. 

I’ve been to every one of the communities, white and black, on Cape York, and I’ve asked: What’s Close the gap? What do they know about Close the gap? What do they think about Close the gap? Some of the communities there don’t even know about Close the gap, because they’re not getting the benefits of the funding that’s coming from the taxpayers; it’s getting hived off by the parasites, white and black—activists, lawyers, consultants, lobbyists, academics, politicians and bureaucrats—along the way. 

How is this additional bureaucratic load, this additional constipating layer in the middle, going to strengthen coordination across government? It’s adding more people into the middle of this government mess. As I said, it’s not just your mess; it’s previous governments’ messes as well. 

Then these are going to be ‘advising the Commonwealth’—this is from your own bill. ‘Advising the Commonwealth’? How many more people do you need to get advice from? This is getting ridiculous! People across the country, especially Aboriginal people, are laughing at this. Some of them are crying at it. 

And then there’s the third activity: ‘undertaking and commissioning research into systemic issues and barriers’. There’s no doubt there are systemic issues and barriers. We can see them. Why do you need yet another group of researchers? This is just going to confuse the mess again. 

Then there’s ‘providing and commissioning educational programs’. Children won’t know which way is up, they’ll have so many different messages from so many different bureaucrats—so many different parasites. 

Next there’s ‘undertaking public advocacy’ to promote the rights and interests of children and young people. We’ve got so many people in parliament doing that. We’ve got so many people outside parliament doing that. You’ve got so many bureaucrats, tripping over each other, doing that. 

They’re ‘to amplify their voices and strengths’. Oh, really? Really? It’s not working so far. The nanny state is not working so far. 

As to engaging with children: how many more people are going to engage with children? These kids will have their heads spinning. What about basic needs? Get to the core of the problem. There are, clearly, crucial human needs, and they’re being bypassed by these people looking after their own administrative jobs. I also remain concerned about two things. One is that this is a divisive piece of proposed law that is defined by race. It draws distinctions and promotes divisions by race, which makes it racist. It overtly continues and entrenches the them-versus-us mentality that prevails in conjunction with the patronising mentality of victimhood status. 

In Aboriginals—and you’re an example of this, Minister—we have four per cent of Australians who are Aboriginal; we have 11 per cent of parliamentarians who are Aboriginal. Aboriginals have high potential, but so many are being locked into victimhood. Surely what we need to do is free up Aboriginals to fulfil their enormous potential. They’re leading in the NRL, the AFL, business, sport, academics and science, and yet some of the communities are terrible. I think we need to start celebrating Aboriginals rather than locking some victims— 

Senator Waters: Stop calling them parasites, then. What about all the taxpayer money you’re defrauding? You talk about parasites. You lie, you steal— 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll take that interjection from Senator Waters. I’ll make it very clear: she misrepresented me then, because I am not calling Aboriginals parasites. I’m calling Aboriginals fantastic human beings with huge potential. I’m calling them parasites in the bureaucracy—the activists, the lawyers, the administrators, the bureaucrats, the consultants, the academics—who are living off the money that’s going from taxpayers to the Aboriginal industry. That’s what I’m talking about. This is just going to add more complexity and more bureaucracy. 

One Nation policy is to get rid of the Aboriginal industry, to save $15 billion, and instead provide real care through government grants based on real needs, regardless of skin colour. This bill has an aim, I believe, to look good, not to do good. In trying to look good, you do a lot of harm. You just add more to the constipating layer of bureaucrats. Minister, isn’t this an option to start celebrating Aboriginals, rather than casting them as victims, and to start giving grants based upon real needs? Isn’t that what’s really needed here?

Senator McCARTHY: Senator Roberts, firstly, I agree that we should celebrate First Nations culture in this country. I agree that there are many outstanding athletes, as we saw with the Rabbitohs recently and the great score trier that everybody roamed the field on with AJ. But there are many, many others, whether they’re athletes or otherwise. There are professionals in business, in the sciences and in our schools. We’ve even got our young woman here from Yirrkala, who’s doing very well— Siana, I’m watching you as a bit of a trailblazer for us.

You’re right that we should celebrate First Nations people and culture, Senator Roberts. But that’s probably about as far as our similarities might go, because I certainly reject the assertion that there is no accountability or transparency. As I said in my previous response to you, every organisation that is receiving funding does get audited, whether it’s from the Australian National Audit Office or having to provide their annual reports to this parliament.

I certainly have many statutory bodies whose reports have to be delivered to the Senate. That is accountability, Senator Roberts. That is where we differ. You keep asking for audits. Well, audits actually happen as an annual event for organisations, and those organisations that are not doing well obviously get picked up in this as well. Like non-Indigenous organisations and businesses, there are some across the country that don’t do well, and they need extra support to get them back on their feet or, like many, they go out of business.

The accountability structure is there in terms of the audits, and, as I said, I agree with you in terms of the celebration of First Nations people, but the way we do that is also about lifting families. This is why this bill is incredibly important. It’s important because we are listening to what the communities have been asking for for a long time. I might walk you through just a bit of that history. The Bringing them home report in 1997 actually raised this back then, and we’ve had subsequent organisations through the Coalition of Peaks.

There are 70 organisations who’ve given guidance on this. I would not dismiss—and I am sure you, as a senator for Queensland, would not dismiss—those who come to us to give advice. That’s what this parliament asks for in terms of the Coalition of Peaks and the agreement that we’ve signed with every state and territory to that Closing the Gap agreement. We’ve got organisations like SNAICC, which cares for the children. We’ve got VACCA, the Victorian Aboriginal Child and Community Agency, and the Korrie Youth Counsel.

All these organisations have come forward to say there needs to be this national commissioner. There needs to be a role where the national First Nations commissioner is there for the children who are being taken away, who are in out-of-home care. We’ve seen those figures rise staggeringly, especially in states like Victoria. Having the ability for the national children’s commissioner to work with each state and territory and to inform this parliament is absolutely critical. Senator Roberts, there are some things we kind of see a bit of similarity on, but probably most not.

But I do appreciate your interest. You have shown that at estimates as well in the questions that you’ve raised around communities. I would urge you and your party to get behind this bill. What Commissioner Hunter will be able to do is know that she has the support of this parliament behind her to work with our kids across the country.

/by

Labor’s “Suicidal Empathy” on ISIS Brides

,

One Nation supports the private Senator’s Bill that was introduced in March by Senator Duniam.

This Bill finally forces transparency and accountability around the return of individuals linked to terrorism.

The Bill makes it an offence to organise or facilitate the entry of people who’ve engaged in terrorism-related conduct unless both key ministers sign off in writing.

This legislation exposes Labor’s role in repatriating women who travelled to ISIS territory as committed participants in a violent extremist organisation responsible for severe harm and human rights abuses.

Their return was quietly brokered through intermediaries, even though some had openly urged attacks on Australia and its allies. A true case of suicidal empathy.

To these female terrorists, One Nation says this: you got what you went over there for; you made your bed; now lie in.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I thank Senator Duniam for this bill, which One Nation will support. The Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026 amends the Criminal Code Act 1995—the Criminal Code. The bill inserts a new offence into part 5.5 of the Criminal Code to criminalise the organisation or facilitation of the entry into Australia of certain persons who have engaged in terrorism related conduct—unless these actions occur with the prior written permission of both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Home Affairs.

The offence applies where a person organises or facilitates the entry into Australia of another person from a foreign country and where, at the time of organising or facilitating the entry, the other person has engaged in conduct constituting an offence under subsection 119.2(1) of the Criminal Code—namely, entering or remaining in a declared area—or another terrorism offence as defined under the Crimes Act 1914; the first person knows that the other person intends to engage in conduct constituting an offence under subsection 119.2(1) or another terrorism offence before entering Australia; or the other person is or has been a member of a terrorist organisation. They’re the three criteria.

The offence does not apply to conduct in which a Commonwealth authority is engaged or to conduct on behalf of a Commonwealth authority, which lets Minister Burke off the hook for facilitating the return of ISIS brides. I’ll say that again: it lets Mr Burke off the hook for facilitating the return of ISIS brides.

The bill extends the sunset date for the declared areas regime in sections 119.2 and 119.3 of the Criminal Code from 7 September 2027 to 7 September 2030. These amendments are intended to ensure that decisions concerning the repatriation to Australia of persons who have entered or remain in declared areas, who have committed any other terrorism offences or who are members of terrorist organisations occurs with appropriate Commonwealth authorisation.

The return of the wrongly named ‘ISIS brides’ inspires this legislation. The term ‘ISIS brides’ is, of course, a misnomer. So-called Australian ISIS brides are women who travelled to Syria and Iraq, of their choice, to join or marry fighters for the Islamic State group, often referred to as the caliphate. These women were involved in hijrah—immigration to the Islamic State—as wives and mothers to ‘breed the cubs of the caliphate’ and to support jihad efforts. ISIS propaganda itself targeted Western women, with roles as supporters, militarised mothers and wives—or even, when needed, fighters. They are not brides; they’re Islamic terrorists who travelled to a war zone, a proscribed area, to fight against the West and fight against Australia. They encouraged their men to kill and do other unspeakable things. They brainwashed their own children. Yet we’re supposed to bring them back here—and what? Condone their behaviour? There can be no condoning of the treachery they’ve committed.

This bill will not stop the return per se. It will force their return into the open, where the voting public will be able to clearly see that the Labor government was responsible for their return, and the people will hold the Labor government accountable. That’s what we want—openness. For clarity, Labor did that, returned them, through an intermediary from the Muslim Brotherhood, a device that Minister Burke thought would insulate the government from the fallout coming from returning these terrorists. It did not.

Western countries allowing in, or back in, terrorists committed to overthrowing our way of life and installing sharia law has a name. It’s called suicidal empathy. Let’s quote one of Minister Burke’s ISIS terrorists, who, while in Syria, said this: ‘Attack the US, Australia, the UK. Kill them. Stab them. Poison their food.’ That’s charming—really charming. It’s suicidal empathy indeed.

These women went to a war zone in Syria to fight a war for the caliphate against Australia. Syria is now a caliphate. Their side won. So why do they want to come back to Australia? Are caliphates not as appealing as Australia? Now, that’s telling. Or do they aim to help make Australia a caliphate? As I said yesterday, Shady Alsuleiman is president of the Australian National Imams Council and mentor to Wissam Haddad, the ISIS cell leader who radicalised the Bondi terrorist Naveed Akram. Alsuleiman has released a video in which he promises, ‘Islam will enter every home in Australia.’ And he does not mean to do your dishes; he means to convert you to Islam—or else. Australians have every right to feel afraid of people this government is bringing in. The government is bringing these people in. To these female terrorists, we say this: you got you went over there for; you made your bed; now lie in it.

/1 Comment/by

Is the Gap Closed?

,

During this session I pressed Commissioner Kiss on waste, duplication and middle-man costs in the Aboriginal industry.

She acknowledged the funding failures, yet still joined the chair and other senators in pushing back on my questioning – proving that even when everyone admits the money isn’t reaching communities or Closing the Gap targets, they resist being held accountable.

My point was clear: money is being poured in, yet outcomes are worsening, accountability is missing, and real on-the-ground help is being smothered by bureaucracy.

How much taxpayer money will this government burn before the Gap Closes?

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing, Ms Kiss. You recently made comments warning of the dangers of right-wing parties. Apparently that was after the resounding One Nation win in the Farrer by-election. Is that correct?  

Ms Kiss: I’m not sure what you’re referring to.  

Senator ROBERTS: After the resounding One Nation win in the Farrer by-election, you made comments warning of the dangers of right-wing parties.  

Ms Kiss: I don’t recall using that language at all. Can you clarify what you’re talking about?  

Senator ROBERTS: No, that’s all I’ve got here. What benefits for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders would such a statement bring?  

Ms Kiss: Again, I’m not clear what you’re referring to. So, if you could, give me some clarity around where I might have used that language. I don’t recall using that language.  

Senator ROBERTS: You didn’t use it?  

Ms Kiss: Not that I can recall.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. What are your thoughts on the Aboriginal industry—that is, what’s referred to as the Aboriginal industry, the lawyers, the politicians, the public servants, the bureaucrats, the contractors, the academics and the activists living off the money allocated to assist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders living in poverty despite receiving welfare payments the same as other Australians in need? The money is being allocated, but it’s not getting to where it needs to be. What are your thoughts on that? 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, that sounds an awful lot like you’re asking the commissioner for an opinion. That’s not—  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have an opinion?  

Ms Kiss: I do have an opinion, but it’s not my role to share my opinion.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that that’s happening?  

Ms Kiss: I can speak to the fact that we know that there is a fair amount of financial allocation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander services and supports. I’m not sure what you’re referring to in terms of welfare support, but I do have concerns about the fact that funding that’s being allocated to our communities and to our organisations and to government agencies is not actually meeting the needs of our communities. That’s evident in the Closing the Gap targets.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. We’re agreed. Are you aware that often more than half the grant money is eaten up by salaries and other middleman costs before getting to the people the grant was supposed to assist?  

Ms Kiss: The indication of that has been presented in Productivity Commission reports and Indigenous expenditure reports, so, yes, I am aware that there is consideration of that.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m struggling to see the connection between your questions and the role of Commissioner Kiss.  

Senator ROBERTS: I think we’ll see it fairly soon.  

CHAIR: Okay, I’m looking forward to that. That would be helpful.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that most assaults upon Aboriginal women in the Northern Territory and in Western Australia are committed by Aboriginal men?  

Senator COX: No, they’re not.  

Ms Kiss: I’m not sure that those statistics are necessarily accurate.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Why does nobody comment that the large proportion of incarcerated Aboriginal people are in jail because they committed crimes warranting a jail sentence from a magistrate or judge? That’s called social justice.  

Ms Kiss: I can’t make comment on that, Senator. That’s not a question for me. 

CHAIR: Again, it’s asking the commissioner for her opinion.  

Ms Kiss: Senator, I don’t make the decisions about who goes to jail and how they’re sentenced. Sorry.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, when will this government learn that throwing money around is not the solution? These people are living in misery, in poverty, and throwing more money at them and throwing it to the activists and the parasites in between is not being effective. It’s quite clear. Social justice includes people accepting responsibility for their own actions and genuine help on the ground. What is your government going to do about closing the gap, because it’s widening now?  

Senator Green: Thanks for the question, Senator. I reject the language in your question. Yesterday, in front of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, the National Indigenous Australians Agency appeared and gave a lot of evidence about all of the work that we are doing to improve outcomes and close the gap. Our government is committed to that. The Prime Minister gave a statement to acknowledge the Closing the gap reports. We acknowledge that not enough is being done and more needs to be done, and that’s why we’ve made significant investments in the budget. I want to thank the commissioner for the work that she does in highlighting not just to governments around the country but to everyone in the country how important it is that we do close the gap, not just for the people who are living these lives right now but for future generations of Australians.  

/by