While I am a Queensland Senator, the political battle taking place in Farrer is fascinating.
Usually, a by-election triggered by a resigning party leader is something of a walkover. A safe seat. A perfunctory vote. Little more than a formality and shuffling of candidates into pre-ordained positions of uniparty power.
Farrer is something this country hasn’t seen in a long time.
A battle for conservatism.
With a real choice.
The uniparty stranglehold is weakening, and the people of Farrer have an opportunity to be a part of history.
Former Liberal Leader Sussan Ley hastened the collapse of the Liberal Party, overseeing two Coalition break-ups during her short tenure. These were not minor tiffs. They were ideological breaking points where metropolitan wets came to blows with the regional National Party leadership. The LNP have become a coalition of opposing forces, tearing each other apart and united by little except an ever-decreasing whiff of nostalgia for a Menzies brand that has long since been colonised by One Nation.
How can those at war with each other possibly lead the fight against Labor?
As I say at the beginning of every speech, One Nation are the true opposition.
On the ground in Farrer, you will find very little love for the Liberals or Sussan Ley. Farrer was left unheard during Ley’s extended Listening Tour. On the campaign trail, the message is clear. They want something different. They want real leadership. They want someone who stands for their community on a local level and who is also capable of engaging in critical federal and international conversations that have real-world impacts. A person who knows the economic structure holding up regional Australia and has lived experience to bring to Canberra.
The choice of Raissa Butkowski, a community lawyer and Albury City Councillor, shows the Liberals attempting to replace Ley with something familiar – a foot half-in, half-out of the regional and town voting blocs without ever quite committing to the big issues. This is formulaic from the Liberals, a tad cynical in clinical adherence to sheer numbers, and the lukewarm response in the polls is entirely deserved. The people are not identity blocs to be wooed and enticed. They are a single electorate that deserves coherent and steadfast representation.
Prior polling and previous election results are useless. This is a new world, and Farrer is a fight between One Nation and the Climate-200-backed Independent.
It is a sort-of Litmus test for the future Teal vs Conservative rivalry in the leafy suburbs of Australia’s capital cities where those raised as blue ribbon conservatives have been temporarily captured by the luxury belief in apocalyptic virtue. Are those conservatives starting to wake up? I think so.
The Liberals believe conservatism can be saved from the clutches of Tealism (and its kin) by pretending that standing half-an-inch from Albanese is the ‘sensible centre’. Laughable.
One Nation suspects that what Australians really hunger for is a revival of true conservatism, the type of honest, grassroots adoration for Australia, its people and its assets, which built the country – from convict chains to skyscrapers. People want a break from radical, dangerous politics that ‘progresses’ the country toward the cliff-edge of socialist ruin. Voters are exhausted by virtue-chasing, global salvation narratives, and the burden of taxes that come with it. They don’t want to sleep with one eye open, wondering what their MPs are drafting in Canberra while they rest.
And what does this Independent, Michelle Milthorpe, offer?
No one is really quite sure, and that is the problem.
Who wants a mystery in a time of crisis and uncertainty?
The wishy-washy noncommittal politics of the green-left, Climate 200-funded collective is deliberate. It is convenient to never outright align with damaging climate change policy or Net Zero goals.
We can ask questions and make guesses as to what any future vote from Milthorpe might look like based on who supported her campaign, who she hired to help her (a former Teal campaign manager), and which political activist groups choose to engage with her message (GetUp!).
On that, it has been reported GetUp! raised $400,000 on an ‘anti-Pauline’ campaign for Farrer, with plans to spend over $600,000, which seems an extraordinary amount of money to use bombarding the people of Farrer. One Nation doesn’t drown voters in propaganda. Funds from GetUp!’s 100,000 members is apparently being spent telling the people of Farrer how to vote. How disgusting it is to treat Farrer as though it were a vending machine where, with enough money, the preferred product might fall out the bottom for collection.
We could also note that Ms Milthorpe has been on the campaign trail with independent David Pocock, whose website states his support of accelerating climate action along with a portfolio of fringe climate policies. Just because Ms Milthorpe won’t praise batteries or EVs does not mean she won’t be friendly to climate legislation that punishes reliable energy or farming activities.
It is certainly interesting that Ms Milthorpe has been defensive about those who draw ideological connections between her and the Teals due to Climate 200. Association with the ‘Teals’ used to be considered a vote-winning perk, however, in the regional seat of Farrer, where there are plenty of frustrated farmers who have had enough of Climate Change policy ruining their livelihoods, perhaps we can finally say that the shine is wearing off the climate narrative…
While an Independent can avoid questions about how they might vote on critical legislative issues, such as the future of Australia’s oil reserves, opening new refineries, and creating dubious agricultural trade deals with the European Union, One Nation is proud to declare its positions. Transparency is our duty, not an electoral inconvenience.
One Nation, regardless of whether it is a by-election, state campaign, or federal election, will never hide its position on the issues that matter to voters. We wish to be judged in the light so that our elected representatives can serve their electorates honestly and in good faith.
By-elections should not be a competition between parties to add another seat into their collection as if curating jewels in a crown. This is about good governance for the people who have, for far too long, been treated by major parties and independents as an inconvenience to be overcome on the way to Canberra.
How will Michelle Milthorpe vote on the hundreds of critical bills that will wash through Parliament under Albanese’s watch?
Who knows.
You can look One Nation’s David Farley in the eye and he will give you a direct answer. That is what we stand on as a party.
And so I continue to watch the Farrer by-election with great interest to see if the successes of the South Australian state election will continue over the border in New South Wales.
Are the people ready to rid themselves of damaging Net Zero legislation and the anti-agricultural mindset that has held our regions back? Regional Australians are already fiercely pro-environment, of course they are, they want to protect the land they live in and call home. Most have had enough of being lectured to by faux environmental movements who clog up city streets with their protests while never setting foot on the land. The people of Farrer know where the nation’s food comes from, and they know what must be done to protect the region.
David Farley is a man who will fight for Farrer, in the paddock, on the streets, and in Canberra.
Authorised by Malcolm Roberts, Brisbane.
The battle for Farrer – and conservatism by Senator Malcolm Roberts
The Liberal-National coalition and Labor are playing a desperate game of catch-up.
For years, they’ve ignored the real issues — energy, housing and mass immigration crisis, which started under John Howard and has exploded under the Albanese government. Now, they’re copying One Nation’s homework.
They drop the right buzzwords and borrow our rhetoric because they’re terrified of the polls, yet they still lack the data and the backbone to actually do good instead of just trying to look good.
People see through the “fluffy and vague” policies of other parties.
One Nation aren’t here to play status quo politics; we’re here to put Australia First.
It’s time to hold these politicians accountable and return the power to where it belongs: with the people.
For over 15 years, I have warned that the climate scam is a direct assault on the Australian way of life.
And it’s not just our hip pockets being hit — it’s our humanity.
Labor and Chris Bowen are selling you a “renewable revolution,” yet they aren’t telling you who’s paying the real price.
While Australian families struggle with soaring power bills, children in the Congo are forced into medieval conditions, digging for the minerals that fuel our “green” future.
Women are working in toxic, open-cut mines controlled by the Chinese Communist Party – all so we can pretend we’re “saving the planet.”
Our environment is being destroyed, our wildlife killed off, our economy smashed – and everyday Australians are getting poorer.
It’s not a revolution. It’s a scam!
Note: The data for 2026 confirms that our energy security has been sold off to foreign interests, with the vast majority of these large-scale wind and solar projects owned by overseas entities.
We need to stop this madness and put Australian families and human decency above the “renewable at all costs” cult. There is nothing virtuous about “renewable” energy.
Those who heard Senator Michaelia Cash’s speech about One Nation’s decision to vote against Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes-Cash Acceptance) Regulations 2025 might have been left with the impression that One Nation has abandoned cash.
Senator Cash said:
‘The obvious question that is before the Senate in relation to the disallowance motion is, “Why does One Nation want to ban cash?” Because that is exactly what this disallowance motion does.’
The Senator then implied that the reason Coles, Woolworths, and service stations are required to accept cash is because of this new regulation.
‘This is what this mandate does. That legal obligation exists because of the regulations that Senator Roberts and One Nation, for some very strange reason, now seek to disallow.’
I was astonished by this comment from the Senator.
Our reasons for wishing to disallow the Treasurer’s regulation are not bizarre at all. We have explained them clearly and repeatedly.
As has always been the case, our goal is to protect cash in the long-term – not allow its erosion through a thousand pieces of deceptively named regulation.
One Nation has been leading the national conversation on cash protection for decades, including against shameful attempts during the Morrison era to put limits on the size of cash transactions through their wildly unpopular Currency (Restrictions on the Use of Cash) Bill 2019. The Liberal Party sought to re-frame cash as the realm of crime, tax evasion, and the black market.
Then-Prime Minister Scott Morrison said:
‘This will be bad news for criminal gangs, terrorists, and those who are just trying to cheat on their tax or get a discount for letting someone else cheat on their tax. It’s not clever. It’s not okay. It’s a crime.’
He added: ‘Cash provides and easy, anonymous, and largely untraceable mechanism for conducting black economy activity.’
What an astonishingly bad-faith way to present cash transactions which have been the backbone of this nation. If the government wishes to crackdown on criminal activity, it could always try arresting criminals.
Public backlash forced the Liberals to stall the legislation in 2020, following which One Nation were successful in striking out the legislation.
This vocal opposition came from the same places it comes from today – rural and regional areas, community groups, churches, and even the Labor Party’s own ethnic branches. Meanwhile, the Liberals and Nationals never apologised for forcing Parliament to waste time stopping another unnecessary creep of a paranoid government.
As you can see, the Liberal Party are not friends of ‘cash’ … they never have been.
It is important to understand that the protection of cash as legal tender is something that has always been poorly defined and left to languish in significant legal grey areas as the banking system developed electronic currency.
Our Constitution requires the Commonwealth government to make cash available. The definition of ‘available’ is open to discussion and likely includes electronic transactions. Contrary to common assumption, banks are not required to make physical cash available.
Businesses are expected to accept cash, within reason, unless they put up a sign that explicitly states, ‘We do not accept cash.’ These signs are not common because customers, like myself, are often put-off by anti-cash sentiment.
Online businesses with no physical storefront cannot reasonably be forced to accept cash, nor would anyone ordering from their phone on TikTok expect them to. There are also market stalls or pop-up shops that lack the ability to handle cash safely. And then there are trading hours when it is deemed unsafe to handle cash.
To make things even murkier, a business is not required to take cash when doing so would place their staff at risk, which is fair, or where cash is not readily available. This is most common in rural areas where greedy banks have closed branches and removed ATMs.
The rise of the digital world has created an economic and political interest – particularly within the global banking sector – in discontinuing cash. This has prompted a public call for its explicit protection. In early June of 2024, Andrew Gee, Bob Katter, and Dai Le put forward the Private Member’s Bill Keeping Cash Transactions in Australia Bill 2024 to seek clarity on – and strengthen – the status of cash as legal tender.
This would have reinforced the legal obligation for all businesses, within reason and where appropriate, to accept cash up to $10,000 (but would not impose a ceiling). In clarifying the Reserve Bank Act (1959), it would then be possible to determine what the bones of the modern and future economy would look like before adding additional complexity through programmable currency and Bitcoin.
In other words … policy housekeeping.
Unfortunately, a proper debate on this important bill never took place, largely because Treasurer Jim Chalmers implied it would be addressed in Labor’s Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes-Cash Acceptance) Regulations 2025.
During the press conference that followed in November of 2024, Chalmers said:
‘Our objective when it comes to payments is to modernise our financial system … to make sure that there’s an ongoing role for cash … we’re making sure that people can pay cash for essentials if they want to and if they need to … what this means is that businesses selling essential items will have to accept cash with some appropriate carve-outs for small businesses and with a particular emphasis on regional areas.’
The Treasurer’s pinky-promise led to the Private Member’s Bill being dropped on good faith.
These regulations eventually manifested as a shadow of their former promise and, in my view, perfectly encapsulate the evil genius of the Uniparty anti-cash movement.
The Treasurer’s final regulation only provides that cash be protected as legal tender in supermarkets and petrol stations between 7am-9pm to a value of $500. That’s it.
For all other situations, the grey area of cash has been clarified – it is no longer protected.
What does this mean for cash throughout the rest of the economy? What about newsagencies? Public transport? Basic shopping? Parking? Pharmacies? Post-offices? Church collections? Buskers? Cultural celebrations? Greek weddings? The million other things that keep society moving…?
By proposing a mandate that only covers supermarkets and petrol stations, the Labor government did not protect cash. They issued an extermination order. The Uniparty are supporting an economy-wide restriction of cash. Remember, 23 per cent of adults do not have a credit or debit card, especially the elderly those challenged by technology.
One Nation predicts that as a consequence of these regulations, banks – who have already shown hostility to cash – will rush to stop accepting cash over the counter. The dwindling supply of ATMs will die out. And cash will drain out of our economy.
Concerned pharmacists came to see me last week to ask for pharmacies to be included, they were not – and yet still the Liberals support these government regulations. Are we going to see people turned away from buying medication because they don’t have a bank card?
An economic change of this significance should be put to the people, or opened to far more scrutiny than a regulation which is not subjected to the same Parliamentary rigour as an amendment.
To be clear, One Nation is not voting against protecting cash. That’s absurd.
We are voting against the specific regulation put forward by the Treasurer which we believe would confine cash protection to a small number of essential suppliers and leave the rest of the economic landscape open to a widespread loss of cash.
These regulations represent a broken promise to Andrew Gee, Bob Katter, Dai Le, and the Australian people.
We want to see banks held to their obligation to provide cash to Australians in a reasonable and easily accessible way. For the banks to be held to account when they attempt to cut regional communities off from ATMs and branches. We wish to see cash maintained as commonly accepted legal tender to ensure Australia has the flexibility to endure blackouts and digital malfunctions, and to take precautions that the banking sector is never in a position to hold money hostage. This is especially important in regional areas where the digital world struggles, and as we approach an increasingly dangerous geopolitical situation. We have seen conflict target energy grids and telecommunications. It would be insane to remove the protection of cash at this point in history.
Ultimately, what the banks want … what the corporate world wants … and what is best for the security of the Australian economy are not always the same thing and it is our duty as elected representatives of the people to act in their best interests.
Senator Cash has presented the option as a binary choice: support the Treasurer or condemn cash. I believe that to be a misrepresentation of the situation.
One Nation will not void the legal assumption that cash is protected by replacing it with a declaration that it is not. Let’s protect cash properly and permanently.
And, if we really are heading toward a fully digital world, and that march cannot be stopped because of cultural and ideological changes, then we absolutely must sit down and have a proper discussion about safeguarding citizens from the known dangers and exploitation made possible in a digital-only environment.
One Nation demands that this topic be taken seriously and soberly for the protection of Australia’s economic future.
Whether it is basic redundancy from energy and internet disruption, or protection against nefarious banking practices, cash is a vital safety net.
And it is obvious that the public wish to see it preserved.
One Nation is protecting cash, not the Treasurer by Senator Malcolm Roberts
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Bracket-Creep.png?fit=858%2C504&ssl=1504858Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-04-16 15:07:292026-04-16 15:07:37One Nation is Protecting Cash – Not the Treasurer
RBA cash rate rises create serious concern for 5% home deposits
Labor’s ‘Big Australia’ mass migration project, designed to shore-up Albanese’s vote at the next election, has created a catastrophic housing shortage.
Everyone knows it.
Even if the media and self-interested uniparty choose to deny the facts.
Young people across the country know it too. They are the ones standing in rental lines behind 50 people who cannot speak English, trying to decipher rental signs written in a foreign language and clearly pitched to everyone except Aussie kids.
They feel upset. Betrayed. Left out. And ignored.
These Australians know they are competing against Labor’s migration agenda, not organic competition like their parents and grandparents faced. This is not, in any way, a ‘fair’ housing market.
When these young Australians decide to ditch the soul-crushing rental queue and take on the dream of home ownership that changed their parents’ lives – they discover an even worse situation.
The price of homes, including small city apartments in the areas they need to live to keep their jobs, are unattainable.
Some of this price increase is to do with greedy government fees and charges, while the rest is a consequence of too much demand from people who live outside the Australian economic cost-of-living crisis. Foreign buyers often have the means to push prices well above what they should be.
In Australia, house prices have advanced much faster than the average wage. Even those earning $100,000 per year – once considered a mark of success – feel that home ownership is financially impossible. These people are no longer considered to be ‘doing well’. They are struggling.
Not to mention that the average worker has a considerable amount of their wage taken as ‘super’ and given to union funds to play the stockmarket. This makes union super funds rich and pushes huge volumes of investment money into projects – usually in the green industry – that otherwise would never receive private funding. $4.5 trillion has been taken out of people’s pockets and locked away. This money remains untouchable until someone turns 65. 8-10% of Australians will die before they access their super (or 56% of Indigenous Australians). That money used to be used for home investment and there is good reason to believe that compulsory super is one of the contributing factors to a major drop in home ownership amongst the middle and working classes.
There are ways to immediately improve the housing situation – the most obvious being the deportation of visa overstayers and a severe cut to migration. This would immediately free up hundreds of thousands of properties for domestic buyers and renters.
That would benefit Australians and massively hurt the political class and their major financial backers.
Instead of doing the right thing, Chalmers & Co have designed a system to turn a profit from the hardship and desperation of young Australians.
In August of 2025, the Labor government introduced their 5% deposit scheme for first home buyers. There is also another version of this for single parents to buy a home with a 2% deposit.
Labor described this as ‘helping more Australians realise their dream of home ownership’ where the government (taxpayers) ‘guarantee a portion of a first home buy’s home loan with a lower deposit and not pay Lenders Mortgage Insurance’.
Their argument is this:
‘All first home buyers will have access, with no caps on places or incomes limits. Property price caps will also be set higher in line with the average house prices, providing access to a greater variety of homes.’
Predictably, this did not unlock more desirable homes – it created an almost immediate increase in home prices. Labor said it would be 0.6% over the medium term. Instead, it was 3.6% in the first quarter. The developers win. Ministers in Canberra with property portfolios win.
Finder says the average loan amount for first home buyers in December 2025 was $607,624. This is a huge sum of money. In 2015, you could expect a first homebuyer to take on $333,500. Westpac says first homebuyers are typically over 40. This shows you how much harder it is to get enough financial security to consider buying a home.
And while the ‘average wage’ is listed as $104,000, it’s suspected that this figure is skewed and the real average is probably closer to $88,000. After tax that’s around $69,000.
If you think this whole thing sounds like a bad idea, you’re right.
To translate it into economic reality, Labor is encouraging and actively changing the rules to allow young Australians to take on loans they cannot realistically afford (and would not be normally given) right when the RBA has warned it will continue to raise the cash rate – which it has done multiple times since the scheme began.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers said he did his degree in ‘Paul Keating’ – now he is in danger of re-creating Keating’s gravest mistake.
A person with a normal mortgage that they attained under strict rules is already suffering under the RBA rate rises. Individuals who took on a 95% mortgage are at a very serious risk of defaulting. It only takes a small rate rise on a sum of money this large to lead them into disaster.
An entire generation of vulnerable, trusting Australians have been led into imminent economic ruin by a government that thought 5% deposits were nothing more than a vote-buying game.
It isn’t a game.
It’s people’s lives.
People’s futures.
This isn’t about ‘votes for Labor’ for people who think the government is ‘gifting’ them a house, it’s about Australians watching their savings burn and homes taken off them in a time of economic uncertainty.
It’s rare to find a government that cares so little about young people – although we know exactly why they did it.
Mass migration is a vote buying operation for the Labor Party. They cannot give it up, even though home ownership is the leading election topic among their rising young demographic that is in danger of being taken by the Greens. Labor has made a wager on a short-term vote winner with no regard for the coming disaster.
Even the Daily Mail warned of an impending catastrophe after the latest RBA cash rate rise highlighted a significant rise in risky mortgages (4% of the total market!)
To quote:
‘While the banks are insulated by the government guarantee, which covers the first 15% of any losses from these loans, households are exposed. The banks are fine. The main risk falls on individuals.’
It’s widely expected war in Iran, and the high petrol prices and fuel insecurity that flow on from this scenario, will increase inflation and lead to even more rate rises in the near future.
Government debt – also known as Chalmers’ spending spree – is the main driver of inflation and the interest repayments on this blackhole are climbing every day.
When debt passes $1 trillion – which it is expected to do shortly – interest payments will cost $60 million per day or $41,667 every minute.
Every Australian – whether they are an infant or retired – owes $806.65 every year in just interest. And that’s if Chalmers stops spending right now. And to pay off the $1 trillion debt tomorrow, it would require every person to cough up $36,850.01.
If fuel prices increase (or fuel rationing starts), we can expect a catastrophic loss of businesses and, therefore, jobs. How many young people will lose their jobs and be unable to service these mortgages?
The uniparty doesn’t care. The government never loses.
It raises taxes. It tightens your belt so it can eat more money.
Remember, if you think the LNP are any better, they have their own reasons for supporting ‘Big Australia’. The Howard government marked the start of mass migration. All Coalition governments since have done nothing to change it and they never will.
One Nation are desperately worried about the future young people face.
We have a comprehensive policy to cut immigration by over 570,000 and to deport 75,000 migrants visa over-stayers, illegal workers, and unlawful non-residents who threaten our national security. We also have a housing policy to ensure unnecessary fees, charges, and taxes are cut to get homes built without destroying our green spaces or cultural heritage.
One Nation is here to make a genuine difference for you, not Canberra.
Labor TRAPPED young people by Senator Malcolm Roberts
RBA cash rate rises create serious concern for 5% home deposits
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Housing.jpg?fit=654%2C657&ssl=1657654Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-03-26 10:14:112026-03-26 10:14:24Labor Trapped Young People
How Labor is turning fuel security into another Net Zero scam under the banner of ‘national security’
Despite decades of warnings, Australia has been exposed to an incredibly dangerous situation.
We have 20-ish days of fuel security, much of it hosted offshore, and all of it draining away as war escalates in the Middle East.
As for a backup plan? That doesn’t exist.
‘In a time of conflict, this government is running a ‘she’ll be right’ attitude.
‘There is no need to panic-buy petrol…’ insisted our reckless, over-spending Treasurer, Jim Chalmers.
Chalmers was simultaneously trying to blame the war in Iran for his dodgy budget accounting while pretending there’s ‘nothing to see here’ with the fuel situation.
Prime Minister Albanese’s Energy Minister, who has forgotten about carbon emissions, backed Chalmers’ comments, insisting that panic buying would ‘just make the situation worse’.
It’s impossible for Australian taxpayers to make the fuel situation ‘worse’ after successive Labor and Coalition Unitparty governments left us in a catastrophic position. We import 90% of our liquid fuel – this includes our requirements for domestic transport, industry, agriculture, and military defence.
To save money on storage, the vast majority of these imports come as ‘just-in-time’ deliveries.
Even the fuel we import from Asia is sourced largely from the Middle East – and we can expect China to lean heavily on this supply now that its import network is severely disrupted after what happened in Venezuela, Iran, and the wider Middle East.
Other nations are forced to rely on dicey international transit routes, and Australia has chosen to do the same. This is a monumental political failure.
Over 20 years, six of our eight refineries were closed or substantially wound down with ‘competition from Asia’ cited as the reason. Two of these critical refineries met their demise under the watch of the then-Energy Minister Angus Taylor, who now seeks to present himself as the salvation of conservatism.
At the time of ExxonMobil’s decision to close the Altona refinery (constructed in 1946), Angus Taylor said this ‘will not negatively impact Australian fuel stockholdings’.
This was simply wrong. It was wrong then and it’s wrong now.
Successive Coalition-Labor governments have sold Australia’s national security off to free up cash in the budget or because they could not be bothered to argue the case of national security when it mattered.
We still have minimum reserve supply rates, which are designed to buffer against natural disasters and temporary disruptions – they are not satisfactory for extended periods of global conflict nor do they make provisions for the fuel-guzzling behaviours of our geopolitical partners. This means that earlier war-gaming by the government, which insists Australia can buy its way out of a shortage, lack the real-world probability that nations will protect their own needs above our contractual arrangements.
It’s a cold, hard reality that if Australia were to be cut-off from its fuel deliveries, the wheels of our nation would fall off in early April.
A 2018 report commissioned by the government suggested Australia maintain domestic refinery capabilities. It did not foresee simultaneous disruption to Asian, Middle Eastern, and South American fuel markets. It did not foresee conflict zones and regime changes in Europe, the Middle East, and South America. It did not foresee the largest refinery in the Middle East going up in flames, or Iran deliberately targeting the entire energy structure of its neighbours. And it did not foresee the oil politics taking place between Russia, Ukraine, and neighbouring nations such as Hungary.
In other words, the government report failed to properly gauge future risk and assumed a world that no longer exists.
…even after US President Donald Trump gave everyone the hint with his, Drill, baby, drill! push to bolster domestic supply.
As the Maritime Union of Australia said earlier this week:
‘This is not a distant geopolitical drama, but a direct threat to Australian workers, families, and industries.
When a fifth of the world’s oil moves through a single maritime corridor and that corridor is shut by war, the consequences are immediate.’
It’s in this environment that our party leader, Pauline Hanson, put forward a proposal for an immediate inquiry into fuel security. To this we would also request full transparency on how long it would take and how much it would cost to construct domestic self-sufficiency in fuel refineries.
These are things we need to know.
And what did Labor and the Greens do?
They voted it down.
They put party politics ahead of Australia’s security and your future survival.
Their dislike of Pauline Hanson, who they wasted time censuring for a second time, overrode their responsibility to the people of this nation. This is the type of politicking that must end.
While we take fuel security seriously, there is evidence mounting that Labor and the Greens intend to use public panic as a means to prop-up their dying ‘Net Zero’ industry.
The Climate Catastrophism narrative has well and truly worn off, with most Australians – and nations around the world – realising that it was a scam designed to line the pockets of mining operations and foreign energy companies with public money. A lot of politicians found very rich private sector jobs after legislating in favour of all things ‘green’.
Now, ‘national security’ has become the next unquestionable buzz word that can be invoked by the Prime Minister, Treasurer, and his Energy Minister to justify another pivot toward decarbonisation.
The outrageous propaganda is already starting.
News.com.au ran a story at the beginning of March, Why your next car is a matter of Australia’s national security.
It was one of many pieces caught up in the ‘EV to save us from the Iran war’ frenzy.
If you wouldn’t drive an electric car for yourself, would you do it for your country? Conflict in Iran is a stark reminder: an EV is more than a personal choice – it’s a matter of national security. Choosing an EV makes you, me, and our wider community less reliant on fossil fuels.
The Australian Electric Vehicle Association also put out a press release: EVs have always been about fuel security. Really? I thought they were about ‘saving the world’?
AEVA argues that the full electrification of transport remains the single most effective strategy the nation can enact to improve fuel security.
Of course, there is no explanation as to how relying on communist China – which uses Middle Eastern oil to build EVs and Middle Eastern diesel to ship them to Australia – solves any of our problems.
Nor is there a reliable answer to the transport industry, which is incompatible with electric trucks. And there isn’t even a faint ‘nod’ to where China sources the materials for the construction of our renewable grid – those being volatile African nations which operate under a mixture of debt-trapping and despot corruption, abuses of human rights, and traversing regions of the world prone to terrorism and war.
Even if we were to replace our domestic fossil fuel energy grid with solar, wind, and batteries – there is nothing more vulnerable in a time of conflict than a giant solar industrial complex or thousands of kilometres of transmission lines running through undefended forests and open ocean.
Strategically, it’s madness.
In reality – it’s impossible.
Yet attempting to achieve this lunacy is a ‘national security’ narrative with which the Prime Minister and his mates will likely try to appease the Greens.
The Greens have come out in open defiance in recent weeks and their voters will see it as an ideological victory and anti-war protest. Their support will join huge corporations already gorging on taxpayer dollars and unions protecting Net Zero-inclined funds.
Money and opportunism are about to hijack public fear over the war to revive the Net Zero industry.
And it will do so at the expense of Australia’s national security.
One Nation believes this to be one of the most dangerous fake news narratives an Australian government has ever sold. A short-sighted, selfish political move that could leave Australia open to a very real logistic catastrophe.
We call on the entire Parliament to put fuel security at the top of the agenda, and to restore Australia’s energy grid to self-sufficient network as a matter of urgency.
One Nation will immediately buy whatever supplies we can obtain in the market, which the Albanese government is still not doing. Then we will work with fuel companies to get new oil refineries in Kurnell and upgrade the Lytton plant in Brisbane, and Geelong in Victoria.
We will immediately start construction on gas-to-fuel plants and legislate a domestic gas reservation so we have cheap Australian gas to convert to fuel. We will build the missing link in the national gas network – a pipeline to connect the East coast and West coast gas networks.
This violation of national security can never be allowed to happen again.
‘Running on empty’ by Senator Malcolm Roberts
How Labor is turning fuel security into another Net Zero scam under the banner of ‘national security’
This bill is a licence to arrest dissidents, halt debate, and silence political opposition.
On December 14, 2025 – an Islamic terror attack occurred in Australia.
Two individuals associated with the foreign ISIS group, one of whom ASIO was supposedly ‘watching’, went to an Australian beach and started murdering innocent people.
On Australian soil. A massacre of innocent people.
These individuals and their anti-human murderous intent are presumed to be products of an Islamic theocratic ideology which is part of a network of militant Islamic groups that engage in a combination of regional conflicts, power struggles, and the global act of intifada in which they seek to spread Islam ‘by the Sword’ and subjugate the peoples and religions of the world.
Islamic terror is not a response to the behaviour of the Australian people. Indeed, it has been forming caliphates for over 1,400 years. To make any insinuation that Australians and their speech are somehow to blame is an insult to rational thought.
These statements about Islam and its history of creating violent militancy are factual statements that will no doubt become criminal hate speech if the Prime Minister and his government are allowed to shamelessly exploit the Bondi Islamic terror attack.
As we speak, the Prime Minister and his ministers are busy creating a political firestorm to fabricate the feeling of existential terror – the purpose is to rush people.
To panic people.
To pass the single, most dangerous piece of legislation this nation has ever seen.
An Islamic terror attack took place, and yet this omnibus bill doesn’t have the guts to name the ideological perpetrator. Look at it. Where is the call to identify radical Islam?
Where does it cite the ideology that is the chief cause of fear among Australians?
Australians are smarter than that. Go online – before social media is banned – and listen to what people are saying. They spotted the oversight immediately.
The title of this bill is a real-time rewriting of the narrative. The Prime Minister has repackaged Islamic terror as some sort of vague antisemitism and the impossible-to-define ‘hate speech’.
This matters because Islamic terror is not a reaction to criticism of Islam, criticism of mass migration, support of Australia’s Western heritage, our Christian foundation, our demands for women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, or other Western-centric thought.
Nor do French satirical cartoons or Salman Rushdie’s literary works cause Islamic terror.
Islamic terror exists to oppress, to kill, and to convert.
Enacting ruthless, politically motivated censorship against the Australian people – and specifically conservative Australians – will not stop a single Islamic terror attack.
Let me repeat – this bill will not stop a single Islamic terror attack.
Islamic terror’s hatred – its antisemitism – its desire to ‘behead the infidels’ – which was shouted on the streets of Sydney ten years ago and with no response from authorities, politicians, or this Parliament – stems from its radicalised religious belief that is an ideology for structuring society.
An inhuman, uncivilised society.
Shutting up Australians and interfering with what should be the sacred, unassailable right to free speech and political communication – is not an act of protection. It is an act of aggression.
The Australian people asked you, Prime Minister, to stop Islamic terror. To deport the Islamic hate preachers. To find out why people on an ASIO watchlist had access to firearms. To find out why people on an ASIO watchlist were able to travel to known Islamic terror training areas.
They want to know why your government has not proscribed various known Islamic hate groups despite our allies doing so. They want to know why your government brought back female members of the Islamic State terror group despite the community telling you no.
And why your minister lied to cover up the ISIS brides’ return as it was being planned – and while it was underway.
They want to know why people holding Jewish and Australians flags are routinely arrested while those carrying Hamas, Hezbollah, and ISIS flags are not.
They want to know why current and former members of government marched beneath a portrait of the Ayatollah whose Iranian regime serves as the heart of Islamic terror – exporting it to the world including Australia.
And cruelly treats its own citizens.
Why are you, Prime Minister, presenting to us this omnibus bill which fails – catastrophically – to confine itself to the religious ideology that is murdering Australians, attacking the Jewish community, and spreading hate and violence in our country?
You and your government were given a very specific and narrow request from the people of Australia: get the Islamic terrorists out of this country or put them in jail.
What you have done instead is sloppily and dangerously draft an astonishingly extensive omnibus bill – which must be the work of months, not weeks – to make it nearly impossible for the average Australian to voice their God-given dissent, concern, and disgust at various policies and cultural changes to our country.
It is the codification of blasphemy known under the new name, ‘Islamophobia’.
As the late, great, left-wing figure Christopher Hitchens said: ‘Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons. Resist it, while you still can.’
I look around and think how far the left have fallen.
This bill is, without question, without any doubt, an abuse of Parliament’s power.
It’s a licence to arrest dissidents, halt debate, and silence political opposition the likes of which we have not seen in a hundred years.
The Prime Minister hopes that obstructing the Parliamentary process with grief and fear will be his means for creating a moral panic and that my fellow Senators will act rashly.
This bill extends the victims of the Bondi Islamic terror attack to all the people of our nation.
If this bill is passed, those who voted in favour will be betraying everything our ancestors built, everything they believed in, and slamming the door to democracy.
We make a tragedy worse – we multiply the fear – when government puts into law a document expressly PROTECTING the agents of Islamic terror and jails the Australians who try to warn against it.
This bill is the opposite of what the Australian people asked members of Parliament to do.
I believe my role is as a servant to the people of Australia. I was elected to the Senate to help shape the law and to serve Australians and to serve Australia – not to expand the reach of government into the realms of petty censorship.
After all, was it not the Senate that censured my Party Leader, Pauline Hanson, for wearing a burqa to warn that we were sleep-walking into radical Islamic terror? Two weeks later, her warnings were made real and yet she is denied a place to vote on the very issue for which she was silenced.
This bill must be voted down – in its entirety – and re-written to serve the true purpose for which it was intended: to stop Islamic terror.
It should be renamed the Combatting Islamic Terror and Hate Preachers Bill – or nothing.
As many have pointed out, our existing laws were sufficient to stop the previous terror attacks, to deport hate preachers, to disband terror networks, and arrest those who march in support of terror groups.
And yet we do NOT use those laws.
Why? Are police afraid to arrest Islamic terrorists? Are courts afraid to convict? Is the Labor government afraid of the next election?
We are not at the limit of the law – so why are we sitting here drafting new ones?
If the old ones are not used to combat Islamic terror – what makes anyone think the news ones will be?
It is far more likely – and I put this to the Australian people – that by Australia Day, it will still be acceptable to state and federal governments for demonstrators to break the law and walk under the Hamas-aligned pro-Palestine banner shouting the genocidal ‘from the river to the sea’ – while it will be illegal, or at least dangerous, to fly the Australian flag and call for an end to mass migration.
Come on. Let’s face truth and put Australians’ safety first.
Enacting ruthless, politically motivated censorship against the Australian people – and specifically conservative Australians – will not stop a single Islamic terror attack.
Say its name, Albanese: Islamic terror by Senator Malcolm Roberts
This bill is a licence to arrest dissidents, halt debate, and silence political opposition
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.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/b69d5c74-8e91-4b3f-9e45-f7742d71a2bd_1494x1037.jpg?fit=1494%2C1037&ssl=110371494Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-12-03 18:10:072025-12-03 18:17:02Bigger than the Burqa
Host – Damian Coory: The latest news poll by The Australian newspaper shows that what we predicted on this show for some time now in terms of what would happen to the mainstream conservative parties in this country, the Liberals and the Nationals, is in fact happening. Instead of the Coalition’s push to the left flank and Susan Ley’s insistence on a modern approach helping them pick up voters and pick up young people, it’s had the complete opposite effect. The Coalition parties have seen men running a mile and younger Aussies abandoning the party in droves. It’s worst in the eastern states. Only 25% of voters in NSW now support the Coalition. Remember, at the end of last year, Peter Dutton’s conservative, strong approach had the Coalition on 40% primary vote and rising on track for victory. The party’s weaklings on the left moved in and asked for the message to be toned down to save unwinnable inner city seats that had fundamentally changed forever anyway, and with muddled messages and bad campaign leadership, Dutton looked weak, inconsistent, rudderless and as a result he of course lost. Blind Freddie could have seen it coming. There’s no gender gap in who likes the Coalition either. They’re equally disliked by both genders. It’s 29% of men and 29% of women who say they’ll vote for them. Joining me now to discuss all this is long time One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts. Malcolm, thank you for coming in and joining us on The Other Side.
Malcolm Roberts: Thank you for having me, Damian.
Damian Coory: So all this bad news for the Coalition, It’s been somewhat good news for One Nation. The Australian reports that One Nation’s increased its primary vote since the federal election from 6.4 to 9%. That’s a almost a 50% jump. In NSW you’re on 10%. Other conservative and libertarian leaning parties and independents have also seen their primary votes jump as well. I think in NSW the collective is 20% now, which is almost at the level that the Coalition is at. I mean, interesting times for you.
Malcolm Roberts: Very interesting and really satisfying. There’s a global move, there’s a national move, there’s a conservative move and there’s a One Nation move. They’re all need to be factored in. Actually, some of the polls we’ve seen have actually been higher than the numbers you’ve quoted, Damian.
Damian Coory: OK.
Malcolm Roberts: Which is marvellous. NSW, for example, I think One Nation is at 16%. But internationally people are tired of the fake conservatives – the Tories, the Republicans or the those – well the Republicans are a bit different because the party has quite a bit of variety across it, same as the Democrats. Some of the Democrats will vote with Trump, you know, so that’s understandable. But Trump is not really a Republican, he’s not really a Democrat. He’s an independent and they have to be registered as a party, in one of the two parties to get in. So he’s there. Nigel Farage is there in Britain, Pauline Hanson’s been here for a long time. So that’s the first thing. Globally, people are saying we’ve had enough. We’ve had a gutful of the lies from the from the pseudo conservatives. We want the real conservatives.
Damian Coory: I think people can see through the fakeness too.
Malcolm Roberts: Absolutely.
Damian Coory: The lack of authenticity. One of the things that supporters, non supporters of Trump said initially was, you know, I don’t agree with Donald Trump, but I like the fact that I know where he stands and what he stands for and he seems authentic, and I can believe when he says something, he pretty much means it. Even if he’s a bit fast and loose on the factual side of the truth, they know that he’s genuinely coming from a place of consistency. And you know what you’re buying? You know what …
Malcolm Roberts: Exactly. Exactly Damian. I’ve got more grey hair than you have by a long way, so I’m aware of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. I was in my early 30s in Ronald Reagan – no, no, late 20s-mid 20s in fact was Reagan and Reagan and Thatcher, and I’ll always remember comments from more than one person, former Brits who’ve moved out here and they used to vote Labour in Britain. And they told me that they voted Labour until Thatcher came along. They said she – they didn’t like all her policies, but you knew where you stood. And it’s the uncertainty removed. So, the global trend, the trend within the country because of what you said with the fake Liberals, I think what happens when you get conservative, whether it be Abbott or Dutton, is that the wets in the Liberals undermine him. It makes it very, very hard. So I don’t put the blame with Dutton, I put to blame with – well, he should have called them out, but anyway, with the party itself. And the third thing is that Pauline’s been around almost 30 years, 29 years and people have seen her – what she said back in 1996 is coming true. Everything she said and she’s been so consistent. They tried to jail her.
Damian Coory: They did jail her.
Malcolm Roberts: That’s right.
Damian Coory: She actually served a couple of months or something.
Malcolm Roberts: She got out on appeal. They infiltrated her party, destroyed her party, destroyed it from within. That’s Labor and Liberal. They also called her racist and other labels which are completely false. I mean you’re not one nation because you have division. You’re One Nation because you believe everyone has the same entitlements. So she’s far from racist, but what they did was they called her racist in the hope that people would not vote for. And that worked for a while, but now people are saying she’s not racist. They realise that and they’re saying I want someone who’s truthful and accurate. And so they’re moving to Pauline because of that. And also quite frankly, our policies, and I mean this sincerely, are the best I’ve ever seen of any political party in this country. They’re comprehensive, holistic and they’re targeted.
Damian Coory: Now the News poll analysis reveals that particularly male voters seem to be moving away from the Coalition under Susan Ley and if, you know, if Peter Dutton and Scomo had a women problem, then Susan Ley’s got a men problem. Not that you care that much about that though, but anyway, the gains that you’ve made though, as opposed to the gains of other independent and minor right parties, they seem to have picked up men, but you’ve got gains from both genders. You’re doing something right in terms of appealing to women as well. How do you read that?
Malcolm Roberts: Well, it’s not because we’ve got a female party leader, it’s because what we say – we go out and listen, and I mean really listen. The Coalition and the Labor Party pretend to listen, but people know they’re not listening. They can’t listen because they’ve already got their policies stitched up and the policies are almost identical between Labor and Liberal. And we’ve been calling them the UNI Party because that’s what they are. Pauline is the only opposition to the UNI party and people can see that. So that’s something. But with regard to men, it’s older people, younger people. Older people are probably saying my grandkids have got no chance of getting a house. The younger kids are saying, in their 20s, are saying where do we get a house? How do I get a house? How do I even rent a house? How do I find a house? How do I rent it? How do I have children without the house?
Damian Coory: And women are concerned about the future of these young people, obviously. So, moving from gender to age breakdowns, if we look at those, the Liberal and National Party votes have fallen the most among older voters, which is surprising. It’s very grim, though, among people aged 18 to 34. So, I think in March, it was 28% of that group, that age group, and now it’s only 18% – six months later.
Malcolm Roberts: Less than a fifth.
Damian Coory: Yeah, it’s incredible.
Malcolm Roberts: Yeah. These policies are appealing to everyone right across the board, all ages. But they understand the energy problem has been manufactured and what do the Liberals do? Instead of – and I talked with Tony Abbott, I talked with John Howard, I talked with Corey Bernardi when he was a Liberal. And other people are saying why the hell don’t you just tell the truth? We know you’re a sceptic. Why don’t you come out and just say it? They can’t mount the argument. Whereas we’ve come out and said climate change is a scam – it’s rubbish and demolished it, and now it’s coming true.
Damian Coory: Well, I think they let the other side set the agenda and then they follow …
Malcolm Roberts: Got it.
Damian Coory: in a frightened way. They’re not leading. And if you don’t lead, if you don’t have a strong position, then you can’t really get people to follow you. And I think this sort of fear of trying, or trying to play the middle all the time on issues where, you know, maybe there’s not a middle and people need an alternative. Strongly put.
Malcolm Roberts: People want the truth and we have been calling out the truth forever – since I’ve been in politics, and Pauline, ever since she’s been in politics. When we’re very – we’re not afraid to say the truth and what we do is – Pauline’s insisting on this and I’ve always insisted on it because in my past people’s lives depended upon me getting the data. So we get the data and then we open our gobs.
Damian Coory: Another thing that’s interesting too is your share of people aged over 65, which has doubled from 5 to 11%. So you’re doing very well with the the older demographic and people say “oh, well, they’ll be dead soon” forgetting the fact that of course more people come into that demographic that demographic doesn’t go away. The people in it change, but the demographic doesn’t go away. And so it’s important, I mean this is an important part of our community. These are the elders. These are what we used to think are the wise ones and that we shut up and listen to. We don’t do that so much anymore. We listen too much to the young. But isn’t that a – is that a sign that people are maturing into One Nation, I guess or maturing into more conservative ideas still as they get older?
Malcolm Roberts: Yes. And that’s always been the case. We’ve been particularly high amongst the aged people over 60 / 65 for quite a while. But what we’re seeing now is grandparents coming to us and saying, my kids, my grandchildren cannot get a house, cannot get a future. They’re paying ridiculous energy prices for this scam on climate change. Property rights are being stolen. They’re concerned. Retired people have more time on their hands and they do the research and older people, you know, I’m a grandparent now, we’ve got one grandson, but I don’t mean this in a negative way, but I’ve got more time, more interest, more focus on my grandson than on my own children – when at the same age.
Damian Coory: You’ve got more time.
Malcolm Roberts: So I’m very concerned about his future. And then that applies – that’s what grandparents are telling us. Where do their grandkids get a house?
Damian Coory: Yeah, well, I mean, you know, it’s funny because I often think doing this show and I know you, in politics is like – we swim in a sea of left wing assumptions, right?
Malcolm Roberts: We don’t.
Damian Coory: Personally we don’t, but I mean the country does. And we think that just because these people have got the microphones and the television cameras and you know, that they control what people think and they have a great influence over it. There’s no question of it. But ultimately, I think people do – are waking up. I think we are seeing a shift. I think it’ll be like America where that shift comes politically before it comes through the media or you know, but I think there’s something being missed by our talking classes, our chattering classes in relation to what is really going on with the grassroots level and what people really care about. Right?
Malcolm Roberts: You’re absolutely right. I’ve agreed with everything you’ve said so far. The chattering classes – they’re a manifestation of the left. They’re a vehicle for the left. I don’t like calling them left and right because the terms are confusing.
Damian Coory: Yeah, it’s simplistic – have to have some way of …
Malcolm Roberts: I use the terms control versus freedom. And the right is usually free and the left is usually control. All of the major control freaks throughout human history, well with very few exceptions, have been lefties – have been have been controlled side of politics, communist, socialist. That’s you look at Stalin, Mao, Hitler. Hitler was a was a lefty, he was a socialist. So they’ve mostly, all of them come, have come from the left side of politics, the control side of politics. And, and they weave a very attractive tale because it’s emotionally based, It’s not factually based. And what they do is they create victims, they set up victims, whether it be transgenders or whatever. And then they appeal to those victims. And what they do is essentially cripple those people. Damian, those people are made to be victims. And they’re in victimhood. That means they’re dependent on the government. And I don’t mean just financially, I mean morally and in their own, in their own psyche. So it’s really very crippling what they do.
Damian Coory: They want to create a welfare state.
Malcolm Roberts: Exactly.
Damian Coory: They want the dependency on government.
Malcolm Roberts: Exactly. Exactly.
Damian Coory: Control people.
Malcolm Roberts: Yeah. And in my first speech in parliament in 2016, September, I- we’re not supposed to in our first speech, criticise people, not not directly anyway. So I didn’t, I refrained. But I looked across at the Greens when I said part of the agenda in parliament is anti human. And I looked specifically at the Greens and then my second speech, I labelled them as anti humans. So the lefties are very much anti human. If you look at Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Maurice Strong lefties, all of them lefties and they’re anti human.
Damian Coory: Malcolm, just I want to ask you, what is One Nation’s plan to build on this momentum? I mean, you’ve got this great sort of turn around happening now. Could this be the moment that we- because a lot of people keep asking me, “when are we going to see a great party emerge that’s going to dominate the the conservative side of politics in Australia?”
Malcolm Roberts: How do we keep the momentum? We keep doing what we’re what we are doing. We go ahead and listen and then we speak accurately as representatives of the people. That’s our basic job, to serve the people by putting in place policies and actions that meet people’s needs. But above all, listen to people so we can understand their needs. That’s the first thing. The second thing is keep telling the truth. We’re known to be outspoken, but factually correct and data-based. So we’ll keep doing that and keep developing good policies. Our policies are resonating with people of all ages.
Damian Coory: I think that’s a very important point. You know, keep it fact based, keep it as truthful as you can. At least you know, you’re putting a consistent message out, consistent story out and people can see it and they can trust you more than any other comment I get, and you probably hear it too, is, you know, “why don’t the minor right leaning parties all join?” You know, why don’t they all join?
Malcolm Roberts: There are there are subtle differences sometimes mark differences between the between us and the micro-parties. So that’s one thing. And in democracy you keep people, you keep parties, ideologies, positions alive. You don’t try to bury them.
Malcolm Roberts: So
Damian Coory: it doesn’t hurt to have a bit of variety. We’ve got that preferential voting system. So that helps because people can, you know, use it to kind of vote in the order
Malcolm Roberts: Exactly. And so the way to work together, and we’ve said this for for years now, is to recommend that our voters who vote for us vote, vote for the other the micro-parties 2, 3, 4, put them ahead of them, the conservatives, the fake conservatives, the Liberal/Nationals and the Labor Party. So that’s the same. That’s one way of doing it. But the other thing it’s very important to remember is we reached out to all the micro-parties and they all said, “yeah, yeah, that’d be great preference, you know, give- recommend our party be preferenced.” “Yeah, yeah, yeah.” Where did they put us? Rennick put us 6. In the seat of Rankin he put us behind the- behind the- No! behind the Labor Party.
Damian Coory: Oh, OK. That’s not-
Malcolm Roberts: And on the Senate, he put us #6. We put him #2 same with the other micro-parties. And the reason is, and we said this before the election, Damien, that we were the only party that was capable of getting a senator elected in every state. And we came, we got three states senators elected. We came very close in each of the other three, two incredibly close. And so-
Damian Coory: Instead it might not know who watched this show. There’s that in Queensland. The Senate race was very tight for the last spot between you and Gerard Rennick.
Malcolm Roberts: Well, it ended up not being tight at all. We didn’t even rely on his preferences-
Damian Coory: Right. So you you cleanly won.
Malcolm Roberts: And he merged with Katter’s. So when you look at his personal vote, it was very small as a party. But the other thing to remember is that it’s just-
Damian Coory: That division is not helpful, though. I think a lot of people would say, you know, that we’d like to see you and Gerard working together. But, you know, we understand that people have different views in politics. Obviously, your decision to put him second is a signal that you stand by your values, that it’s not about the political game in the end.
Malcolm Roberts: Correct
Damian Coory: Right. And I guess that’s where, you know, he’s probably going to consider where he where he stands. And I’ll give him the opportunity to come on and talk to that again sometime, I guess. But yeah, no, I get it. It’s tough. And well-
Malcolm Roberts: He also told some lies about One Nation, and kept them going even though I pointed them out and he motioned that he agreed that they were lies, that he kept them alive. So Pauline doesn’t do that. I don’t do that. We tell the truth and that that’s what we’re famous for.
Damian Coory: OK, well, good. Keep it up. That’s we need more truth in politics. There’s no, no question about that. I want to just play a clip of Donald Trump speaking at the- we haven’t talked much about the issues, but I do want to discuss quickly with you immigration. We’ve got time to do that.
Malcolm Roberts: Sure.
Damian Coory: I’d like to play this clip of Donald Trump’s speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations.
Malcolm Roberts: Oh, fantastic.
Damian Coory: Yeah. In which he said- well, he was talking about the question of of immigration and open borders and where the United Nations is sort of- or the ideas of the United Nations permeating through national governments are sort of led us. So let’s have a listen to that one, John.
Video – Donald Trump: “The UN is supposed to stop invasions, not create them and not finance them. In the United States, we reject the idea that mass numbers of people from foreign lands can be permitted to travel halfway around the world, trample our borders, violate our sovereignty, cause unmitigated crime and deplete our social safety net. We have reasserted that America belongs to the American people and I encourage all countries to take their own stand in defence of their citizens as well. You have to do that because I see it. I’m not mentioning names, I see it and I can call every single one of them out. You’re destroying your countries, they’re being destroyed. Europe is in serious trouble. They’ve been invaded by a force of illegal aliens like nobody’s ever seen before. Illegal aliens are pouring into Europe. Nobody has ever- And nobody’s doing anything to change it to get them out. It’s not sustainable. And because they choose to be politically correct, they’re doing just absolutely nothing about it. And I have to say, I look at London where you have a terrible mayor, terrible, terrible mayor. And it’s been so changed. So changed.”
Damian Coory: Yeah, this- the idea that anybody talking about immigration is a racist or anybody suggesting that, you know, that’s got to shift it’s. And he says there, you know, we’ve got serious social problems emerging in places like London now that anybody can see, that are the result of trying of too fast, too much immigration and trying to ram cultures together that don’t really coalesce, right.
Malcolm Roberts: Yes, there are a number of problems with mass migration. I’m a migrant. I was born in India, OK? My mother was in North Queensland and my dad was Welsh, so he’s a migrant as well. So we’ve got nothing against migrants. Migrants have built this country literally, especially in the early days. But we’ve used to have standards on who could come in. Now we don’t have those standards. We’re letting terrorists in and we’re condoning them, keeping them here even when they break the law. So #1 is the problem is mass migration. He called it an invasion. And so it is. And it’s a deliberate invasion and it’s orchestrated by the UN and the World World Economic Forum. So that’s the first one. That’s-
Damian Coory: I think that sounds like a “wacky conspiracy theory”, Malcolm. But the World Economic Forum is real. It’s a global think tank if you like, or meeting every year of the top 1500 corporate leaders and the top 1500 government leaders from around the world. They meet in Davos every year. They have other meetings, but that’s the main one, and agendas are set.
Malcolm Roberts: Yes, correct
Damian Coory: Stuff is directly- it might not be, you know, Klaus Schwab in his little room with his hat. Well, it could be, but I hope it’s not. But it’s certainly a subtle, you know, there’s a subtle message that’s sent out about, you know, like the United Nations. And the reason we criticise the United Nations is because they’ve strayed from what they’re supposed to be about into this territory of, you know the sustainability goals, which are quite left wing when you look at them, right? They shouldn’t be doing that stuff. And the WEF does the same thing. “Here’s some guidelines, you might want to follow. Ooh, here’s some capital to follow those guidelines.”
Malcolm Roberts: There are two things to remember about the UN. It was created to be a vehicle for transferring wealth from we the people around the world to the globalist billionaires and the globalist corporations. BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, First State, they’re interconnected. So that’s the first thing. And that’s been stated by many, many senior UN bureaucrats, particularly Maurice Strong. The second thing about the UN is that it’s a vehicle to put in place an unelected socialist global governance. Now, we haven’t got time to unpack that, but I can unpack that, I’ve unpacked that in writing many times. Their model for unelected socialist global governance, they’ve stated is the EU, which is a unicameral parliament where the bureaucrats do the dictating and the rest of it, the parliament, is the façade.
Damian Coory: They’re not elected. Yeah.
Malcolm Roberts: So these are actually what’s going on. The second thing is that it’s destroying our culture, mass migration, and that’s deliberate because then, when individuals- basically there are two ways of structuring, just two basic structures for society, human society, family and nation-state, and both are being destroyed deliberately by the United Nations. These are campaigns, their social, their sustainable development goals, SDG’s are just ways of getting parliaments and, and unfortunately our parliament is complying with it, passing legislation to put in place those controls. The third thing is it’s the quality of the people coming in. We used to have migrants coming into this country who immediately went to work and improved our productive capacity. We’ve got grifters coming in, terrorists coming in. We’ve got people coming in who are saying that they want to kill us. I mean, what the hell are we doing!?
Damian Coory: Yeah, its crazy.
Malcolm Roberts: And the fourth thing is multiculturalism. The the strongest nations in the world are not multicultural. They’re monoculture. They tolerate other religions, they tolerate other races, they tolerate other nationalities. But above all, they’re proud of themselves. Taiwan, Japan, Korea, South Korea, China, Singapore, United States. People said in the early days, Bob Hawke did it and especially John Howard. “America is multicultural.” Rubbish. America above all, in America you are American. You’re very proud of your Polish ancestry, your Asian ancestry, your Indian ancestry, but you put them to the side because number one, you’re American. This is- what we’re doing is having our culture and our cohesion destroyed in front of our eyes. And it is deliberate because that way the nation-state falls into the background. Borders being smashed in Europe and the strong leaders like Orbán and Hungary and then the new president in Poland and others are saying :”no, we’re closed, our borders.” And that’s what we’ve got to do. We’ve got- and we’ve got to send home around 100,000 people here illegally. 100,000, and that’s just the start. We need to get into remigration, send people back to where they came from.
Damian Coory: All right, Malcolm Roberts, thank you very much.
Malcolm Roberts: Unless they’re productive.
Damian Coory: Unless they’re productive. Yeah, well, that’s a reasonable ask. Productive and peaceful and, you know, willing to integrate and assimilate to a certain extent with Australian culture. Yeah. It didn’t come out of nowhere. All right, Malcolm, thanks so much for your time. I’d love to have you back on the show and talk more. Senator Malcolm Roberts there from One Nation in QLD.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/DamianCoory.jpg?fit=1414%2C688&ssl=16881414Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-11-11 11:38:342025-11-11 11:38:49The Other Side Podcast
Putting biological reality and mass migration under scrutiny
Australia has a Sex Discrimination Commissioner who isn’t sure what we mean by ‘biological men’ and a Race Discrimination Commissioner who refuses to attribute unprecedented levels of mass migration to the housing crisis and cost-of-living nightmare.
Both these individuals are paid roughly $400,000 + super.
At last week’s Senate Estimates I was able to question these commissioners on their recent dealings as part of my role holding the bureaucracy to account to you, the taxpayer.
What I heard in response was not only frustrating, it begs very serious questions about their standard of work.
‘What do you mean by biological males?’ – Dr Anna Cody, Sex Discrimination Commissioner
Here are some highlights from my questioning of Dr Anna Cody, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner in the context of the Giggle vs Tickle case and, more generally, the interference of sex-based protections in law through the inclusion of trans individuals.
Roberts: So, what sort of chromosomes does she [transwoman Roxanne Tickle] have – XX or XY?
Cody: I can’t answer that, Senator.
Roberts: You can’t?
Cody: No, I can’t answer that.
Roberts: Wow. [headshake]
Roberts: On my reading of what you’ve said in Giggle vs Tickle, the position on biological males in female spaces seems pretty clear at the Human Rights Commission. Could you explain?
Cody: What would you like me to explain, sorry Senator?
Roberts: What your position is.
Cody: On which issue?
Roberts: The position on biological males in female spaces – could you please explain the Human Rights Commission – your position on that?
Cody: What do you mean by biological males, Senator?
Roberts: Can someone who was born on XY chromosomes change to XX chromosomes? A male change to female?
Cody: I don’t believe so, but I’m not a scientist.
Roberts: Would you agree that a piece of legislation can’t change a person’s sex? If born a man they are a man. If they are born with XY chromosomes they’re a man and they stay a man?
Cody: No, I would not a agree.
Roberts: You don’t agree?
Cody: No.
Roberts: You talked about XX / XY you didn’t really know the answer. How can you make a decision on sex?
Cody: The issue that I’m saying around me not being able to identify whether someone has XX or XY is because I haven’t tested them. I’m not a scientist. That’s not my area of expertise.
Roberts: If a person was born male, that’s XY. Born female is XX.
Cody: Not always, Senator.
Roberts: No?
Cody: No.
Roberts: Someone who was born a man – a boy – has XY chromosomes, cannot change to have XX – is that correct?
Cody: If they are born – if their chromosomes are XY then their chromosomes, I don’t believe they can change, but as I repeat, I’m not a scientist, so I haven’t studied whether or not they can change.
Roberts: So, you’re not a scientist, how do you know which side to take in a court case?
Cody: Um, I’m not taking a side within a court case, our role is as amicus so that is to provide a clarification – help to the court in understanding the legal issues that are in dispute.
Roberts: So, how can you clarify if you don’t understand?
Cody: The – the – what – I – I – understand the law, what I don’t understand is the science around the XX / XY unless the evidence is before the court.
Astonishing! This is reminiscent of the Department of Health taking on ‘notice’ the definition of a woman.
The situation was not much better with the Race Discrimination Commissioner, Giridharan Sivaraman. Previously the former Chair of Multicultural Australia and Member of the Queensland Multicultural Advisory Council, he seemed particularly reluctant to address the economic, social, and cultural impact of mass migration.
Roberts: Is questioning the migration intake numbers racist?
Sivaraman: In of itself? It doesn’t have to be. No. It’s a question of what’s associated with that and whether certain groups get targeted.
Roberts: Okay, thank you. Mr Sivaraman, there are currently 4 million people in this country – our country – who aren’t Australian citizens – are not Australian citizens – taking up beds while Australians are homeless. Record homelessness – after years of unprecedented levels of mass migration. We have been at record numbers for multiple years in a row. That’s not saying anything disparaging about those people who have arrived. That’s just a fact. It is just a mathematical fact that if we continue to accept arrivals at the rate we are, our schools, hospitals, dams, transport, and housing are going to become even more overwhelmed than they are. That’s a fact. Is anyone who acknowledges that fact a racist?
Sivaraman: Um, Senator, I think the first issue is to simply to – connect – in a very linear way migration to the various problems that you’ve described would not be accurate. The problems that you’ve-
Roberts: What is inaccurate about it, Mr Sivaraman?
Sivaraman: The problems that you’ve alluded to like housing, the cost of living – are complicated problems with many different sources. Migration is one of the many different factors that may or may not contribute to those issues. Directly linking them is something that I wouldn’t agree with. And it’s that simplification that often then leads to the scapegoating of migrants, Senator, and I think that can be problematic.
Roberts: Could you tell me how I’m scapegoating migrants when I am one, and can you tell me how it’s simplifying the issue?
Sivaraman: Because it is a simplification of an issue if you directly say that there is only one cause for the significant problems.
Roberts: I didn’t say there was only one cause – it’s just a significant factor.
Sivaraman: Even that in itself is a simplification, Senator, that it could be any number of factors that contribute to those issues.
In both cases, the commissioners reject simplicity.
The biological norms which underpin human gender are simple. ‘Progressive politics’ is the first movement in history to regress ideologically to such a point that it struggles with the definition of men and women. This self-inflicted ‘confusion’ has jeopardised the protection of women, made a mockery of women’s sport, and a laughing stock out of what was once the greatest civilisation on Earth.
Australia’s first female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has a lot to answer for on this topic. After all, it was under her watch that the amendments were made to the Act. Consider the irony of a female leader making Australia less safe for women.
Meanwhile, the undeniable reality of mass migration is a simple mathematical principle that creates a complex forest of problems downstream of the initial mistake. These additional issues are being used to talk-around the primary cause even though the average Aussie on the street has a clear view of what went wrong. Ask them. They know.
I have found that simplicity is often rejected because it allows us to identify the policy error at the heart of these tragedies befalling Australian society.
If we know which policy is causing the problem, we know who wrote it, who voted for it, and how to fix it.
In these cases, we have sex discrimination policies that have been erroneously modified to remove accurate biological qualifications of sex to suit the trending ideological movement of the day, rather than upholding the protection of biologically segregated spaces – as was their intention.
For migration, the problem is the Big Australia Ponzi scheme being run by Labor (and the Coalition in the past) to cook the economic books and obscure the per capita backwards economic trend taking place. Doing so would mean admitting that migrants are being used to prop up political parties, bureaucratic structures, and the interests of developers while the immediate needs and rights of Australian citizens are torn to shreds.
Yes, we can still ask questions about these topics – but the quality of the answers we receive speaks volumes about the ingrained nature of the bureaucratic double-speak quagmire we need to dismantle before real change can be made.
Questioning the commissioners by Senator Malcolm Roberts
Putting biological reality and mass migration under scrutiny
