One Nation, One Law

,

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

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

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

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

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript (Draft)

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

Senator Shoebridge: Good luck with that. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minister Watt:  Well, Senator Roberts told you …  

Mr Malik: … 

Minister Watt: I think that question was to me. 

Senator ROBERTS: Yeah, it was. 

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

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

Chair: Thank you. 

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

Senator ROBERTS: I know you don’t. 

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

Senator ROBERTS: False. 

Chair: Thank you. 

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

Minister Watt: ??? experience. 

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: We want unity.    

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

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

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

/2 Comments/by

Bigger than the Burqa

,

Why Pauline Hanson was censured and our Bill – silenced.

They called it ‘a stunt’.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Senate was not envisioned as a stuffy room.

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

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

‘Truth’ is exactly what Pauline Hanson was seeking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They probably agreed with her the first time too.

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

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

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

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

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

Voters are smart. They know something is wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

Bigger than the burqa by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Why Pauline Hanson was censured and our bill – silenced.

Read on Substack

/1 Comment/by

Connecting Inland Rail to Growth

,

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

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

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

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Are you working with IPG global?  

Mr W Johnson: No. Sorry, Senator.  

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

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

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

Senator McCarthy: I can take your question on notice.  

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. 

/by

The Institute That Breaks Families

,

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

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

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

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

/by

Your Battery, Their Grid: Read the Fine Print

,

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

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

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

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

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

The Vote

Transcript

I move: 

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

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

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

Three years ago, One Nation told the country: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the New South Wales Energy and Water Ombudsman— 

said. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debate adjourned. 

/1 Comment/by

Pauline Hanson Censured for Speaking Out

,

Yesterday in the Senate, we saw something extraordinary – and disturbing. First they blocked a burqa ban, then they enforced one. This contradiction highlights that rules here don’t seem to apply to the people who make them. When Senator Hanson called out the growing influence of radical Islam in Australia, the Senate responded by censuring her instead of addressing the real problem.

Radical Islam is not about peaceful coexistence—it’s about undermining our freedoms, our laws, and our culture. We’ve seen religious leaders in Australia call for Sharia law, support terrorist organisations, and even claim that saying “Merry Christmas” is worse than congratulating a murderer. This ideology encourages followers to reject integration and cooperation with Australian society. That’s not diversity—that’s division.

To my Muslim constituents who value being Australian, I say this: our fight is against radicalism, not against you. But it’s time for the Senate to stop pretending there’s no difference between peaceful Muslims and radical Islamists.

Ignoring this truth makes Australia weaker, not stronger.

Transcript

Yesterday, the Senate blocked a burqa ban and then enforced a burqa ban. The rules here don’t apply to the people that make them. Senator Hanson chose to make this very point, and the Senate has now censured her, terrified of calling out the insidious growth of radical Islamic influence in Australia, an influence which makes Australia less, not more. It’s an influence which attacks Christianity and Judaism and attacks nonbelievers everyday it’s allowed to continue. It’s an influence which has seen multiple Islamic religious leaders calling for Sharia law in Australia and for support of the Islamic State, a terrorist organisation. Some Islamic religious leaders in Australia call Christmas ‘haram’, with one even claiming that saying, ‘Merry Christmas,’ is worse than congratulating murder. It’s an influence which actively encourages their followers to not integrate into Australian society, to not cooperate with Australian law and culture.  

To my own constituents who see themselves as Australians and whose religion is Muslim, I say this to you: regrettably, the war against radical Islam has found its way to your door. This was, though, inevitable. It was the Labor prime minister Bob Hawke that radicalised some Australian Muslims when importing Sheikh El-Din Hilaly to head Lakemba Mosque, a man famous for calling Australian women uncovered meat and against the protests of Australian Muslims who correctly predicted his appointment would radicalise Islam in Australia. It’s now a Labor-Greens government that has attacked Senator Hanson with venom so as to silence her, temporarily, in the Senate despite her being elected duly to represent the people of Queensland and Australia. 

Muslims can, of course, peacefully co-exist with Christians. Radical Islamists cannot. Senators, it’s a damning criticism of this chamber that you do not understand the difference or you choose to deliberately ignore it— 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Polley): Thank you, Senator. 

/3 Comments/by

COVID Testing: The Truth They Tried to Hide

A peer-reviewed, published study has revealed some astonishing findings—though they come as no surprise to supporters of One Nation. The study found that only 14% of adults who were diagnosed with COVID using a PCR test went on to actually develop COVID, based on their blood antibodies.

This study is a slam dunk: PCR tests were misused to “show” a pandemic, when the actual infection rate was much closer to that of a bad flu outbreak.

There was criticism at the time about using PCR tests for this purpose from the man who invented them—Kary Mullis, whose invention earned him a Nobel Prize. The world should have listened, yet health authorities were more interested in manufacturing a pandemic that didn’t exist, to further their own power and sell products for the pharmaceutical industry.

This was criminal. The countless hours of work lost, the loss of income that went with that, the cost to small businesses, and the disruption and isolation caused by lockdowns and unnecessary isolation for false positives is a scandal that demands a Royal Commission. It was a deliberate decision to misuse PCR tests, followed by another deliberate decision to cover up the disparity between PCR test results and actual infection rates by claiming people could spread COVID without having symptoms. Shameful!

Another significant finding from the study: one year into COVID, just before the vaccine rollout, 25% of the German adult population already had natural immunity. A quarter of the population didn’t need the “vaccine” — and as the next year rolled on, the figure for natural immunity would have increased. We don’t have the data to prove this because the German government, along with other governments worldwide—including Australia—stopped collecting data to prevent their lies from being discovered.

We have enough evidence anyway. One Nation demands a Royal Commission into COVID now.

https://senroberts.com/4oSwb3D

/4 Comments/by

AEMO and the Net Zero Deception

,

The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) runs our entire electricity grid. Sounds like a government agency, yet it’s a private body.

No FOI’s allowed, no Senate scrutiny, no transparency.

Net zero = hide the costs, hide the damage, hide the plan.

They are taking us over a cliff – blindfolded.

Transcript

A culture of hiding behind secrecy, spin and broken promises—the Australian Energy Market Operator, AEMO, operates our entire electricity grid. It sounds like a government agency, yet, somehow, it’s a private body. No-one’s allowed to lodge a freedom-of-information request with them. They don’t turn up to parliamentary hearings or Senate estimates. They hide from scrutiny. That’s a key word for this government and for net zero: hide. Hide the costs, hide the lack of a policy basis, hide the environmental damage, hide the economic damage, hide the social damage and hide the lack of a plan. They’re taking us blindfolded over a cliff. 

Where did it start? It started in the years from 1996 to 2007 under the LNP and John Howard’s prime ministership. He started this insanity, based, they assured us, on science. Yet six years after getting the boot in faraway London, John Howard confessed that ‘on the topic of climate science I’m agnostic’. He didn’t have the science. The whole parliament has been hijacked for the last 30 years—three decades. 

/2 Comments/by

Coal vs Renewables: Who’s Paying the Price?

,

According to the Australian Energy Regulator, the last quarter of 2024 recorded the second-highest number of extreme electricity price spikes ever, with prices exceeding $5,000 per megawatt hour. This is what happens when baseload generation is not in the mix. Coal, when operated continuously, delivers power at around $50 per megawatt hour—reliable and affordable.

Senator Ayres responded by doubling down on the government’s plan to “modernise” the system, dismissing concerns about cost and reliability. Instead of addressing the real issue—keeping affordable baseload power in the mix—the Minister ridiculed critics and pushed for more renewables, calling opposition arguments “too silly for words” and driven by “imported ideology.”

When will this government stop forcing Australians to pay record electricity prices and run our coal generators properly?

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to Senator Ayres, representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Mr Bowen. Minister, is coal powered electricity generation intermittent energy or base-load generation? 

Senator AYRES (Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Science) : Well, here I am. Senator Roberts’s question really does bell the cat in terms of where One Nation and their almost coalition partners over here in the National and Liberal parties really are on some of these climate and energy questions. If I go directly to Senator Roberts’s question, the unreliability of our current aging coal-fired power fleet is, as I cursorily read in the newspaper, what I think Minister Bowen was referring to. What is going on every single day is that there is an unplanned outage of one or more of these facilities. That unplanned redundancy causes additional cost, puts pressure on industry and reminds Australians that, under the previous government, with all of that uncertainty and all of that policy failure—I’ll come back and let you know, Senator Roberts, if I get this wrong—I think 24 out of 28 coal-fired power stations announced their closure. And what do we have from the Liberals and Nationals? Relitigation the same old nonsense that held Australia back—a $600 billion nuclear power plan and Mr Littleproud saying, ‘We should sweat these assets.’ If you went to some of these power stations in New South Wales, you would know that the only people that would say you should sweat that asset would be someone who had never been to one. (Time expired.) 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Coal power is base-load generation. It’s designed to run continuously, and when operated continuously electricity generation from coal is reliable and affordable. It only becomes intermittent and expensive when the generator is deliberately turned on and off all the time to give preference to what is really intermittent power: solar and wind. Minister, why is the government’s energy policy set to deliberately destroying base-load power—coal? 

Senator AYRES: I suppose there are a number of responses, Senator Roberts. The first is that coal-fired power stations fail when there is a breakdown or planned maintenance. Now, planned maintenance is a good thing because you’re improving the capability of the asset. When an asset like that has gone on for so long that it can’t continue to function reliably— 

Senator Canavan: Thanks for your TED talk. 

Senator AYRES: Old ‘Koala Canavan’ over here! 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Ayres, withdraw that remark. 

Senator AYRES: I withdraw. But that is the problem. So we are moving to modernise the electricity system, to deliver the lowest-cost and most reliable approach—the Australian approach—and we won’t be deterred by imported ideas about political means and weird ideologies about the future of our electricity system. 

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Ayres. Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: According to the Australian Energy Regulator, the fourth quarter of 2024 saw the second-highest number of extreme electricity price events ever, with prices exceeding $5,000 per megawatt hour. This happens when baseload power generation is not in the mix. Instead, when run continuously, coal can run electricity at just $50 per megawatt hour. Minister, will you give Australians suffering from record high electricity prices are break and run our coal generators properly? (Time expired) 

Senator AYRES: What this government will do is continue to modernise our electricity system in the interest of industry, in the interest of households, in the interest of future industry, because what we require in this country is additionality—more generation capacity and more transmission capability. The coalition and One Nation campaign against energy generation capability around Australia, wandering around complaining, whether it’s about koalas or that somehow offshore wind projects will be bad for whales. There are whales who go up and down the eastern Australian coast, dodging container ships and bulk carriers. Are they somehow going to door themselves on a stationary offshore wind tower? It is too silly for words. It’s too silly for words, sillier than a two-bob watch, and it’s imported, weird ideology coming from overseas that’s being used to try and stop progress right here in Australia. 

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Minister Ayres. 

/3 Comments/by

Australians First – Not Globalist Agendas!

,

Australia was once the richest country per capita in the world. Today, we have the worst poverty I’ve seen in my lifetime—yet we still have abundant resources, farmland, and energy. Successive Liberal and Labor governments have shut down industries that provided breadwinner jobs, strangled farmers with green tape and UN blue tape, and sold out our wealth.

Our GDP is growing, yet Australians are getting poorer. Wealth is being transferred to foreign billionaires and their investment funds—BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street—who now control our banks, retailers, telcos, and energy companies. Prices go up, markets are rigged, and everyday Australians are pushed into poverty while executives take multimillion-dollar salaries for compliance. Housing is worse than ever. Rents in Sydney have surged 40% since 2021, and Melbourne and Brisbane aren’t far behind. Over half of low-income renters spend more than 30% of their income on housing. Meanwhile, the government floods the country with mass migration, driving up demand and destroying quality of life. They paper over the cracks with debt, money printing, and more public servants, which only makes things worse. One Nation warned this would happen.

Net zero, mass migration, and bureaucratic strangulation are killing our standard of living—and now one in seven Australians lives below the poverty line, including one in six children.

One Nation has solutions:

👉 abolish net zero policies and subsidies

👉 end mass migration

👉 ban foreign ownership

👉 cut red, green, and blue tape

👉 restore breadwinner jobs

👉 protect our farmers

👉 make housing affordable again

These problems are man-made, and they can be solved. One Nation is right—and we’re fighting for Australians, not foreign billionaires or globalist agendas.

Transcript

Welcome to the latest episode of your favourite TV show: One Nation Were Right All Along. First up, we have the Nationals finally seeing the light of the net zero scam—well, kind of. Their support has gone from unqualified support to ‘how much net zero can we do before we start losing seats?’ In their announcement, Nationals leader David Littleproud said: ‘The Nationals accept the science of climate change and remain committed to emissions reduction. The current aggressive pursuit of net zero is unfairly damaging to regional Australia and economically unsustainable for the country’—he’s waking up—’We need a slower pace aligned with the OECD average’.  

That’s a clever sleight of hand. The OECD reduction has stalled for five years. Their accumulative reduction is currently 14 per cent, and Australia’s is 24 per cent. The latest data will show ours at 28 per cent, double the OECD’s. Tying Australia to the OECD will buy the Nationals an election or two before having to restart reductions. Remember, though, that they still believe in net zero and in the need to cut carbon dioxide production. I welcome the Nationals realisation of the damage net zero is doing and wish they had more courage to walk away from the scam entirely. 

In contrast, One Nation strongly oppose net zero, and we would abolish all federal government net zero mandates, programs and boondoggles. We would shut down all the schemes and departments promoting this scam, saving taxpayers $30 billion every year. This is not the only cost of course. Parasitic billionaires and corporations sucking on taxpayer subsidies and electricity consumer subsidies, and others in private industry, are taking advantage of this scam to build industrial solar and wind, transmission lines, big batteries and other paraphernalia of net zero. This cost will be as high as $1.9 trillion through to 2050. Remember that industrial solar and wind lasts only 15 years, which means everything that has been built so far will not be in use in 2050 and will have to be built again and again. The government’s Bollywood version of the cost of net zero does not take into account this massive expense—nor do they consider the environmental cost of the destruction of native forests for wind turbines, access roads and transmission lines; the cost of dumping these monstrosities into landfill every 15 years; or the run-off from toxic metals from damaged solar panels. This would be hilarious if it weren’t so sad. 

Electricity is an input cost right across the economy. The price of everything you buy, from physical goods in stores to services and financial products, goes up as the electricity bills of the companies providing those services go up. Everyday Australians are poorer because of net zero, and so is Australia’s beautiful natural environment. The government used to say, ‘Renewables are cheaper, so prices will come down eventually.’ However, after 20 years of the transition—the last three at breakneck pace—electricity bills are not coming down; they’re rising rapidly.  

Some of those who are wealthy enough and have an actual house in which to install solar panels and an expensive wall battery are reporting slightly reduced electricity bills. The very few Australians with the money to spend $25,000 on a solar array and wall battery for a home they own are thumbing their noses at the millions that do not have a house and $25,000 to add solar and a battery. Net zero is becoming a case of the haves and have-nots. Those who can’t afford their own electricity generation are left to buy electricity at prices that have increased at twice the rate of inflation since the net zero benchmark year of 2005. It’s a trend that continues, with a nine per cent increase in electricity prices in 2025. 

One Nation are right in our opposition to mass migration. Today we learnt that the majority of Australians agree with us—right again. A poll in the Australian yesterday showed that almost two-thirds of Australians want a reduction in the migration rate; 94 per cent of One Nation supporters support reduced migration, which has now been a feature of One Nation policy for 30 years, ever since the Liberal-National coalition under John Howard doubled migration and started mass migration. Significantly, 78 per cent of coalition voters want a reduction in immigration, and so do 71 per cent of supporters of smaller parties and independents, which does include the teals—so that’s very interesting. 

What caught my eye with the poll is that two parties who have been pushing infinite immigration are doing so against the wishes of their supporters. Only 10 per cent of Labor’s supporters want more migrants, while 49 per cent want fewer. While 27 per cent of Greens voters want more immigration, 32 per cent want less. Immigration is now one of the biggest election issues in New South Wales, which is not surprising, given the rental crisis in the greater Sydney area, thanks to the Albanese immigration invasion. It is interesting to see there is no gender divide on immigration. Opposition to high immigration is spread evenly between men and women. 

It’s a betrayal of the very concept of democracy for this government to continue its globalist agenda to flood Australia with these very high levels of mass immigration against the wishes of the Australian people. Liberal and Labor governments are importing too many new arrivals from cultures that do not readily assimilate and bring with them a religion, Islam, that seeks to carve out a slice of this country to introduce their own system of law—divisive. 

At the same time, the government is inhumanely ignoring the tragedy of the slaughter of Christians in Nigeria, in Sudan and in South Africa. I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs yesterday in question time how many Christian refugees we brought in from these trouble spots. The answer was telling: zero! I asked who’s benefiting from Australia’s humanitarian intake. His answer was that the top five countries for refugee visas, 15,000 in all, are all Islamic countries. This is nothing more than selective discrimination against Christians. In the past, Australians would have considered this sedition. One Nation still does. 

Third, One Nation is correct about the standard of living. For years, I’ve been warning the Australian people that the net zero agenda, combined with mass immigration, is destroying business investment in our productive capacity, reducing living standards. Sky News is reporting today just how bad things have become. One in seven Australians now live below the poverty line, and one in six children are below the poverty line. That’s 3.7 million people struggling to pay for food, power and rent in a nation bursting with resources, all a result of Liberal-Labor uniparty policies—mass migration, net zero, housing, overregulation. 

In what was once the richest country, per capita, in the world, we now have the worst poverty in my lifetime, yet we still have the natural resources; the abundant hydrocarbon fuels—coal, oil and natural gas; amazing farmland; and a strong tourism industry. For years, successive Liberal and Labor governments have shut down industries that provided breadwinner jobs in steelworks and heavy manufacturing, and value-adding jobs like textiles. They weighed our farmers down with so much green tape and blue United Nations tape that they are struggling to stay afloat. Australian wealth is being sabotaged in a process called ‘managed decline’. It’s deliberate. Yet our GDP is still growing. What’s going on? Australia’s wealth is being transferred from Australians to foreign beneficiaries. The world’s predatory billionaires have used their investment funds, like BlackRock, First State, Vanguard and State Street, to buy not only shares in Australian companies but entire industries. Except for two of our insurance companies, all our insurance companies are foreign owned. 

Major retailers Coles, Woolies and Bunnings are foreign controlled. The Australian big four banks are foreign controlled, and so are our telcos and oil and gas companies. Satan’s bankers then put up prices, knowing they control the markets, so consumers become price takers. There’s no market anymore; it’s controlled. Australians working at the top of these companies take extremely high salaries—in many cases, multimillion dollar salaries—in return for compliance, and everyday Australians go backwards into poverty. 

The government is making things worse, allowing so many new arrivals that housing prices and rents are forced upwards, while quality of life and standards of living go backwards. In Sydney, median unit rents have surged 40 per cent since 2021, and Melbourne and Brisbane aren’t far behind, climbing more than 30 per cent. For low-income renters, over half now spend more than 30 per cent of their income on housing—30 per cent on housing! Our prime minister went to the last election promising to leave no-one behind, knowing his policies were doing exactly the opposite. The government is now increasing spending on housing, on paid parental leave, on child care and on hiring more and more and more public servants on high wages to paper over what is a crashing economy. The government can’t use debt and money printing forever to save its backside. Debt and printing money cause their own severe economic problems and then more poverty. 

One Nation has opposed the net zero war on business investment. We have opposed the migration invasion, and we warned that these policies, combined with the red bureaucratic tape, green tape and blue United Nations tape would destroy the standard of living in our beautiful country. And it has. We bloody told you so! We have put forward solutions and practical, effective policies to solve all these challenges—proven solutions. All these issues are due to decades of dishonest Liberal-Labor uniparty policies and laws. As President John F Kennedy said: 

Our problems are man made. Therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. 

One Nation is right. 

/1 Comment/by