I thank Senator McGrath for this motion, which One Nation supports. This government is flooding the country with new arrivals who need a bed to sleep in. Home construction is 500,000 homes behind, and this figure is not reducing; it’s growing. A sensible party would simply impose a moratorium on new buildings until housing catches up. That’s One Nation policy.
This, though, is not a sensible government nor an honest government. The roundtable received a proposal to force Australians with spare bedrooms to take in new arrivals or pay a penalty tax. Elderly Australians living in their family homes, with children moved out and bedrooms galore, are terrified of this idea. Current best practice is for the elderly to stay in their homes for as long as possible. Now they are to be turfed out through taxation and forced into retirement homes. In answer to my question on this topic to Minister Gallagher yesterday, I did hear a qualified denial. The minister did not rule the idea out, though; rather she used vague words like, ‘The proposal was not raised while I was in the room.’ Really? That’s not a clear statement. The idea must be dismissed and never considered again.
I would raise this simple question: what’s a bedroom? Does ‘bedroom’ mean any room that can be used to house a new arrival? Studies, rumpuses, garages turned into granny flats? Who will make these decisions? SBS, who promoted the idea, has clearly never watched Doctor Zhivago, a movie depicting life under Soviet rule, which depicted this very thing. The Soviets actually did this, so it’s an idea with precedent. Will the government include compulsion in addition to taxation? Will all those Australians who are buying their homes under Help to Buy or government guaranteed mortgages, who have the government as the shareholder or guarantor on the mortgage, be forced to comply? Will they? Who knows, because no-one is saying. They won’t deny it.
I call on the Prime Minister to rule out any new taxes on the family home, including land tax, bedroom tax and grave tax.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ON3w73M5OnU/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-11-04 13:11:582025-11-04 13:12:08Hands Off Our Homes
I’m an immigrant, and I love this country deeply. Like many others who marched in the March for Australia, I came here legally, embraced the culture, and built a life as part of the Australian community—not separate from it. We weren’t born here, but we’re proud Australians.
What we’re standing up against isn’t immigration itself—it’s immigration without assimilation. We’re tired of politicians pushing mass immigration without thinking about the social and economic hardship it causes. We’re fed up with being called racist or hateful just for wanting to protect our way of life, our jobs, and our communities.
Australians aren’t against migrants — we’re against policies that prioritise foreign workers over Aussie ones, that erode secure employment, and that replace permanent jobs with insecure subcontracting. Labor used to stand for workers, but now they’ve abandoned the working class in favour of globalist agendas, predatory billionaires and their corporate interests.
The truth is diversity is not our strength. Our strength lies in people from all over the world with different backgrounds coming together as Australians, respecting our laws, values, and culture. That’s the Australia I believe in – the Australia I marched for. If you love this country, if you want to contribute and be part of a united Australia, then join us.
Transcript
Immigration without assimilation is an invasion.’ So read the T-shirt that a lovely, older immigrant lady wore in the Cairns March for Australia on Sunday. Many of the tens of thousands of Australians who marched for Australia on Sunday were not born here. Like me, they’re immigrants. I spoke with marchers from all over the world, of every religion and skin colour. They are wonderful Australians who came here as migrants legally, who love this country and who have built a life in Australia, not on top of it—not those who impose their religion, their culture, their intolerance and their perpetual hate onto Australians and who marchers rightly criticised. Marchers criticised politicians and others who hate this country so much that they seek to flood Australia with like-minded arrivals to destroy our culture and to carve off religious and ethnic enclaves in order to divide us. The Australian public are not against immigrants. We’ve had a gutful of excessive, mass immigration—a simple distinction that the unhinged rants from Greens and Labor senators yesterday were designed to cover up. I appreciate the far left in this country have disappeared up their own nobility complex and have completely abandoned any pretence of democracy, decency or civil discourse. Vile, unhinged abuse devoid of facts—indeed, devoid of any relevance to the motion I presented yesterday—doesn’t work on One Nation. It doesn’t work on our supporters and it doesn’t work on those who attended the many marches for Australia. Our beautiful country can embrace and lift up only so many people before the economic and social costs cause the elastic of society to snap back, which is the process you’re watching with confused looks on your faces and fear in your eyes.
The immigration debate is not an argument about someone’s past nationality, religion or skin colour. It’s an argument about wealth, opportunity and security. Former Labor prime minister Julia Gillard knew this to be true. In an address to the University of Western Sydney in March 2013, then prime minister Gillard promised Labor would ‘stop foreign workers being put at the front of the queue, with Australian workers at the back’. She said:
We will support your job and put Aussie workers first.
What a difference 10 years makes! Now those foreign workers are being advanced to the front using DEI, and Australian workers are being told not to apply. Often, the application is not even for a job with secure employment, an award or guaranteed conditions. In the new Australia, jobs are now a subcontracting arrangement requiring an Australian Business Number, an ABN. A microbusiness with a single customer—the same business which used to employ Australians on permanent employment, with awards protecting wages and working conditions—is no more. In just 10 years, the Greens have pushed Labor so far to the left they have abandoned their working-class base, embracing a UN/World Economic Forum sustainability agenda which gives their members less and foreign, predatory billionaires more.
It’s no surprise that marches included members of the AWU, the CFMEU, the ETU and other unions who’ve seen their wealth, opportunity and place in Australia be reduced. Labor has failed to defend Australian workers from employment arrangements that destroy the standard of living of everyday Australians. Instead of listening to the public, rightly complaining, Labor came into this place yesterday and ranted against One Nation. They name-called, lied and misrepresented out of confusion and fear. One Nation has a message for this government: go back to your masters at the World Economic Forum, go back to your owners—the world’s predatory billionaires—and tell them Australia has had enough. We’re not going to be ground zero for your evil plan to tear apart Australian society, culture and cohesion and rebuild in the image of the World Economic Forum. Everyday Australians want our country back. Our success is inevitable because our Australia, built on family, on community and, yes, on national pride, is paradise compared to your ugly vision of a society based on an ever-changing agenda relying on intimidation and bullying.
Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam found that the greater the diversity in a community the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and the less they work on community projects. A massive new study based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America supports those who marched on Sunday. In the most diverse communities, neighbours trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogeneous settings. The study found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings. Ask the five tight monocultures—Japan, Taiwan, China, South Korea and Singapore. Diversity is not our strength. Our strength is Australians who’ve come here from all over the world, with different races and religions providing different perspectives on life, working together as a community of Australians old and new. One Nation welcomes anyone who loves our country, who wants to join in and who wants to pull their weight, follow our laws and, in so doing, lift themselves up. If that’s the Australia you love, please join One Nation and help us reverse the decline of our beautiful country.
During this session of Estimates, I asked questions on the COVID vaccine redress scheme. By the closing date, 4962 claims had been lodged, yet only 522 have been paid—amounting to $50.9 million. A large portion of applications were rejected, withdrawn, or remain under assessment, with 722 still in progress. I pressed for details on why so many were refused, and it was confirmed that hospitalisation was a key eligibility criteria, a policy set by the Department of Health.
I questioned why compensation offers under the COVID vaccine redress scheme are so small, given the evidence of significant harm suffered by claimants that included lifelong disability. Mr Turnbull responded that this question should be directed to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, as the compensation policy and parameters are set by them, not by Services Australia. While Services Australia administers the scheme, they advised that payout levels and eligibility rules are dictated by the Department.
Mr Turnbull stated that he did not have the average payout figure on hand and would take that question on notice. However, he explained that payouts are calculated based on various categories of loss, including specified out-of-pocket expenses, lost earnings, paid and gratuitous care, loss of capacity to provide domestic services, and pain and suffering. Additionally, lump-sum payments are available for claims involving death.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending tonight. How many applications for redress were received by the COVID vaccine redress scheme before the closing-down date?
Mr Turnbull: We received 4,962 claims by the closing date.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many were successful?
Mr Turnbull: To date, 522 claims have been paid, to the value of $50.9 million.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many applications were refused. Was that the rest of them, or were some partially paid?
Mr Turnbull: Of the remaining, 2,670 were not payable, 1,048 were withdrawn and there are 722 claims at different parts of the assessment process.
Senator ROBERTS: What was the most common reason for being refused?
Mr Turnbull: We assess each claim against the criteria—for example, the different vaccines that are eligible, the different conditions—
Senator ROBERTS: They’re all covered?
Mr Turnbull: Yes. I’d have to check what the most common reason is, but—
Senator ROBERTS: Can you take that on notice, please.
Mr Turnbull: Sure.
Senator ROBERTS: One of the criteria to be satisfied, apparently, is that the applicant needed to be hospitalised. Is that correct?
Mr Turnbull: I believe so, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Why is that?
Mr Turnbull: We don’t set the policy. If you’re asking about the particular policy parameters of the scheme, those questions are better directed to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing. They set the policy parameters, and they’ll have their rationale for that. Our role is to then administer the payment against the criteria that they set.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, this session is really just on the service delivery aspects.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. How many complaints have been made about claims being rejected—appeals, I guess.
Mr Turnbull: We would need to take that on notice. What I can tell you is that we do have a review process. For example, at the moment we have 144 claims that are undergoing a review of the decision. The agency has also finalised 161 review decisions. That gives an indication of the total number who, having received the assessment—
Senator ROBERTS: The agency has reviewed them? They’ve already reviewed them?
Mr Turnbull: There are 144 that are being reviewed. There are 161 where the review process has been finalised.
Senator ROBERTS: How many applications are still being processed?
Mr Turnbull: There are 722 applications still being processed. They’re at different stages of that assessment process. Of the 722, there are 221 with Services Australia at the moment for assessment, there are 344 claims where we are requesting further information from the applicant to support the claim, there are 103 claims with an expert panel—that’s either an expert medical panel or an expert legal panel—and there’s another group, which is 54 claims, where we’ve made an offer and the applicant has six months to decide whether or not to accept that offer. That’s the break-up of the 722 on hand.
CHAIR: I’ll get you to wrap up, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. What’s the average payout that has been made, and how are payouts calculated?
Mr Turnbull: I don’t have the average payout with me. We would need to take that on notice. Payouts are calculated based on a range of categories of loss—for example, specified out-of-pocket expenses, lost earnings, paid and gratuitous care, loss of capacity to provide domestic services, pain and suffering. There are also lumpsum payments for claims involving death.
Senator ROBERTS: Last question—very simple. Why are the offers of compensation so small, taking into account proof of the significant damage that complainants have suffered, including some being crippled for life— debilitated for life?
Mr Turnbull: I think that particular question is best directed to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing because it relates back to the policy.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/5DTGK-6VenM/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-11-03 08:21:292025-11-03 08:21:36COVID Vaccine Compensation: Why So Little for Lifelong Harm?
“I understand the law. What I don’t understand is the science around XX and XY ….”
— Australia’s Sex Discrimination Commissioner, during Senate Estimates.
How can you advise the court on sex-based rights if you don’t understand the science? Seriously!
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’d now like to go to Dr Cody, and the intervention in Tickle v Giggle, please. Thank you for appearing, Dr Cody. Tickle v Giggle is the case of someone who was born a biological male being stopped from joining a women-only app. What are you arguing in your intervention? How much are you being paid by the taxpayers to go in and bat for biological born and developed men to be allowed into women’s spaces?
Dr Cody: The role that we have within the case Giggle and Tickle is intervention, or amicus curiae: helping the court to understand the interpretation of the Sex Discrimination Act and the amendments from 2013, and also how the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women applies, whether or not there are special measures, and their understanding of section 5 and section 7 of the Sex Discrimination Act. We were given leave by the court to assist them to understand those issues and also the constitutionality of the Sex Discrimination Act. In terms of the cost, we have two counsel who were briefed. Both agreed to appear on a capped fee basis, so that’s a reduced fee. One was paid $13,000, and the other one was paid $10,000.
Senator ROBERTS: What I actually asked, Dr Cody, was how much are you paid by the taxpayers to go in and bat for biological born and developed men?
Dr Cody: My salary is similar to that that you mentioned for Commissioner Sivaraman.
Senator ROBERTS: About $400,000 a year, plus 15.4 per cent super?
Dr Cody: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Just so I can be clear, your position is that the law means a biological man who identifies as a transgender woman can enter a female-only space?
Dr Cody: I would question whether or not Roxanne Tickle is not a man. She is a trans woman. She has gone through various processes and has transitioned, and she’s a trans woman. So she has access—or sought access and was provided access—to the Giggle for Girls app, and then was taken off the access to the Giggle for Girls app.
Senator ROBERTS: What sort of chromosomes does she have—XX or XY?
Dr Cody: I can’t answer that.
Senator ROBERTS: You can’t?
Dr Cody: No, I can’t answer that.
Senator ROBERTS: Wow. Can someone who was born with XY chromosomes change to XX chromosomes—a male change to a female?
Dr Cody: I don’t believe so, but I’m not a scientist. There are many variations of chromosomes. There are hormonal variations, there are chromosomal variations, there are genitalia variations—there are a lot of variations which are along a spectrum.
Senator 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’re born with XY chromosomes, they’re a man and they stay a man?
Dr Cody: No, I would not agree.
Senator ROBERTS: You don’t agree? If a woman took a case to court today trying to stop a person with a penis who identified as a female going into a women’s bathroom, which side would you be arguing for if you were there as a friend of the court?
Dr Cody: No. I would need to know more facts. I can’t make a judgement on that in particular.
Senator ROBERTS: Coming back to your previous answer, you talked about XX and XY and how you didn’t really know the answer. How can you make a decision on sex?
Dr Cody: The issue 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.
Senator ROBERTS: If a person was born male, that’s XY. Someone born female is XX.
Dr Cody: Not always.
Senator ROBERTS: No?
Dr Cody: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you give me an example of when not?
Dr Cody: Because there are also people who have innate variations of sex characteristics, so they may be identified as male at birth, but in fact later find out that they have XY chromosomes or XX chromosomes. So it is more complex than just XX being female and XY being male.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll agree with that, but it’s a very, very tiny proportion of the population. Someone who was born a man, a boy, has XY chromosomes and cannot change to XX—is that correct?
Dr Cody: If their chromosomes are XY, then I don’t believe their chromosomes can change. But, I repeat, I’m not a scientist, so I haven’t studied whether or not they can change it.
Senator ROBERTS: So, if you’re not a scientist, how do you know which side to take in a court case?
Dr Cody: I’m not taking a side within a court case. Our role is as amicus—that is, to provide clarification and help to the court in understanding the legal issues that are in dispute.
Senator ROBERTS: So how can you clarify if you don’t understand?
Dr Cody: I understand the law. What I don’t understand is the science around the XX and XY, unless the evidence is before the court. So my role is to assist the court with understanding the legal argument.
Senator ROBERTS: On my reading of what you’ve said in Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd v Roxanne Tickle, the position on biological males in female spaces seems pretty clear at the Human Rights Commission. Could you explain?
Dr Cody: What would you like me to explain, Senator?
Senator ROBERTS: What your position is.
Dr Cody: On which issue?
Senator ROBERTS: The Human Rights Commission’s position on biological males in female spaces. Could you please explain your position on that.
Dr Cody: What do you mean by ‘biological males’, Senator?
Senator ROBERTS: Someone born as a male, XY chromosomes.
Dr Cody: If they are a man, and depending on which space they are wanting to enter and why that space has been created—if it’s a special measure, for example, for ensuring the quality of women—then there may be good reason to exclude men from that space.
Senator ROBERTS: What would be some of the reasons?
Dr Cody: For safety reasons, for example.
Senator ROBERTS: What sorts of safety reasons?
Dr Cody: There is certainly a reason why men would be excluded from a domestic violence refuge for women.
Senator ROBERTS: Female prison?
Dr Cody: Female prisons are also made for women, and therefore men would be excluded from a women’s prison.
Darwin Port under CCP control for 99 years! While PM Albanese calls Communist China a “friend,” they harass our aircraft, wage trade wars and control our most strategic northern port. Their actions speak louder than words.
One Nation stands firm: Australian assets MUST be in Australian hands. Our sovereignty and security are NOT for sale!
No more election promises – hand back Darwin Port now!
Transcript
Australians are sick of the benefits of our natural resources and critical infrastructure being siphoned off to foreign multinational companies. Chinese company Landbridge will operate the Port of Darwin for 99 years. Make no mistake; that means it’s under Chinese Communist Party control. While Australia differentiates between private companies and government, there’s no such separation in communist China. Every company is a direct arm of the ruling communist party and serves its purposes, so the Chinese Communist Party is running Darwin port.
It’s not just a profitmaking venture; it’s Australia’s most strategic major northern port. Darwin in general is crucial for our Defence Force’s deployment. It’s crucial for securing our borders and millions of square kilometres of northern ocean. The security implications of having a potential foreign adversary decide how the Darwin port is developed and used over the next 99 years are obvious. Australians should own Australian assets, especially ones as critical as our Darwin port.
To be clear, One Nation supports Australians with Chinese heritage, and they have been living here as Australians since our gold rushes in the 1880s, and we support the Chinese people. We oppose, though, the government of China, the Chinese Communist Party, with their totalitarian abuse of humans, censorship and rule though fear. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese this week said communist China is a ‘friend’. Let’s see what our friend has said about Australia. During our diplomatic freeze for asking where COVID came from, a Chinese government official said, ‘Why should China care about Australia?’ and said phone calls would be meaningless. In 2020 communist China issued 14 demands of Australia, criticising us for not censoring the press and for having honest conversations about China’s activities. They’ve illegally waged trade wars on Australian lobsters, beef and barley, trying to coerce Australia because we dared to ask where COVID really came from
This year communist China’s navy circumnavigated Australia, conducting unannounced live-fire exercises that diverted aircraft flights. This week Chinese aircraft harassed and released flares in front of an Australian aircraft over the disputed Paracel Islands, the latest in a string of similar dangerous incidents. It’s very weird behaviour for a friend! They seem to mean it when they say, ‘Why should China care about Australia?’
The United States seem to know the strategic value of northern Australia better than our own government does. They’ve been encouraging us to develop and fortify our infrastructure there so that we may have a chance of defending ourselves in a conflict. A US official reportedly said:
We are surprised this issue has not yet been settled, and we are closely watching what the Albanese Government is doing. There has been some concern that getting back control of Darwin Port is no longer a priority for Australia.
It’s hard to disagree.
Before the election we heard again and again, as early as February this year, that a big decision was around the corner. Since the election, we’ve heard nothing—another broken election promise. In July, Prime Minister Albanese met with President Xi, of China, and had the chance to sort it all out. Instead, when asked if he raised the issue of the port, the Prime Minister said he didn’t need to—gutless.
Should this foreign government have a 99-year hold on our most strategic northern port? On security reasons alone, One Nation’s answer very clearly is no. Putting aside the security and sovereignty issue, there’s basic common sense. As I’ve outlined, Darwin port will essentially be under the control of the Chinese Communist Party government for 99 years. They will operate, develop and profit from Darwin port for nearly a century. The communist Chinese government will reap the profits from Australia’s most northern strategic port.
There’s a reason a foreign government would seek to get a stranglehold on a critical asset like Darwin port for 99 years: to develop it, of course, and then squeeze every dollar they can out of it to return a tidy profit back to their treasury reserves. If anyone is reaping some kind of profit from critical infrastructure in Australia, it should be the Australian government and the Australian people. At the minimum, it should be a publicly owned, wholly Australian company. This extends to Australian farmland, water, critical power infrastructure and residential homes. All critical assets in Australia should be in our Australian hands, not in the hands of a foreign government or foreign multinational corporation. Labor, get some courage and integrity and put Australia first.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/CYtif1hLSOA/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-10-30 09:44:322025-10-30 09:44:40CCP Darwin Port Election Promise Still BROKEN!
How ‘child safety’ and ‘mass migration’ is used as cover for control.
Last weekend, UK streets filled with thousands of people opposing Digital ID. The rally was prompted by their Labour Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, declaring that Digital ID would be made mandatory by 2029.
His excuse?
Digital ID stops illegal migrants from working.
It was a claim that no one, not even left-leaning TV broadcasters, believed. Keir Starmer was grilled for days on end and never managed to make a single coherent argument about why Digital ID would ‘solve’ any of the major problems facing the UK.
Digital ID has no ability to stop the zodiacs full of illegal migrants washing up on British beaches. Nor can it resurrect the manufacturing industry and give desperate working-class towns back their industries which have been gutted by Net Zero policy. It also won’t stop their Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, threatening to raise income taxes on the poorest of Brits.
…sounds like Australia.
What Digital ID might do is allow the government to control what people think, write, and say online.
Indeed, many joke that you’re more likely to be jailed in the UK for political speech than serious criminal activity. Currently, the UK is making more than 30 arrests per day for ‘offensive social media posts’ and over 12,000 across the year.
The bulk of these offences relate to politically-contested ideas that ‘offend’ people.
It is much the same in Australia where high-profile takedown notices show no attempt to apply an equal level of ‘safety’. The stabbing of a religious figure in Australia and the murder of a woman in the US were targeted for censorship by the eSafety Commissioner, although not thousands of violent images and video coming out of foreign accounts aimed at radicalising Australian users.
We believe it is undeniable that politics plays a role in digital censorship and that destroying privacy will only make people more afraid to speak their minds.
Just as ‘child safety’ was used to implement wide-spread social media censorship, many rightly fear that Digital ID will give the government excessive visibility and control over the actions of citizens.
Privacy was a valued asset in democracy because it was recognised as necessary to limit the power of government.
Suspicions are raised, for example, when official UK Labour press releases started calling Digital ID ‘a boarding pass to government’.
As the director of civil liberties group Big Brother Watch said:
‘[Digital ID] is fast becoming a digital permit required to live our everyday lives. Starmer has sold his Orwellian Digital ID scheme to the public on the lie that it will only be used to stop illegal working but now the truth, buried in the small print, is becoming clear. We now know that Digital IDs could be the backbone of a surveillance state and used for everything from tax and pensions to banking and education. The prospects of enrolling even children into this sprawling biometric system is sinister, unjustified, and prompts the chilling question of just what he thinks ID will be used for in the future.’
Today, politicians are exploiting public fears – Covid, terrorism, migration, crime, child safety – to coerce citizens into giving up essential privacy protections.
‘If you accept Digital ID now, it may be the last real choice you ever make.’ – UK protest sign
‘The systems involved are profoundly dangerous to the privacy and fundamental freedoms of the British people,’ said Sir David Davis.
Digital ID is the very definition of ‘mission creep’ where earlier calls to online safety and an upgrade to ailing government computer systems has been jumped on by data-hungry entities within the government.
The UK have used mass migration as their excuse – what of Australia? Our Labor-Liberal uniparty has decided to use children.
As we approach the December Under 16 social media ban, the widespread implementation of Digital ID is beginning to take effect.
Already, social media companies are taking steps to verify the identity and age of users – a necessary step if they are to avoid the crippling fines proposed by the Labor government.
Regardless of the specifics for each platform, the escalation of ID verification and near-total collapse of anonymity online has changed the relationship citizens have with the online world and – perhaps – the reach of the law.
Anonymity online has been used as a protection for political speech.
Australians have used their online accounts to add to the digital political conversation without fear that their employer might sack or demote them for something as simple as disagreeing with ‘pronouns’ or ‘Net Zero’.
This is necessary, given the rise of ‘Woke’ puritanical speech obsessions implemented by many employers.
The use of Digital ID and other forms of verification dramatically increases the risk for those Australians who wish to continue engaging politically.
We have seen how frequent data hacks have become and there is now a real possibility that people might be blackmailed for what they say.
Gmail confirmed that 7 million of its email accounts had been compromised. (People often use email to verify their identity for social media.) This was part of the enormous data link that involved 183 million accounts across Google and Apple. Earlier this month, Discord reported its proof-of-age ID data had been breached. These are the very same pieces of sensitive personal information that government wants all social media companies to collect.
Proof-of-age ID data is some of the most sensitive and can include driver’s licence or passport.
Forcing this data into the hands of more organisations is a public safety and privacy issue that has not been properly considered by the government as it rushed into so-called ‘child safety’ protections.
The only reason Discord was holding this proof-of-age data was, as they state, to satisfy UK and Australian age verification laws.
According to Proton, ‘Typically, Discord required a user’s selfie and then used software to scan the photo and estimate their age. Discord would then delete the photo at the end of the process. The system that was allegedly hacked was part of its appeals process.’
Essentially, when the photographs failed to correctly guess an age, users could back up their claim with government ID.
Everyone is talking about the Discord hack because it is a warning – a real-world ramification of rushed age verification laws that, without explicitly stating, require the widespread use of Digital ID.
Discord stresses it was only ‘a limited number of users’ except this reportedly equates to 70,000. That is a lot of people left vulnerable from information that never should have been surrendered.
It’s this under-handed spread of Digital ID via online safety rules that deeply concerns us.
Effectively, adults are being told that if they want to keep engaging online, they have to sign up to some form of Digital ID. We are social creatures. We have friendship groups online. Australian businesses rely on social media to operate and compete. Interfering in this space turns Digital ID from ‘optional’ into a heavily coerced requirement.
It’s like saying the Covid vaccines were ‘optional’.
Optional … but the government will ruin your life if you say no.
Digital ID spreads across the West by Senator Malcolm Roberts
How ‘child safety’ and ‘mass migration’ is used as cover for control
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Digital-ID.jpg?fit=2218%2C1190&ssl=111902218Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-10-30 07:32:202025-10-30 07:32:37Digital ID Spreads Across the West
During this session with the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, I raised with them that in 2021, the Coalition government abandoned plans to build an all-weather, all-season paved runway in the Australian Antarctic Territory. Minister Watt confirmed that there are currently no plans to build such a runway and noted that Australia continues to rely on a blue ice runway during summer – leaving our bases largely isolated from the outside world for most of the year.
I pointed out that China is expanding its presence in the region, having already established three bases within the Australian Antarctic Territory. I also raised concerns about the recent reduction in the number of planned programs; however officials denied any funding cuts, asserting that Australia is meeting its obligations in Antarctic research despite China’s growing influence.
When questioned about China’s policy of conducting dual-purpose military and civilian research at its stations, the Department responded that military research would breach the Antarctic Treaty. China does not appear to share such concerns.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll be quick. In November 2021, the then coalition government made the poor decision to abandon the proposed construction of an all-weather paved runway near the Davis research centre in Antarctica due to perceived concerns of potential disruption of bird and seal colonies. It was a very poor decision, in my opinion, that missed the opportunity for Australia to advance its claims to usage of their allocated portion of Antarctica under the existing Antarctic Treaty signed in 1959. That will be up for renegotiation in some years hence or sooner if the treaty is challenged. My understanding is that there’s no formal expiry date. My first question is: will this government, the Labor government, reconsider and confirm the building of an all-weather runway to open up the Antarctic to year-round access via an eight-hour flight and replace total reliance on sea access that may take weeks?
Senator Watt: I’m not aware of that being considered. The officials can elaborate if they have info on that.
Ms E Campbell: At the moment, there are no plans for an all-weather runway, but we do have a really strong and capable blue ice runway. We have four-hour flights that go to Antarctica through the summer, and that’s a critical support for our stations and access. It’s at the Wilkins runway, which is about four hours, by tractor train, from Casey Station. I’ve had the pleasure of going on that flight a couple of times. It is a wonderful asset for Australia.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that an all-weather runway would radically reduce the operating costs and logistics of accessing Australia’s research stations. It would be the first and only all-weather runway on the continent and provide access to speedy evacuation in medical or other emergencies.
Ms E Campbell: We certainly use the blue ice runway for access to the station.
Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by blue ice?
Ms E Campbell: It’s a runway set up on the glacier just above Casey Station. We land jets on that runway in the summer months. To your point about ‘cheaper and effective’, my understanding—and it was before my time in this role—is that one of the reasons that the previous government decided not to progress with the all-weather runway was cost.
Senator ROBERTS: In the context of changing geopolitical dynamics, especially when China is expanding its influence in the Southern Ocean and in Antarctica, what else is Australia doing to protect its interests from encroachment in the Southern Ocean and Antarctica?
Ms E Campbell: We’ve got a really strong program in Antarctica. We talked previously about our science voyages and the step-up in our science work in Antarctica. Elements such as inspections, which we’ve talked about, are part of our influence in Antarctica. Going to international meetings, rebuilding our stations—these are all really strong parts. We can certainly provide references to the strategy and action plan. We’ve got a million year ice core where we’re travelling 1,200 kilometres inland with a traverse tractor to drill for ice. We’ve also reestablished the ability to go across our territory and explore new areas, which is really exciting.
Senator ROBERTS: Correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand that scientific programs have been cut. Why is the supply of critical food and medicine no longer assured? Has the government not heard of the phrase: ‘Use it or lose it’? That’s important for my next question.
Ms E Campbell: I don’t accept that we’ve cut funding. The government has invested more than ever. Funding has gone up.
Senator ROBERTS: There’s been no cut to scientific funding?
Ms E Campbell: No.
Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question. China is currently the most active national player in the Antarctic, yet Australia has the largest designated proportion of area claimed of the Antarctic continent, at 42 per cent—so over 40 per cent. It is referred to as the Australian Antarctic Territory and, in landmass, is the largest territory of Australia. China has five research bases there, and it’s soon to be six, with three of the bases it’s built within the Australian Antarctic Territory. Australia has only three bases in the territory and a fourth at Macquarie Island. Am I correct so far?
Ms E Campbell: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Chinese research stations have a dual purpose, supporting both military and civil functions. Common sense suggests that this will influence a Chinese call for a recognised claim for a part of the Australian Antarctic Territory, at our expense. Australia must do something soon to reclaim its senior role in Antarctic affairs. Will this government do what the coalition failed to do and build this vital runway to protect our claim to our territory?
Ms E Campbell: I might correct a couple of points of fact. First of all, you said at the beginning that—and I did say it was right—China was the most active player. China is certainly very active in Antarctica, as are many other countries. I think the US would say they have been the most active player, and I think we’re close behind. There’s not evidence that there is a dual-use function of Antarctic stations, and that would be a breach of the treaty. There has been no finding—
Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by ‘dual use’?
Ms E Campbell: You talked about dual military and scientific use. That would be a breach of the Antarctic Treaty, and there is no evidence that that has happened.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you think that would bother China?
Ms E Campbell: I think you’re asking my opinion. Under the treaty, that would not be allowed.
Senator ROBERTS: So we’re leaving it to the Chinese?
Ms E Campbell: That’s not what I said.
Mr Sullivan: They’re your words, Senator, not Ms Campbell’s.
President Trump recently called on vaccine manufacturers to support their claims regarding the safety and efficacy of their products. It was these assurances that led him to launch Operation Warp Speed to develop the COVID vaccine and has defended the product in the years since.
It now appears President Trump is open to reconsidering his position on vaccine safety. I hope he does. A critical review of the claims made by vaccine manufacturers is likely to show a very high level of data tampering, misrepresentation, and outright lies.
This will mostly be around vaccine quality, not design. Many of our vaccines are produced as cheaply as possible and contain high levels of heavy metals, such as aluminium, which act as a preservative. These are causing harm to our children.
I hope the President reaches the same conclusion I have – that the mRNA platform is dangerous and should never have been used as the basis for the COVID vaccines developed under Operation Warp Speed.
Transcript
The significance of this is stunning. President Trump has been misled on the safety and efficacy of the COVID vaccines for a very long time. From this post it sounds like he has been kept in the dark and fed lies. I look forward to the president realising that and taking action to defend the health of all Americans by banning the mRNA vaccine platform.
In further developments last week Robert F Kennedy Jr, the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services, announced significant changes to the authorisation of mRNA COVID-19 so-called vaccines. It’s important to understand this was not a banning of mRNA—not yet anyway. It’s important to clarify the new measures. The Food and Drug Administration, the FDA, approved updated COVID-19 shots for the autumn season in America and imposed new restrictions, effectively ending their emergency-use authorisations. This is only a partial victory for mRNA critics such as me. The measures did terminate emergency-use authorisations that had allowed this dangerous, killer product to be given to anyone over six months of age.
What some claiming victory may have missed is that mRNA shots for COVID were given normal approval for a limited range of people. This includes anyone over 65 and anyone from five to 65 with an underlying medical condition. Moderna was approved for children over six months with an underlying medical condition. Is it a massive reduction in approval? Yes. Is it a ban? No. President Trump’s statement overnight suggests there are more developments to come.
Last week I spoke of many new peer reviewed studies which show how this harm is occurring right through the human body. Tonight I will talk about the data, which shows this harm is occurring. We have proof of the harm, and we have the science showing causality. The Defense Medical Epidemiology Database is part of the United States Defense Medical Surveillance System. It enables queries of de-identified medical data coded in the International Classification of Diseases classifications for active duty personnel, filtered on demographics and occupational categories. In 2021 whistleblowers reported significant increases in medical conditions compared to 2016 to 2020 baselines, prompting congressional scrutiny and resulting in a finding of data-handling errors. In 2023 outdated 2021 DMED data confirmed elevated diagnoses, including hypertensive disease up 23 per cent, ovarian disfunction up 35 per cent, pulmonary embolism up 44 per cent, Guillain Barre syndrome up 15 per cent, oesophagus cancer up 13 per cent and breast cancer up seven per cent. Myocarditis was up 151 per cent. Remember the sample set here is millions of people of the United States military. These are—or were—healthy, fit individuals and their families.
The harm is getting worse. Data for 2023 to 2025, using the same pre-COVID baseline, shows persistent elevations, terrifying elevations, over pre-COVID levels. Myocarditis is up 154 per cent; digestive organ cancer up 16 per cent in 2021 and up 43 per cent in 2024; brain cancer up 16 per cent in 2021 and 43 per cent in 2024; and blood coagulation defects up 25 per cent in 2021, 58 per cent in 2022 and then 32 per cent in 2023 as injection rates fell. That’s pretty damning. It shows that those who call this poison the clot shots are not entirely wrong. It gets worse, much worse. Conditions which may be potentially vaccine related and are certainly COVID-response related are up. Suicidal and homicidal ideation was up 46 per cent in 2021 and 86 per cent in 2024. Obesity was up 27 per cent in 2021, 69 per cent in 2022, 162 per cent in 2023 and 262 per cent in 2024. It’s okay though. Novo Nordisk has Ozempic on the market to fix that obesity problem. Who owns Novo Nordisk? Morgan Stanley, BlackRock, Vanguard and Norges. I call them ‘BlackRock Inc.’. This gaggle of rapacious wealth funds invest the wealth of the world’s predatory billionaires.
Who owns Pfizer, the cause of this obesity epidemic? You guessed it, BlackRock. They own the problem and the solution. Did someone say COVID was just a— (Time expired)
https://img.youtube.com/vi/hDtj01FBV-o/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-10-28 09:56:102025-10-28 09:56:18Is Trump Finally Seeing the Truth About mRNA Vaccines?
During this Estimates session with the Fair Work Commission (FWC), I asked questions comparing award rates of pay with those in enterprise agreements (EAs). I was told that EAs use a multifactor approach on a case-by-case basis, with no strict requirements.
Mr Furlong said that a key issue in comparing EAs with the Award in the coal miner cases was that the Award did not include provisions for casual employees. I pointed out that it appeared the FWC could authorise an EA “on the papers”—that is, on written material only—when the employer and union were in agreement, even if the arrangement cheated workers due to a cosy relationship between the parties.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS:Thank you, Chair. Thank you for appearing again. It’s good to see you, Mr Furlong!
Mr Furlong: You too, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: I have a series of questions for understanding the relationship between awards and Fair Work Commission endorsed and authorised enterprise agreements. Does the Fair Work Commission have a requirement to ensure that pay rates under enterprise agreements are, at minimum, the same as or higher than pay rates under the appropriate competitive award? I’ll be specific: if an award requires a cleaner to be paid $30 an hour as a full-time employee, could the Fair Work Commission endorse or authorise an enterprise agreement that paid the same cleaner $25 an hour as a full-time employee?
Mr Furlong: As we’ve traversed several times before, if an application is made to the commission to approve an enterprise agreement, the Fair Work Act requires the commission to approve the agreement if it is satisfied the requirements in sections 186 and 187 of the Fair Work Act have been met. This includes a requirement that the agreement passes the better-off-overall test.
Senator ROBERTS: Passes the which test?
Mr Furlong: The better-off-overall test.
Senator ROBERTS: The BOOT; yes.
Mr Furlong: Yes. In terms of the minimum rate of pay, the agreement cannot provide less than the base rate of pay in the applicable award. In terms of penalty rates, it’s a holistic view of it. It won’t be a line-by-line analysis.
Senator ROBERTS: So an enterprise agreement could not pay less than—if it’s a straight enterprise agreement and doesn’t roll over and everything else, it could not pay less than the award rate?
Mr Furlong: In terms of what the minimum rate of pay is, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. There are no tricks in here; I’m just trying to learn. Do you agree that when calculating a full-time employee rate and adding all entitlements, holidays, allowances etcetera that generally you would add around 19 per cent of the full-time rate?
Mr Furlong: I can’t comment on that, Senator. It’s members of independent statutory office holders, members of the tribunal who apply the better-off-overall test in what they consider and, ultimately, approve in agreements. I can’t talk about what they—the legislative scheme provides the things that they need to consider before approving enterprise agreements, but it is a case-by-case basis.
Senator ROBERTS: Taking that cleaner again, the one on 30 bucks an hour, by adding entitlements of 19 per cent to the effective pay rate, the benefit would be around $35.70. So if it’s not 19 per cent, what percentage would they use?
Mr Furlong: I think what they would do is look at the underpinning modern award and then consider that whilst they’re considering the enterprise agreements in front of them for approval, and then they’ll make a determination based on those two documents and on the relevant case law—whether or not it satisfies the better off overall test and the other pre-approval provisions. On that basis, a member will make a determination if the agreement should be approved and whether or not the agreement should be approved with undertakings.
Senator ROBERTS: So there wouldn’t be any requirement to pay the casual cleaner at least the award rate plus 19 per cent? There wouldn’t be any hard and fast requirement?
Mr Furlong: There’s no hard and fast requirement that—I understand where we’re heading to—if a modern award does not contain a casual rate of pay, then it doesn’t preclude an enterprise agreement containing casual rates of pay.
Senator ROBERTS: Say that again?
Mr Furlong: If the underpinning modern award does not prescribe a casual rate of pay that does not preclude an enterprise agreement being approved that does contain a casual rate of pay.
Senator ROBERTS: How do you think the Fair Work Commission would assess whether or not the enterprise agreement was not paying less than the award, if it was a casual?
Mr Furlong: In the approval decisions, the members outline their reasons for approving or dismissing applications for enterprise agreements. In relation to the Chandler Macleod agreements that I think we’re referring to here, I think it was—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m referring to a lot of them, but, anyway, keep going.
Mr Furlong: The members, including the senior deputy president who approved a number of these agreements, outlined the reasons for the decisions to approve those instruments—those enterprise agreements—at the time. I can provide copies of those decisions on notice, if that would be of assistance.
Senator ROBERTS: That would be of assistance. The Fair Work Commissioner or the member, as you call them, so long as she or he has valid reasons and lays them out in writing, they could approve a casual rate of pay less than the award rate of pay—a permanent employee’s rate of pay under the award, a casual rate for a casual employee could be less than that.
Mr Furlong: I can’t talk to the decisions of members of the commission. Those decisions stand for themselves. Whilst I’m trying as hard as I can to be helpful, the decisions of members to approve enterprise agreements rest with the member who makes the decision. Obviously, their reasons for approving or, as I said, dismissing those applications are outlined in the decisions.
Senator ROBERTS: So, so long as the decisions are justified, that’s it?
Mr Furlong: No. There are appeal rights. If an enterprise agreement has been approved, and there is an aggrieved party who has standing to have that decision reviewed, then they can certainly do that, and it will be reviewed by a full bench of the commission. But, ultimately, if the agreement has passed its normal expiry date— they continue to operate until they’re replaced or repealed—then a party or person who’s covered by that enterprise agreement can make an application to the commission for that industrial instrument to be terminated, at which point they will return to the terms and conditions of the underpinning award.
Senator ROBERTS: We’ll get to an appeal later but, just for now, does an appeal require going to the court?
Mr Furlong: In the first instance, the appeal will be made to the Fair Work Commission, and then it will be dealt with by a full bench of the Fair Work Commission that will be constituted, generally, by three members.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of Fair Work Commission endorsed or authorised enterprise agreements that pay employees: (a) below-the-base award full-time rate; or (b) below-the-base full-time rate plus entitlements or below the casual award rate?
Mr Furlong: I’m not personally aware of instances that are occurring. We approve somewhere between 4,000 and 4½ thousand enterprise agreements a year. The process for approving enterprise agreements is the application is made. It is then reviewed by an expert team, a specialist team, who hold skills and specialist knowledge around the assessment of enterprise agreements. They complete a checklist and then give that checklist and other supporting documentation to a member. The member, with all of that information available to them, will then do a number of things. The agreement, as made, will appear on our website to invite contradictors. If there’s another party or someone who has reason to believe that the agreement shouldn’t be made, then there is an opportunity for that to occur. And that does occur regularly, particularly when they are demarcation issues associated with particular registered organisations or trade unions. A member could receive submissions or information through that process. They could seek further information from the parties, they could deal with it on the papers or they could call the matter on for a hearing if it were particularly complex.
Senator ROBERTS: If an employer and a union came to the Fair Work Commission with a proposed enterprise agreement that paid below any of the scenarios I’ve just outlined, is it incumbent on the Fair Work Commission to undertake an independent analysis to ensure that the enterprise agreement rates are above the relevant award? Can the Fair Work Commission just endorse the enterprise agreement on the basis that the union and employer agreed to the underpayment?
Mr Furlong: The member needs to be satisfied that each of the requirements under the Fair Work Act has been met. So, to speak plainly, they can do it on the papers if they are satisfied that the information that they have in front of them and the agreement have been supported—or endorsed, for want of a better word—by a trade union. That will, obviously, carry some weight in their determination.
Senator ROBERTS: I can understand it would. Can I take you to the example of the enterprise agreement between the shop workers’ union and Coles, which was overturned in 2017 after the efforts of a lone employee, Penny Vickers. That enterprise agreement had been endorsed, or authorised, by the Fair Work Commission and paid Coles employees below requirements. In the face of the employer and union—it was arguably collusion; it was certainly agreement—it was the efforts of a lone employee, Penny Vickers, that protected employee rights against the might of the legal teams of the union and the employer. My question is: where a Fair Work Commission authorised endorsed enterprise agreement pays below award rates and both the employer and union have cooperated or colluded on the underpayments, who has the capacity to challenge this? Is it only lone employees, or can someone else—me, for example—mount a challenge to the Fair Work Commission?
Mr Furlong: That’s a very good example of when an application is brought by someone who is covered by that enterprise agreement. They brought that application post, I think—I’ll have to take that on notice; it’s been a while since I’ve actually looked at the specifics of that case. I’ll have to take on notice who has standing to make an application to terminate an enterprise agreement. It’s certainly someone who is covered by the agreement or an employer organisation that has representational rights for that employee.
Senator ROBERTS: I might not have representational rights if I want to intervene.
Mr Furlong: I haven’t looked at this section of the act for quite some time, so I’m not too sure who has standing. Is there anyone else at the table on this? We might have to take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS:Thank you. I have two more questions, Chair.
CHAIR: Sure.
Senator ROBERTS: If the Fair Work Commission authorised or endorsed an enterprise agreement that paid employees less than award rates, could this arguably be a case of the Fair Work Commission engaging in maladministration or some other error of law? Are there processes within the structure of the Fair Work Commission that enable such a review of underpaying enterprise agreements to be undertaken?
Mr Furlong: I’ll just return to my earlier evidence that, if someone believes that a decision of the commission has been made in error, there are those appeal rights, and they should exercise those rights.
Senator ROBERTS: If the Fair Work Commission overturned its original ruling, would it arguably be a case of the Fair Work Commission, in the first ruling, engaging in maladministration?
Mr Furlong: For the independent statutory office holders exercising powers provided to them under the Fair Work Act, it doesn’t relate to the administration of public servants. I just want to return you to my evidence that the correct mechanism for dealing with this would be through an application for the agreement approval decision to be reviewed and overturned.
Senator ROBERTS: If it were found that the Fair Work Commission didn’t consider the right factors when approving or authorising the enterprise agreement, would that be maladministration?
Mr Furlong: Do you mind if I take that question on notice?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, sure. This is my last question. You are aware of my interest in black-coal miners and the One Nation report that sets out, in forensic detail, how casual mine employees are underpaid in comparison to the award. I assume you’re aware that the Fair Work Ombudsman is investigating the underpayments.
Mr Furlong: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: If the Fair Work Ombudsman were to conclude that coalminers have been and are being underpaid in comparison to the award, are there processes whereby such underpayments could be stopped and historical underpayments could be addressed by the Fair Work Commission with a view to compensating coal employees for the underpayments they suffered?
Mr Furlong: My understanding of the evidence that was provided by the Fair Work Ombudsman earlier this evening is that the reference instrument that they’re relying on for their calculations to determine if there’s been an underpayment is the enterprise agreement, not the underpinning award.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, but, to come back to my question, if they’re being underpaid in comparison to the award—if that were the reference document—then could the Fair Work Commission address that by compensating coalminers?
Mr Furlong: I’m not aware of the Fair Work Ombudsman actually doing the calculations against the award, because that’s not the industrial instrument that applies to the employment of these casual coalminers that you’re referring to. My understanding—and I obviously can’t speak on behalf of the ombudsman; I can only relay my understanding of their evidence from earlier this evening—is that the assessment won’t be against the mining award; it will be against the enterprise agreements that were approved at whatever point in time.
I raised with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Ms Raelene Sharpe, the facts of a recent State case in which the sentencing judge stated that a convicted paedophile received a reduced sentence because the offender came from a culture where sexual offences against children were more tolerated.
I asked what the prosecution’s stance would be if such an offence were to come before a Commonwealth court and was informed that a Commonwealth judge would also take cultural factors into account during sentencing.
I found this deeply concerning, as I believe sexual offences against children are among the most serious crimes. In my view, an offender’s cultural background should not diminish the gravity of such offences.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Turning to another case, I’m alarmed by the recent trend in some states to reduce sentences for heinous crimes because of historical cultural experiences. I’ll get to the federal implications here. One recent state case—this is a state case I’m citing— involved a person from overseas who was convicted of child sexual offences and had his sentence reduced because the trial judge felt that, because of his previous exposure to such activity, it would be unfair for him to be severely punished if he believed what he was doing was not seriously wrong. I think that’s horrified a lot of Australians, and constituents have contacted us. Since when has the law reduced sentences simply because the defendant thought it was okay to commit sexual offences against children?
Ms Sharp: I’m not sure that that’s how the law operates; you’ve conflated a number of factors. When a sentence is imposed—I am really speaking about the role of courts here, which is outside my direct operation. When courts are determining what sentence to impose, they consider a whole range of factors. Many of those are set out in the Crimes Act, but some are set out by the common law, by the courts as they develop the law of sentencing over time. Those factors include the personal circumstances of both the victim and the offender.
Senator ROBERTS: A lot of our constituents would be very upset with the decision. They’re telling us they are. They think the judiciary needs to be re-educated, but that’s not for you; I accept that. Can you reassure the Australian public that such a claim would not result in a similar discount if the offence was a Commonwealth one?
Ms Sharp: Senator, I’m not sure precisely what the claim is. I can say that we make submissions to courts about what we think the appropriate sentence is—what we think are the appropriate factors relevant to sentencing, but those factors do include the personal circumstances of an offender. That’s simply the state of the law, and that’s set out in the provisions of the Crimes Act which deal with how sentences are to be imposed in relation to federal offences.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it pretty clear cut that molesting a child, sexually abusing a child, sexually assaulting a child, is exactly that? The law would be pretty clear cut on that, wouldn’t it?
Ms Sharp: Is exactly an offence? Yes, it is an offence.
Senator ROBERTS: And the sentence would be lessened if the male comes from a country where paedophilia is allowed?
Ms Sharp: No. Senator, I’m not sure of the particular details of the case about which you’re speaking. At a general level, at a high level, the personal circumstances of an offender are relevant to determining what the appropriate sentence is for every case. It’s not a question of whether that lessens the gravity of the offence. It’s just one of the factors that go into the mix in determining what is the appropriate sentence for a particular matter.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m at a loss for words. Anyway, thank you very much.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ZrAxvPbJ6jo/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-10-27 18:21:592025-10-27 18:22:07No Excuse for Abuse: Protecting Children Must Come First
