Failed Taxes Are Funding Organised Crime

,

Some have claimed that no One Nation Senators showed up to the Senate hearings into the Illicit Tobacco industry.

I sat through it myself, questioning publicans, tobacconists and small business owners about what this trade is doing to their towns.

What they told me was blunt. Smoking rates rising, legal tax revenue in freefall, and organised crime filling the gap — firebombings, shootings, communities losing businesses that will never reopen.

That’s exactly why One Nation will cut tobacco excise by 75 per cent – to take the market back off the criminals who are getting rich off this Government’s failed policy.

I did the work. I heard the evidence. And it backs our plan.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing today and for the effort you’ve gone to. I’d like to go to each one in turn. Mr Allen, you’re a publican. You used to make some money out of cigarette sales?  

Mr Allen: I did.  

Senator ROBERTS: And you’re not a smoker?  

Mr Allen: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: But you have come up with a comprehensive integrated solution in your submission. It’s multifaceted and it includes a component to decrease smoking rates. So you’re not against cutting smoking, but you just want it to be done fairly, sensibly, honestly and legally.  

Mr Allen: Correct. If you look at the trends in Australia at the moment, smoking rates have—for a threedecade period, they were on their way down, until now. I’d argue that when this household survey comes out towards the end of this year, not only will they have flatlined; they’ve gone up. That’s based on the Roy Morgan research report and the wastewater report. That wastewater report, you’ve got to remember, says between 2024 and 2025. We’ve still got this year to go, so we could go up even further. I’ve lost my train of thought.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is defeating the actual purpose of the—  

Mr Allen: Sorry, yes. Smoking rates are coming down, alcohol consumption is coming down naturally, sugar consumption is coming down. If you look at soft drink consumption in Australia—it’s all naturally coming down. We don’t have a sugar tax in Australia. People are making better choices about their lives. It’s as simple as that. My kids don’t smoke, they don’t drink a lot. Some of them don’t drink at all. And that’s the choice they’re making. We don’t need big government telling us what to do, putting in these punitive taxes on things to try to stop us having choices in life. People are making their own choice to live a healthier life and that’s why we’re seeing tobacco, we’re seeing alcohol and we’re seeing sugar consumption come down. But unfortunately, because of what government has done with tobacco, we’re starting to see that plateau and then potentially even spike.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come back to that in a minute. You said margins are so big that an illicit tobacco store gets shut down and they lose $200,000 of stock confiscated and it means nothing.  

Mr Allen: It’s a cost of doing business; that’s all it is. When you’ve got a $10 billion—the illegal illicit tobacco market in Australia is as big as the footwear industry. It’s huge. That’s how big it is. We’re taking a knife to a gunfight at the moment with the states trying to control this. It’s just not working.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve spoken up and spoken out in Bega. You’re speaking out very plainly and clearly here. Is there any fear behind that?  

Mr Allen: No. As I said, I’m not renewing my licence in three months. I can see no future in selling tobacco in my bottle shop, and that’s my position. I’m here to tell people how it is. I’m not here to hide behind things or try to fiddle at the margins. I’m trying to tell people what is happening in Australia and what it’s doing on a fiscal level, on a health level and on a crime level. And, as I think my evidence has shown, it’s a disaster.  

Senator ROBERTS: But there have been threats against people. There have been murders.  

Mr Allen: Absolutely. There was one in Melbourne: the young lady who was in the wrong house at the wrong time. The wrong house was firebombed. She was killed along with the dog. It’s terrible. And there have been people just killed. There’s the lady who was making kebabs in Auburn last year and just going about her business and they’ve come in and shot her and she’ll never be the same again. There was an armed robbery in Narooma a few months ago where that the poor guy behind the bar was hit in the side with a shotgun—in Narooma. He’ll never be the same again. It’s all to do with this criminality that’s coming into our regions because of illicit tobacco.  

Senator ROBERTS: So we either comply with the law or we let the unlawful—  

Mr Allen: The underworld will take it over, I’ve got no doubt. I went to the state inquiry last year and all the senators, whether they were Labor, Liberal, Green, National—like Cate Faehrmann, the Green, Stephen Lawrence from Labor—grilled Amber Shuhyta, the ITEC Commissioner, fairly hard. They were interested in what excise levels are doing. This inquiry is very politicised. The Greens and the Labor senators seem to be interested in anything else but excise. And if we don’t focus on excise, nothing is going to be solved here. I can guarantee that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Speaking of excise, I’ll just divert slightly. One Nation policy is to cut excise on alcohol—on beer and spirits served in hospitality venues. And the reason for that is that the excise is so damn high and alcohol prices are so high that they have binge drinking and what they now call preloading, tanking up before you go out, so the hospitality venues get bugger-all revenue.  

Mr Allen: I absolutely agree, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: It is causing a decrease in service from where they have responsible serving of alcohol to now binge drinking.  

Mr Allen: Correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: So that’s damaging.  

Mr Allen: It was very similar when the alcopops tax came in, if you can remember, back in, I think, 2008. Kevin Rudd said, ‘We’ve got a binge drinking problem in Australia, so we’ll bring in the alcopops tax. We’ll tax premixed or RTD drinks at the same level as spirits, at 66 per cent.’ So what happened? Everyone went out and bought spirits. The kids went to the parties; they took their bottle of spirit and their bottle of Coke and just mixed it up. And often it was a much higher concentration than the four per cent premixed RTD in the can. God knows what percentage it was. But that’s the problem when you try to solve things with taxation and excise. It’s just madness.  

Senator ROBERTS: What you’re all arguing for is getting back to the core issue, the core problem, the driver of this problem, and that is excessive excise tax.  

Mr Allen: The sweet spot was 2020. We collected $16.3 billion in tax, and that adjusted is $20 billion in today’s money. In 2020 we collected $20 billion. In 2030 we’re going to collect $2 billion. And I doubt that’ll be right. That’s a 90 per cent drop in 10 years. Now, if that is successful policy, I’m not here. I don’t know what is.  

Senator ROBERTS: And smoking rates are going up.  

Mr Allen: And smoking rates are going up. It’s just absolute madness.  

Senator ROBERTS: All of you have given very direct answers, so I’ll move on to Ms Wishart. You’re a legal family-owned tobacconist. In a small town in regional New South Wales, Junee. You say that the illegal tobacco industry has devastated your small business, with income down by 80 per cent. So you’re down to 20 per cent of what you had. In your submission you’ve called for the excise to be rolled back because of the huge social aspects for the community and society in general. Is that correct?  

Mrs Wishart: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you want to expand on that?  

Mrs Wishart: Particularly in regional centres, if a business closes down, another one may never open.  

Senator ROBERTS: You lose that knowledge of the community.  

Mrs Wishart: Yes. And banks don’t like small business. You’ve got to fight to open one, let alone to survive in one. And small towns are communities. That word just isn’t a catchphrase. We are communities. So when the four local schools, when Can Assist, when the swimming club, the football club and the soccer club all come in for donations, they’re guaranteed it, or they were. I haven’t been able to donate for two years, which is horrible as a member of the community. They know not to even ask now because they know the position that I’m in.  

Senator ROBERTS: And the criminal pushing illicit tobacco doesn’t donate.  

Mrs Wishart: He’s not supporting anyone but himself. Nothing’s getting put back.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, thank you. Mr Rodie, you’re a tobacconist at Margate?  

Mr Rodie: I’m a tobacconist at Deception Bay.  

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, you said that. That was my mistake. You’ve come up in your submission with a list of 10 recommendations that show the comprehensiveness of the solution. You’re not opposed to cutting smoking; you just want to go about it fairly so that everyone benefits—correct?  

Mr Rodie: Yes, that’s right. I’d like a level playing field. At the moment there’s no level playing field at all.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Mr Alexiou, you’re from Devonport, Tassie?  

Mr Alexiou: Yes, Senator Roberts, I am.  

Senator ROBERTS: And you’ve got a Foodworks, so you’re a supermarket?  

Mr Alexiou: Yes. We’ve been in our business for 40 years.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re asking the Senate to recognise that illicit tobacco is not a victimless issue. It’s hurting real businesses, real workers and real communities in Tasmania—correct?  

Mr Alexiou: Correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: And the social knock-on effect is important to the whole community. You’ve also said that the long-term viability of neighbourhood retail in Tasmania is at risk.  

Mr Alexiou: Of course. Have you heard the previous speakers? I concur with those comments. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you all because your evidence has been succinct and direct. I appreciate that. 

/1 Comment/by

Is the Human Rights Commission Neutral?

I questioned the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Dr Cody, regarding the Australian Human Rights Commission’s intervention as an amicus curiae in the Tickle v Giggle case.

I asked Dr Cody whether the Commission could genuinely claim neutrality when participating in the legal action.

I also raised concerns regarding the official report Equal Identities, questioning whether the Commission’s position treats the exclusion of trans females from sex-based spaces as unlawful discrimination under section 5B of the Sex Discrimination Act, and why the office has not actively advised teams and individuals about relevant sport exemptions under section 42.

Additionally, I queried the broader policy approach of recommending the repeal or narrowing of religious and sex-based exemptions, questioning how such positions align with an objective advisory role to the court as amicus curiae or friend of the court.

Finally, I brought up the definition of “gender identity” under the Sex Discrimination Act, specifically the wording regarding a person’s characteristics with or without regard to their designated sex at birth, highlighting my concerns about how these legal definitions operate in practice.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing here today. Dr Cody, my first question seeks to clear up your role in Tickle v Giggle. You did not prosecute the case and you did not fund the case, yet you presented a legal
opinion in an amicus curiae, a friend of the court, submission. Is that correct?

Dr Cody: That is correct that our role was as amicus curiae to assist the court to understand aspects of the Sex Discrimination Act.

Senator ROBERTS: For clarity, your submission set out the law under the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013, passed under Prime Minister Gillard. It
changed the definition of ‘woman’, which can now be a person’s self-described gender identity, including appearance, mannerisms or other gender related characteristics with or without regard to the person’s designated
sex at birth. You argued Tickle was a transgender woman with female legal recognition and presentation, and therefore the treatment from Giggle was properly characterised as gender identity discrimination. Other sections around special measures to promote gender equity, including section 7D, were subordinate to the overarching definition of gender in the act. In simple terms, is that your advice to the court?

Dr Cody: No, it wasn’t. We did not make any submissions on whether or not Ms Tickle had been discriminated against. Our role was to assist the court to understand the constitutionality of the 2013 amendments
and to discuss meanings of sex and gender identity within the act, as well as the meaning of ‘special measures’ and how they would apply and any role for exemptions.

Senator ROBERTS: Amicus curiae—pardon my Latin—is a neutral or advisory role to help clarify legal questions. Are you neutral in the Tickle v Giggle case?

Dr Cody: Our submissions were to assist the court to understand and to interpret the Sex Discrimination Act. So, yes, that was our role as an intervener to assist the court.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you neutral?

Dr Cody: Our role was to assist the court to understand the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you neutral?

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, the commissioner has answered the question.

Senator ROBERTS: How can you be neutral when you marched into court at the head of the scrum of people on the Tickle side of it? You were making a clear statement in that action of support of one side of this case—a personal show of support not appropriate to an amicus curiae role—were you not?

Dr Cody: No, Senator. We took seats in the only space that was available in the courtroom. That’s why we were sitting on the right-hand side of the courtroom.

Senator ROBERTS: I saw your comments in the publication OUTinPerth in April 2024, where you said: We stand with trans communities and will continue to advocate for their rights and the rights of women.
You are making a very clear distinction here between the rights of women and the rights of transgender women. Do you agree your comments amount to a statement that trans women are not women?

Dr Cody: I’m sorry, Senator, could you repeat that question?

Senator ROBERTS: You talk about trans women, and you talk about women. Doesn’t that show that they’re different?

Dr Cody: Transgender women are a subset of the broader category of women. ‘Women’ includes First Nations women, women with disability, older women, younger women, women from culturally and racially marginalised backgrounds, trans women, lesbians—non-binary would sometimes be included in that as well.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come back to that. Moving on, this report titled Equal identities plus a long subtitle was published under your name as Sex Discrimination Commissioner. Can I confirm your official position, as
contained in this report, is that trans female exclusion from sex based spaces of services—for example, women-only apps, shelters, sports and bathrooms—is unlawful gender identity discrimination under section 5B of the Sex Discrimination Act. Is that correct?

Dr Cody: No, that’s not correct.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s not correct.

Dr Cody: That’s not what the report refers to and that’s not my position.

Senator ROBERTS: Section 42 of the Sex Discrimination Act provides an exemption specifically allowing sporting organisations to exclude someone, including a trans woman, from a competitive category of strength,
stamina or physique matters in a sport. I haven’t heard your office mention this exemption, which is directly relevant to controversies around, for instance, the Flying Bats Football Club. If you do in fact provide independent advice, as you claim to do in the Tickle case, why haven’t you advised the opposing teams that keep getting injured that there is an exemption to protect them in the act?

Dr Cody: It’s not our role to provide advice to individual parties. We conciliate complaints if someone makes a complaint of unlawful discrimination, and we advocate for the human rights of all people within society,
recognising that all people have a right to equality, respect and dignity. That is human rights law as it applies in Australia.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you want section 42—sport exemption—removed from the act?

Dr Cody: No, Senator. It has a legitimate place to play where strength, stamina and physique are relevant to a sporting activity.

Senator ROBERTS: Why strength, stamina and physique—that distinction between male and female?

Dr Cody: The words are ‘strength’, ‘stamina’ and ‘physique’. Different sports have different requirements around each of those, so that’s an important exemption that, when the parliament passed the Sex Discrimination
Act, it included, to ensure that sport enabled people to participate fully within it.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on. Your report recommends repealing or narrowing exemptions in the Sex Discrimination Act—such as section 43A—that allow sex based or faith based exclusions. Broad religious
exemptions are criticised as creating uncertainty and legitimising exclusion. What right do you have to present an amicus curiae brief when you are already clearly heavily biased in favour of Tickle and opposed to religious freedom?

Dr Cody: Our role within the Australian Human Rights Commission is to advocate for the human rights of everybody within our community. That is a part of our role as a national human rights institution. Our role as
amicus curiae is a different role. We’re not advocating in that situation but rather providing clarification to the court on the meaning of the Sex Discrimination Act.

Senator ROBERTS: I note that the Gillard government legislation that caused this ludicrous outcome passed on the voices, with former senator Birmingham—then-head of the Liberal Party in the Senate—on behalf of the coalition calling the bill ‘a very welcome piece of legislation’ and specifically supporting the absurd and illogical gender identity provisions. I’m just clarifying the record. Dr Cody, what is the difference between gender identity and gender? In your answers to Senator Cash you implied there was a clear difference between gender identity and gender. What is the difference?

Dr Cody: I was referring, in my answer to Senator Cash, to how sex is understood within law and in terms of the protections provided in discrimination law. Sex looks at three aspects. Those are biology and physical
characteristics as well as how someone presents themselves as well as their social recognition. Those are the three aspects that relate to how sex is understood under the Sex Discrimination Act and within discrimination law more broadly.

Senator ROBERTS: What about with regard to the differences between gender identity, or people who identify as a gender, and real gender? Does it apply there?

Dr Cody: Within the Sex Discrimination Act, I can refer you to the provision for gender identity, but I don’t have it to hand right at the moment.

Senator ROBERTS: So gender identity is a construct of the law. Is that correct?

Dr Cody: Gender identity is protected as a protected attribute within the Sex Discrimination Act. It’s not only an aspect of the law.

Senator ROBERTS: If someone introduces a bill that says men are the same as women, and it gets through the Senate and the House, that’s the law. Is that correct?

Dr Cody: It’s up to the parliament to pass its own laws, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: Right. So the parliament can say, ‘Men are the same as women’—end of story, that’s it. Is that right? Thank you. What is the meaning of ‘gender identity’ and ‘gender’?

Dr Cody: Gender identity—if you’d like me to refer to the Sex Discrimination Act?

Senator ROBERTS: Could you read it out, please.

Dr Cody: Yes, certainly.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m going to share the call after this.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I have another set later.

CHAIR: I’ll allow Commissioner Cody to answer your question and then I’m going to share the call.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you come back to me later?

CHAIR: Yes.

Dr Cody: Gender identity, within the Sex Discrimination Act, means ‘the gender related identity, appearance or mannerisms or other gender related characteristics of a person—whether by way of medical intervention or not—with or without regard to the person’s designated sex at birth’.

Senator ROBERTS: The keyword would seem to be ‘or’. I’m not a lawyer, I’m not a judge, but that would seem to be the keyword, and it’s used twice in the definition, separating the three characteristics. So you don’t
have to have a gender; you can be whatever you want to be if you identify as such or if you dress as such. Thank you very much.

/0 Comments/by

The Cosy UniParty Agreement

, ,

The Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 shifts defence review responsibilities to a new joint committee. Although it creates an odd dynamic for the remaining foreign affairs and trade committee, I agree that a dedicated committee is necessary.

The AUKUS alliance is the largest infrastructure spend in our nation’s history. Taxpayers deserve respect and absolute transparency, especially when everyday Australians are struggling.

Right now, there is a distinct public perception that this submarine deal is simply too expensive, particularly while the government concurrently executes a $3 billion fire sale of defence assets to fund its runaway spending.

I asked the Minister a direct question: Why wasn’t this asset sale run past the new committee? Minister McAllister gave a predictable answer, claiming you can’t refer current decisions to a committee that hasn’t been established yet. As it stands, membership on this new committee is subject to a cosy agreement between the Labor and Liberal party whips. This “uniparty” ticket effectively locks out the 50% of Australian voters who do not support either of these parties.

When I questioned why membership was restricted this way, the Minister claimed the Prime Minister would appoint non-government members in consultation with parliament. I must ask: Is this the same Prime Minister who gutted my staff while leaving compliant crossbenchers alone?

Too often, our committee system is a sham designed to protect the government’s narrative rather than find the truth. We saw this with the Select Committee on Information Integrity, which was nothing more than a Labor-Greens stitch-up designed to deplatform critics of net zero and control political speech like a totalitarian regime.

I moved an amendment to guarantee wider parliamentary representation, which would ensure automatic inclusion of Labor and Liberal parties and guaranteed seats for minor parties, including One Nation, the Nationals and the Greens.

With trillions of taxpayers’ dollars on the line for defence spending, we need deeper scrutiny, not a bipartisan shield to keep the public in the dark.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: The Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 takes defence review from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and puts those responsibilities into a new joint committee on defence.

I have two questions for the minister, but I want to speak a bit more before putting those questions. Aside from this leaving a rather strange committee comprising trade and foreign affairs, this is a necessary measure. AUKUS is the largest defence or infrastructure spend in Australian history. Oversight of this program is absolutely essential. There’s a perception amongst the public that the submarine deal associated with AUKUS is simply too much money at a time when the public are struggling, and the government is coincidentally selling off $3 billion in defence assets to fund its profligate spending. That decision should have been run past the new committee, surely. Why wasn’t it?

One Nation supports the AUKUS alliance, yet more respect should have been shown to the taxpayers to explain the spend, and more oversight on that spend was needed. That is why One Nation is moving a motion today to amend the bill to include wider representation on the committee. My amendment includes a place on the committee for at least one representative from each minor party—One Nation, the Nationals and the Greens. The ALP and the Liberal Party are represented automatically. 

There’s a perception that the committee system is not designed to get to the truth but, rather, to get to the government’s version of the truth. We’re seeing this process at the moment with the sham Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy, which was established to prove that the critics of net zero are all lying and need to be shut up and deplatformed with misinformation and disinformation legislation. That’s the purpose. It’s a Greens and Labor Party stitch-up to control political speech in the finest traditions of totalitarian regimes throughout history, and we can see that in operation in every hearing of that committee.

Having representatives from every parliamentary party will ensure that all political opinions are represented on the committee and that witness lists and inquiries conducted by the committee reflect a diversity of perspectives. The uniparty unity ticket on major issues is making the public feel that they’re just not being listened to, that the people are not being considered. It’s not an Australian law that there shall not be taxation without representation, yet this Labor government is making One Nation’s many supporters wish there were such a law here. The government is to spend several trillion dollars on defence by the time a submarine contract is completed. This needs wider and deeper scrutiny for the taxpayers’ benefit and for the nation’s benefit. Membership under this bill is subject to agreement between the government and the Liberal Party whips. Isn’t that cosy? 

Senator Shoebridge: Doesn’t that make you feel safe? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes! That may serve to keep out the other parties unless the bill is reworded to protect the interests of the one half of Australian voters who currently do not intend to vote for the uniparty. You’re leaving out 50 per cent of the population. My amendment includes the votes of people who didn’t vote for the uniparty. Minister, my first question is: why is the membership of the committee expressed in a way that would allow only two parties to serve on the committee at the discretion of those same two party whips? 

Senator McALLISTER: That inaccurately describes the legislation. The legislation sets out provisions for the appointment of government members and non-government members. As is the case presently for the PJCIS, the Prime Minister of the day would make an assessment in consultation with the parliament about the specific appointments for the non-government members. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is that the same prime minister who took the staff of some of the crossbench, decimated our staff, actually intervened and sacked some of my staff, gutted our staff, and left the other crossbench alone because they generally vote with him? Is that the same prime minister? And why was the decision to have a fire sale of defence assets not run past the new committee? Surely bypassing the committee and just waiting a short while would be in the interests of the community. 

Senator McALLISTER: The intention in establishing this committee is to provide a forum for oversight of a range of matters, and the scope of the committee’s work is set out in the bill. I think, self-evidently, it would not be possible to refer decisions that are being taken now to a committee that is yet to be established, and the establishment of the committee depends on the debate that we’re having in the Senate right now. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, who selects the additional members?  

Senator McALLISTER: This is set out in the legislation, but the Prime Minister consults with recognised political parties in the House of Representatives. I will seek clarification, but it is also the case that the members of the Senate are appointed by resolution of the Senate on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate.  

Senator ROBERTS: So, as Senator David Pocock said, it’s a stitch-up.  

Senator McALLISTER: I think it’s an unusual proposition to put here in the Senate chamber that a vote of the Senate is an illegitimate way to appoint a committee.  

Senator ROBERTS: Only on candidates that the government puts forward—what could go wrong!  

The TEMPORARY CHAIR (Senator Sterle): There are other amendments. If there are no further questions to the minister, Senator Roberts, do you want to put your amendments? Do you wish to speak to them?  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve spoken enough, thanks. I move my amendment on sheet 3634: (1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 22) to page 7 (line 6), omit subsections 110ABA(2) and (3), substitute:  

(2) The Committee is to consist of up to 13 Committee members and must include at least:  

(a) 2 Senators who are Government members; and  

(b) 2 members of the House of Representatives who are Government members; and  

(c) 2 Senators who are Opposition members; and  

(d) 2 members of the House of Representatives who are Opposition members; and  

(e) 1 Senator or member of the House of Representatives from each minority party. Note: For more detailed provisions on the appointment of Committee members, see Division 5. (3) In this section: minority party means a party that:  

(a) is not part of the Government or the Opposition; and  

(b) has at least 5 members in the Parliament. 

The TEMPORARY CHAIR (Senator Sterle): The question is that One Nation amendment (1) on sheet 3634 be agreed to. The committee divided. [13:25] (The Temporary Chair—Senator Sterle)

/by

Data vs. Dogma: My Session with Dr Karl

,

Just wrapped up another two days of public hearings in Canberra on the Greens-Labor inquiry into “Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy”.

This is my session with Dr Karl. What do you think of his behaviour?

He asked me whether I thought the past 10 years have been the hottest on record globally I replied directly “No, I don’t”. He responded with mockery and ridicule, then shifted the topic to what he claimed is a “99.999% consensus.”

By the way, consensus is a political tool. Instead, science is decided using data. I replied with actual data.

Later Dr Karl admitted science is “never settled” – when it suited his Newton/Einstein analogies. Yet he refused to acknowledge the actual historical climate records from our own 1880s.

It seems that he’s more interested in “elitist” condescension than hard facts. Notice how he has many tricks for avoiding answering questions or changing the topic.

Real integrity requires debate, not evasiveness and dismissiveness.

– Public Hearing | 16 February 2026

Transcript

CHAIR: I might go to Senator Roberts.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Senator Roberts, good afternoon.  

Senator ROBERTS: Good afternoon, Dr Karl. Can I call you Dr Karl?  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Or Karl; it doesn’t have ‘Dr’ on the birth certificate. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll call you Dr Karl. You may remember that I issued a challenge to debate, and you were the only person who took it up. Then we met on South Bank because you wanted to explain to me why you were going to pull out of that debate. We spent about three-quarters of an hour together, back on Sunday 26 March in 2017. Can you recall that in South Bank?  

Dr Kruszelnicki: I remember the event; I didn’t keep a record of the date. My memory is not that I was trying to explain where I was coming from or why I didn’t want to do a debate. My memory is quite different. I wanted to understand where you were coming from, and you explained it to me and we had that talk, off the record, so I’m not at liberty to reveal what you told me.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s talk about science—  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Sure.  

Senator ROBERTS: and some definitions. I just want to get your confirmation or otherwise. When done properly in accordance with the scientific method, science uses rational thought and logic to investigate and explain our physical world—is that correct?  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Ish. When you’re talking quantum mechanics, which is real, it doesn’t work. But that’s a good mark 1 definition, sure, as a first approximation. Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Science is the systematic, objective, rational study of our physical world through observation, experimentation and testing of theories against the empirical data.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: What’s that word ’empirical’? I’ve noticed that you love that word ’empirical’ to pieces.  

Senator ROBERTS: I sure do.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Can you define it for me, please.  

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry?  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Can you define the word ’empirical’ for me, please.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, sure. It’s measured or observed data.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: But, if you’re saying ’empirical data’, it’s just like saying ‘data data’. Okay. Go on. 

Senator ROBERTS: Empirical data is measured or observed. There are many other things in social sciences which are not.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Well, come on. We’re talking physics here.  

Senator ROBERTS: Correct. So you agree.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Yes and no, but go on. Mostly. That sounds like a good start, except for the word ’empirical’, but go on.  

Senator ROBERTS: Scientific proof involves using solid data as evidence in logical scientific points to prove cause and effect. So it’s not only having physical data; it’s putting it within a logical scientific point that proves cause and effect.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Are you building a little assembly where you’ll suddenly say, ‘And therefore climate change isn’t real,’ and I’ll fall over unconscious?  

Senator ROBERTS: Why do you think that?  

Dr Kruszelnicki: You’re laying out a boilerplate set of logical debating steps. Hit me with the next one.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you agree or not?  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Overwhelmingly yes, depending on the data, because it doesn’t apply to quantum mechanics.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m assuming the data is accurate—data within logical scientific points proving cause and effect.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Let’s see if we can agree on something. Do you agree that the climate records show that the last 10 years have been the hottest on record worldwide?  

Senator ROBERTS: The last 10 years in Australia have been cooler than the 1880s and 1890s in Australia.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Hang on—worldwide. Do you agree that the last 10 years have been the hottest years on record worldwide?  

Senator ROBERTS: No, I don’t.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: I feel like I’m talking to a schoolchild who says seven times two is not 14 but instead seven times two is a bicycle divided by the square root of a banana.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s one way of making out that I’m a fool.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: No, but all the scientists disagree with you; 99.999 per cent of the scientists disagree with you.  

Senator ROBERTS: So now you’re into consensus, which is a political tool. Let’s continue.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Hang on. Consensus is a political tool?  

CHAIR: Scientific consensus is not a political tool.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is this correct: scientific proof is—  

Dr Kruszelnicki: So, if all the scientists agree that seven times two is 14, that’s a political tool?  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s obviously a stupid comment, in my opinion. Einstein said it takes one person to prove him wrong, even if 100 agree with him.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: He’s dead right.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Scientific proof is the basis for understanding nature and the physical world. Is that correct or not?  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Pretty correct, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Science is never settled; it’s always enhanced in the future as new knowledge is unearthed and science is debated. A key point of science is debate.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Yes and no. With regard to gravity, the big step forward was Newton. Newton finally understood what was going on, but his theory of gravity could not explain why the closest point of approach of the planet Mercury to the Sun would tick around slowly over the decades. They measured this, and they couldn’t work out why. They had to hypothesise a planet. It was Einstein’s theory of gravity that then explained what was going on. So Newton was not disproved, but he was a small subset of a bigger, more comprehensive theory. In the same way, with Einstein, his theory may well also become a small subset of a bigger theory. You don’t go back. There’s no way we’re going to disprove Newton’s rule that the force between two bodies equals G times m1 times m2 all over r squared. There’s no way that’s going to get disproved. 

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true, though, that, some hundreds of years ago, people thought the Sun revolved around the Earth? That was the science.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Some did; some did not.  

Senator ROBERTS: Then it was proven that the Earth revolves around the Sun, so science is always advancing.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: And do you know why?  

CHAIR: That was before there were 40,000 climate scientists studying climate sciences.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: It’s because they were able to get optical instruments to look at the phases of the Sun upon Venus, and Venus had phases, if you know what that is—so sometimes there’s more of it on one side than the other—and the only way to explain that was by a central sun.  

Senator ROBERTS: We could have a long, long talk about the intricacies, but those are the only questions I had.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Excellent. Can I ask you a question?  

Senator ROBERTS: Sure.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Can you just refresh for me: thinking of the atmosphere as a one-kilometre line with nitrogen making up roughly 800 metres and oxygen making up roughly 200 metres, can you take me through where carbon dioxide sits in that line, by your estimation?  

Senator ROBERTS: Carbon dioxide is 0.04 per cent of Earth’s atmosphere.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: So how much of that line—one kilometre long—does carbon dioxide roughly make?  

Senator ROBERTS: My maths doesn’t come to—is it a kilometre or a mile?  

Dr Kruszelnicki: We’re going for a kilometre.  

Senator ROBERTS: A kilometre—0.04 per cent.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: There’s a million millimetres. I seem to remember you once saying, firstly, with the carbon dioxide bit of that one-kilometre line—with oxygen making up roughly 200 metres and nitrogen making up roughly 800 metres—that the carbon dioxide was so small that you could barely see it with the naked eye. The supposed addition, you said rather poetically, was kind of like how, if you rubbed your fingernail against some concrete, the little bit that rubbed off would be the addition of carbon dioxide that has been measured. Is my memory incorrect?  

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, what was that last bit?  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Is my memory incorrect?  

Senator ROBERTS: What did you say that I said?  

Dr Kruszelnicki: My memory is that you said the carbon dioxide level was so small you could barely see it with the naked eye—  

Senator ROBERTS: You can’t see carbon dioxide, it’s colourless. Carbon dioxide is colourless, odourless, tasteless.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Correct, but on that one-kilometre line, what length? My bad—you said the length was so small, it was barely visible to the naked eye, whereas, for example, the length of nitrogen was roughly 800 metres—easily visible. Is that correct, or is my memory wrong?  

Senator ROBERTS: What was that about a fingernail?  

Dr Kruszelnicki: Then you said that the additional carbon dioxide that has been added was roughly equivalent to getting a fingernail and rubbing it on concrete, and the little bit of fingernail that came off was that one-kilometre line, or the extra bit of carbon dioxide.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, that wasn’t me. I don’t know who said that.  

Dr Kruszelnicki: No worries. Thank you for clearing that up. 

/7 Comments/by

Scientific Proof or UN Propaganda?

,

Last Friday (6 February 2026), the UN’s Senior Adviser on Information Integrity, Charlotte Scaddan, appeared via teleconference as a witness at the public hearing on “Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy.”

The UN wants to categorise any statement that “undermines” their consensus as misinformation. Yet, when I asked for the logical proof behind their climate claims, she couldn’t provide a specific page number or a shred of empirical data.

It’s alarming that those in charge of “information integrity” at a global level can’t cite the very science they claim exists to silence others.

To claim someone is spreading “misinformation” requires producing objective hard evidence that justifies the claim.

We cannot allow “consensus” or UN-dictated “integrity” to replace real, verifiable science.

I’m still waiting for the specific proof. And have been since 2007.

— Public Hearing | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Scaddan, for appearing. It must be about 5.50 pm in New York.

Ms Scaddan: It is, exactly.

Senator ROBERTS: On what basis do you categorise a statement or an action on climate or a climate system as misinformation or disinformation, or lacking in information integrity?

Ms Scaddan: We have very clear scientific consensus around climate change. Anything that is undermining the scientific consensus as laid out by the IPCC and the legal frameworks we have for taking climate action would be considered to be false information. I couldn’t say if it was misinformation or disinformation—that depends.

Senator ROBERTS: To make claims that climate is changing owing to human carbon dioxide, or carbon dioxide from human activity, would you agree that one needs scientific proof?

Ms Scaddan: As I just said, yes; we have the scientific consensus around climate.

Senator ROBERTS: What constitutes scientific proof?

Ms Scaddan: That is not a question I’m going to answer here. As I’ve said several times now, we have very clear scientific consensus around climate change, its causes and its impacts.

Senator ROBERTS: Consensus is a political aspect; scientific proof is the scientific aspect. Isn’t scientific proof simply empirical scientific data within logical scientific points proving cause and effect? Yes or no?

Ms Scaddan: I can’t answer questions about science; it’s not something I’ve studied. But scientific consensus is not political; it refers to 99 out of 100 scientists agreeing on scientific evidence and the interpretation of that. That is my understanding of it, but you’d have to ask the scientists to explain it to you. I’m not one.

Senator ROBERTS: We have amassed 24,000 data sets on energy and climate from around the world— legally. There is no data at all that shows there’s a changing climate, only inherent natural variation in cycles. One what specific basis do you claim climate change? Consensus?

Ms Scaddan: I can point you to the work of the IPCC, which is the UN body, as I’m sure you know, that delivers our scientific evidence and consensus around climate.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m well aware of the IPCC. I’ve read the first five reports. One of my staffers read the sixth and final report. Nowhere in any of those reports is there specific, empirical, scientific data proving logical scientific points and cause and effect. On notice, could you point me to a specific location, chapter number and page number, and the authors, within a report where we have empirical scientific data and logical scientific points proving cause and effect? Just give me one.

CHAIR: I’ll stop proceedings at this point in time. Senator Roberts, we are asking about climate disinformation and misinformation—

Senator ROBERTS: Exactly.

CHAIR: No, we’ve asked Ms Scaddan to come on to talk about a global initiative and a multilateral approach. You’re now going to use your line of questioning around whether climate change is real or not. Please be relevant to the terms of reference, otherwise I’ll rotate the call.

Senator ROBERTS: But this is fundamental to the misinformation.

Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: One nation are a bunch of climate deniers. That’s what this is demonstrating: climate deniers and delayers. Have you not learned your lesson from multiple elections?

CHAIR: Can we all just be respectful—

Senator CANAVAN: I wanted to make a point of order. I think accusations and imputations about other senators are certainly not in order. The inquiry is about climate misinformation, so in terms of your point about the terms of reference, I think a question about whether or not climate change is something to take action on is clearly a threshold issue about whether to take action on misinformation. It’s clearly within the terms of reference.

CHAIR: That’s a substantive issue. You’re not making a point of order.

Senator ROBERTS: Ms Scaddan, have you heard of a man called Maurice Strong? Yes or no?

Ms Scaddan: I don’t believe so. I can’t tell you for sure because I meet a lot of people. CHAIR: Is this relevant to the terms of reference?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it is. He used misinformation and disinformation techniques while working within the UN. But you’re not aware of him, so I won’t ask any more questions about it. If someone gets scientific proof then the next thing is to establish a policy basis—correct?

Ms Scaddan: That would be the logical step.

Senator ROBERTS: To set a policy to cut carbon dioxide from human activity, we need to first quantify the specific impact on climate, such as temperature, rainfall, natural weather events, storm frequency, duration and severity per unit of human carbon dioxide. Do you agree?

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, what’s this got to do with misinformation and disinformation? Could you reframe the question like, for example, Senator Canavan did—’Would that be an example of misinformation or disinformation?’ Ms Scaddan’s not here to answer your questions on what is scientifically verifiable or not. She’s here to talk about misinformation.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking her to verify it. I’m just asking her to verify the logic, and she’s done half of it already.

CHAIR: No, this is way outside the terms of reference.

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got to understand the basis of misinformation and disinformation, Chair.

CHAIR: Why don’t you frame that question that way, then?

Senator ROBERTS: As a basis for understanding comments about climate action, whether or not climate change is real or what aspects of it are, we use scientific proof. We’ve agreed on that. To address climate action and to assess misinformation and disinformation, we need to understand the policy basis. We’ve semi-agreed on that. What is the policy basis? What is the specific impact? I don’t expect you to know it, but point me to a specific location, page number or report that shows the policy basis for climate action.

Ms Scaddan: I’m happy to answer this. If you don’t expect me to know it, it’s a little surprising that you’re asking. However—and I’m sorry to disappoint—I don’t know the specific page, paragraph number or point. But I am happy to follow up and send you the relevant IPCC reports and pages that would give you the scientific consensus on climate.

Senator ROBERTS: Wonderful. Can we just—

CHAIR: This is your last question, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s great. When you’re replying, Ms Scaddan, please give me the specific page number of the scientific proof which is the empirical scientific data within logical scientific points proving cause and effect and then please give me the specific impact of human carbon dioxide on any climate factor as policy basis. I want specific locations.

Ms Scaddan: That is noted.

CHAIR: It’s noted.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much, Ms Scaddan.

/3 Comments/by

Honour System Corrupted

,

EXPOSED: Our Senate inquiry revealed widespread abuse of military medals by top brass.

Generals received medals for being ‘in action’ despite no records of being under enemy fire.

Our troops deserve better than this corrupt two-tier system.

Transcript

It’s alleged former Chief of the Defence Force, Angus Campbell, received a medal for being ‘in action’ when he was never on the ground with the enemy firing on him.

One Nation initiated a Senate inquiry into the military medals system which just finished.

Here’s what I found:

Government plans to pay hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars for equipment like AUKUS Submarines, the Hunter Class Frigates, Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles and F-35 fighter jets.

Yet, Defence is in a recruiting and retention crisis due to low morale.

So we won’t have people to drive that fancy equipment

ADF Personnel are leaving because they don’t feel valued and that’s what my medals inquiry investigated.

A functioning, fair and transparent Honours and Awards system that recognises the sacrifices and achievements of ADF personnel regardless of their rank has never been more important – if we want people to join and stay in our Defence force.

We found widespread abuse of the honours and awards system.

With the upper brass abusing the system.

Top brass is plagued with hypocrisy, a sense of entitlement and low accountability. The head generals give themselves medals illegally for sitting in air-conditioning while soldiers on the ground, in action, under fire don’t get recognised.

Right now, there’s a two-tier system in the Defence force and that needs to be addressed if we want people to join.

Here’s what I recommended from the inquiry:

Firstly, we want those medals to the top brass reviewed properly. It’s not been possible to find when many senior officers who received a Distinguished Service Cross were ever recorded as being ‘in action’ as the award criteria required. The Defence Minister must direct the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal to review all nominations for Distinguished Service Crosses and Medals to Senior Officers from 1991 to 2012 for integrity assurance, with specific assurance the ‘in action’ criteria was satisfied for each.

Secondly, return the criteria for the Distinguished Service Cross and Distinguished Service Medal to require the recipient’s conduct to be ‘in action’. The original change was done without support and against recommendations from important groups. The distinction for acts committed ‘in action’ under enemy fire is not trivial. It’s a distinction that should never have been erased from Australia’s highest honours and awards.

Thirdly, establish separate medals as recommended in previous reviews for leaders who distinguish themselves in war-like operations although not in action.

Fourthly, the Defence Minister and Chief of Defence should not have the power to cancel other people’s medals without any right of appeal. The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal must have the power to review decisions to cancel medals.

Fifthly, government must make clear announcements and implement policy to establish command responsibility as a binding doctrine in the Australian Defence Force. At relevant times in relation to the Brereton Report allegations, General Campbell held significant, senior command roles over those forces. If the allegations rise to the point that soldiers under his command must lose their medals, many rightly question how General Campbell can be entitled to keep his medal awarded for “distinguished command and leadership” of those same forces.

It’s ridiculous to claim that as Commander one can have both enough command and control over forces to entitle him to an award, yet not enough to make him responsible for allegations on his watch.

We need to clean out the abuse and corruption of the honours and awards system.

One Nation will always back our troops getting a fair go, especially the people who put their lives on the line.

/2 Comments/by

An Easter Message

As we celebrate Easter 2025, I want to reflect on a message of hope and renewal that this sacred time brings.

In these challenging times, I encourage all Australians to take this opportunity to spend precious time with family, strengthen our focus, and contribute to building a future filled with peace, prosperity, and unity.

Let this Easter break be a time to reflect on the things that truly matter – our families, our communities, and our shared values that make Australia great.

In our nation, which is founded on Christian values, let’s remember Jesus Christ’s sacrifice and his message to all humanity.

Stay safe on the roads and may you all have a blessed Easter celebration with your loved ones.

/3 Comments/by

Social Media Age Ban Faces Powerful Testimony in Senate Hearing

,

Today, the Senate held a Committee Hearing on the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024. This expedited inquiry was scheduled with just one day’s notice, as the Liberal and Labor parties want to rush this legislation through. The first witness, Ms. Lucy Thomas OAM, CEO of Project Rockit, delivered six minutes of the most relevant, heartfelt, and inspirational testimony on the issue of censoring social media for those under 16. Her insights demonstrated the benefit of lived experience.

Before taking a position on this bill, take the time to listen to her testimony.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here. Ms Thomas, there are harms and benefits at school, and there are harms and benefits in life generally. Claude Mellins, professor of medical psychology in the Departments of Psychiatry and Sociomedical Sciences at Columbia University, stated: ‘For young people, social media provides a platform to help them figure out who they are. For very shy or introverted young people, it can be a way to meet others with similar interests.’ She added: ‘Social support and socializing are critical influences on coping and resilience.’ They provide an important point of connection. She then said in relation to Covid: ‘On the other hand, fewer opportunities for in-person interactions with friends and family meant less of a real-world check on some of the negative influences of social media.’ Isn’t the professor making an important point? It’s not about stopping real-world interactions it’s about balancing social media with real-world interactions. Isn’t it about a balance, not about prohibition? Isn’t it also the fact that parents and not governments are best placed to decide how their children develop?

Ms Thomas: Thank you for the question. I think you’re speaking to that idea of balance that a lot of us have been trying to refer to. We are acutely aware of the harms, and I think they’re beautifully captured in that quote, and acutely aware of the risk that we may create new harms by cutting young people off. I think this is a really important point, and I’d like to give you one example, a quote from a young person, Rhys from Tamworth, who commented: ‘Social media has helped me figure out and become comfortable with my sense of self, as there is a large community that is able to connect me with people all over the world. Living in a regional area, it’s difficult to find people dealing with the same personal developments, and social media really helped.’ This is beyond just direct mental health intervention; this is about finding other people like you. This is about finding spaces where we can affirm ourselves, use our voices and mobilise around actions that we care about, just like we’re doing here today. I’d love to point out that the Office of the eSafety Commissioner has done some fantastic research into the experiences of specific groups—those who are First Nations, LGBTQIA+ Australians, and disabled and neurodivergent young people. All of these group face greater hate speech online. Actually belonging to one of those communities, I can say that we also face greater hate speech offline. What was really important is they also found that young people in these communities that already face marginalisation are more likely to seek emotional support—not just mental health support, but connection, news and information, including information about themselves and the world around them. So I take your point.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I have another quote from Deborah Glasofer, Associate Professor of Clinical Medical Psychology at Stanford University:

Whether it’s social media or in person, a good peer group makes the difference. A group of friends that connects over shared interests like art or music, and is balanced in their outlook on eating and appearance, is a positive. In fact, a good peer group online may be protective against negative or in-person influences.

Is this bill throwing out the good with the bad, instead of trying to improve support in digital media skills to allow children and parents to handle these trials better?

Ms Thomas: I think there is a risk of that, yes. I think we really need to, in a much longer and more thorough timeframe, interrogate and weigh up all of these risks and unintended possible impacts. I’d like to draw another quote from Lamisa from Western Sydney University. You spoke about influencers; we tend to imagine those being solely negative. Lamisa says: ‘Social media has given me creators who are people of colour, and I think it has really allowed me to learn that I don’t have to justify my existence, that I am allowed to have an opinion and that I am allowed to have a voice about who I am.’ So I absolutely think that there is a risk that we’ll throw out these experiences; in our desire to protect people, we create unintended harms that they have to live with.

Senator ROBERTS: I just received a text message from someone in this building, a fairly intelligent person, and he said: ‘I was born with a rare disorder. I spent more than four decades feeling isolated until I discovered people with the same disorder on social media. This legislation would prevent people under 16 from linking with the communities online that can provide them with shared lived experience.’ What do you say?

Ms Thomas: I’m going to give you one more quote. I’m aware that young people aren’t in the room, so I’m sorry I’m citing these references. Hannah from Sydney says: ‘Where I struggled in the physical world thanks to a lack of physically accessible design and foresight by those responsible for building our society, I have thrived online.’ The digital world has created so much opportunity for young people to participate and fully realise their opportunities. We just need to be very careful.

I know in talking about all these benefits, I’m probably going to receive an immediate response about some of the harms. I’m not here to say that harms don’t exist. They do. If anyone is aware of them, it’s me. I’ve been working in this space for 20 years. I started Project Rockit because I wanted to tackle these issues as a young person fresh out of school. We know they’re there, but we have to be very careful not to impact these positive benefits young people face.

Senator ROBERTS: Ms Thomas, isn’t there very important access to parents and grandparents on social media for their support and experiential interaction. A lot of children interact with their parents and grandparents through social media?

Ms Thomas: Am I allowed to answer this one?

CHAIR: Yes.

Ms Thomas: I think one of the big, grave concerns around implementation and enforcement is that it won’t just be young people who need to verify their ages online; it will be every Australian. The methods available, every Australian sharing their biometric data or presenting a government issued ID, are going to pose challenges for those Australians that you are talking about—older Australians who are already facing higher rates of digital exclusion and those from marginalised communities. Absolutely, this is a vital tool for grandparents and kids, for intergenerational play and learning, and we risk cutting young people off but also cutting older people off.

/5 Comments/by

U16’s Censorship Bill Fails to Protect Kids from Harm

,

This is the third and final session on the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 — aka U16’s Social Media Ban – an important piece of legislation being waved through by the Liberal and Labor parties with minimal debate. The Department was called to explain the bill, which of course they defended with responses that would not hold up under closer scrutiny.  If only Senators had time to do this.

Several serious revelations emerged during the Department’s testimony, including this little pearl: it’s better for foreign-owned multinational tech platforms to control children’s internet use than for parents to supervise or manage their children’s social media and online interactions. One Nation strongly disagrees.  

I also raised concerns about the YouTube exemption, which is worded in such a way that it could apply to any video streaming site, including pornographic sites. The Department’s response was to point to other regulations and codes that “supposedly” protect children from accessing porn.   What utter nonsense! Any child in this country without a parental lock can access Pornhub by simply clicking the “Are you over 18?” box. Teachers nationwide report that even primary school students are being exposed to and influenced by pornography. If this bill accomplishes anything good, it should be to prevent children from accessing pornography, which it deliberately avoids doing.  

This bill claims to be about many things – keeping children safe is not one of them.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. Could you please explain the provisions around exemptions for sites that do not require a person to have an account, meaning they can simply arrive and watch? An example would be children watching cartoons on YouTube. What’s the definition here of a site that can be viewed without an account?

Mr Irwin: I guess it goes to the obligation around holding an account, or having an account, which relates to the creation or the holding of an account. So if there is any process—

Senator ROBERTS: Is it the creator’s responsibility?

Mr Irwin: Sorry?

Senator ROBERTS: Is it the creator’s responsibility? Is the account the creator’s responsibility?

Mr Irwin: No, all responsibility is on the platform. If a platform under this definition has the facility to create an account and/or has under 16s who have an account on there already, then they will have to take reasonable steps.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the functional difference in your definition between YouTube and Porn Hub?

Mr Chisholm: One contains content that is restricted content that is prohibited to be accessed by children under law. Porn Hub is a pornographic website.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that.

Mr Chisholm: YouTube has a whole range of information, including educational content and a range of information that doesn’t really match up with a site like Porn Hub.

Mr Irwin: That was the second limb of the age-assurance trial: looking at technologies for 18 or over, looking at pornographic material for age assurance. That also goes to the matter of the codes that DIGI were talking about before. Those codes relate to access to particular types of content including pornographic content.

Senator ROBERTS: Let me try and understand—

Mr Chisholm: The design of Pornhub is to provide pornographic material to people who are permitted to watch it. That’s the difference.

Senator ROBERTS: I guessed that, but I asked for the functional difference. Pornhub is 18-plus, but apparently you don’t have to prove it. Could you show me where in the legislation, in this child protection bill, you’re actually including porn sites?

Mr Chisholm: There are separate laws in relation to pornographic material, which we can step you through. This bill is more about age limits for digital platforms, imposing a 16-year age limit for digital platforms. There are other laws that prohibit access to pornographic material online including the codes process and classification system.

Mr Irwin: That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s required for someone aged 16 or 17 to get access to Pornhub?

Mr Irwin: That’s subject to the codes that industry is developing right now, which DIGI talked about, in terms of what specifically is required. There is also a whole system of classification laws that are designed to prevent access to adult content by children. On top of that, there’s the eSafety Commissioner’s administration of things like basic online safety expectations and the phase 2 codes that are under development.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m glad you raised that because I was going to raise it. You exempt gaming sites because they already carry age recommendations. In fact, some video game sites are MA 15+; they’re not 16-plus. What will have to change? Will it be your bill or the MA 15+ rating?

Mr Chisholm: The bill doesn’t require them to change—

Ms Vandenbroek: Nothing will change.

Mr Chisholm: because gaming isn’t caught by the new definition. There’s nothing that requires gaming systems to change.

Senator ROBERTS: So social media is 16-plus, but video games are 15-plus.

Mr Chisholm: The policy here is to treat games as different to social media. For some of the reasons we talked about before, they are seen as a different form of content consumption and engagement to social media.

Senator ROBERTS: Doesn’t this indicate to people that this bill’s intent is not about what the government says?

Mr Chisholm: No, the bill is definitely about what the government says. It imposes a firm age limit of 16 on account creation for social media for all of the concerns and reasons outlined about the damage that’s being done to under-16s through exposure to social media. Games are also subject to classification rules, so they have their own regime they have to comply with now.

Mr Irwin: They’re subject to the broader Online Safety Act as well.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’ll get you to wrap up.

Senator ROBERTS: I have a last question. I understand that there are parental controls that parents can buy—they’re sometimes free—in the form of apps that watch over what children are watching. What alternatives are already available for parents to control children’s social media and control their exposure? Did you evaluate them, and why don’t you just hand the authority back to where it belongs—to parents—because they can do a better job of parenting their child than government can?

Mr Chisholm: The very strong feedback that we received from parents during this consultation is that they do not want to bear the burden or responsibility of making decisions that should be better reflected in the law. At the moment, parents often refer to the 13-year age limit that’s part of the US terms of service—

Mr Irwin: For privacy reasons.

Mr Chisholm: for privacy reasons, that apply in Australia. That’s often used for parents to say to their children, ‘You can’t have a social media account until you’re 13.’ It’s really important for parents to point to a standard law, an age limit, that will apply to everybody. It’s also feedback we’ve received from a lot of children. They would rather have a universal law that applies to all children under the age of 16 instead of a situation where some children have it and some children don’t, and where all of the harms that we’re aware of from exposure to social media continue to magnify. We also don’t want a situation where there is any question the parents have some legal responsibility in relation to an age limit. The very strong view of the government is that that responsibility should be borne by the platforms, not parents.

Senator ROBERTS: We’re not going to have—

Mr Chisholm: The platforms are in a much better position to control their services than parents are.

Senator ROBERTS: So we want to put parenting in the hands of social media platforms?

Mr Chisholm: The parents have said to us that they have a very strong view that they want a 16-year age limit, and that the platforms are better placed to enforce that because it is their platforms.

Senator ROBERTS: How much notice did the parents get to give their comments? Because we got 24 hours notice of the closing of submissions.

Mr Irwin: We’ve been consulting, and I will add we do have evidence that 58 per cent of parents were not aware of social media parental monitoring, and only 36 per cent actually searched for online safety information.

Senator ROBERTS: So wouldn’t it be better to educate the parents?

Mr Chisholm: We are educating parents, too. That’s part of the digital literacy and other measures we are undertaking. Education is important, but it’s not enough.

Senator ROBERTS: I meant educating parents about the controls already available to keep the control over their children in parents’ hands, not usurping it and putting it in the government’s hands.

Mr Chisholm: I think it comes back to the point that we’ve made that the very strong view here is that platforms should bear the responsibility for imposing or following an age limit, not parents, who don’t have as much information about how these platforms operate as the platforms themselves.

/by

U16’s Censorship Bill Flawed and Overreaching

,

The Inquiry into the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 — aka U16’s Social Media Ban – heard testimony from the Digital Industry Group (DIGI), the industry body for social media companies such as Google, Meta, and X (formerly Twitter). During the session, the witness was given a torrid time by some Senators who were not receiving the answers they wanted. I commend the witness for her patience.

My questions focus on the bill’s wording, which fails to clearly define core concepts. This lack of clarity makes it impossible for social media companies to implement the legislation. Instead, what it will do is grant massive power to the eSafety Commissioner. The bill is so broadly written that the eSafety Commissioner can just about do anything she wants. This is not how legislation should be drafted.

One Nation agrees with DIGI’s testimony and supports the bill being withdrawn and redrafted with proper checks and balances, clear definitions, and then subjected to proper debate.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. I’m trying to understand if YouTube will or will not be included in this bill. Section 63C defines age-restricted social media platforms as ones where the service allows users to interact, which YouTube does in the comments, or allows users to post material, which YouTube does, ora significant part of the purpose is to allow interaction, which YouTube does in some channels. Do you consider that YouTube is included in this bill?  

Ms Bose: This underscores the broader challenge of this broad definition that encompasses a range of services and also the discretion it affords the minister in relation to making those determinations. I might hand to my colleague, Dr Duxbury, who may have more to add around some of the questions we have around that discretionary determination of what is in scope.  

Dr Duxbury: Senator, you are absolutely right that the bill doesn’t make clear who is in or out of scope. To us, that is a really serious flaw in the bill. It is absolutely unclear who is in or out, and we don’t know what criteria willbe used to determine these exemptions. The explanatory memorandum suggests that some services will be out of scope, but that will not occur until a future date, and that date is unknown.  

Senator ROBERTS: Speaking of the explanatory memorandum, page 21 says that children can visit sites that do not require an account. Is that your understanding?  

Dr Duxbury: That is my understanding.  

Senator ROBERTS: You said in point 3 of your submission that parliament is being asked to pass a bill without knowing how it will work. No regulator worldwide has done age assurance successfully yet—nowhere. We’ve got almost no time to discuss this in public, so I don’t know how you are even here. Thank you for being here. You say, though the government’s trial exploration of age assurance in the bill is not yet complete, only a year ago the government concluded that these technologies were ‘immature’. Could you expand on that, please. 

Dr Duxbury: The conclusion was not only that the technologies were immature but also that there were risks about the reliability of the technology and their impact on digital inclusion. We heard earlier the fact that, because these requirements will apply to all Australians, the impact will be felt not only by young people but also by other Australians, who will be required to age-verify before they get access to a very broad range of services.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is quoting from your tabled opening statement: ‘If we are proceeding on this fasttracked timetable, what is most important is that the bill contains structures for future consultation.’ You go on to say: ‘As drafted, the bill only requires that the minister seek advice from the eSafety Commissioner before making legislative rules. However, given these expert warnings of youth harm from a social media ban, the unknown technology and the privacy implications, further consultation with the community and technical experts is vital.DIGI suggests amending section 63C of the bill to include an additional requirement for a minimum 30 days of industry and public consultation before making legislative rules.’ Could you expand on that, please. 

ACTING CHAIR: As quickly as you can. 

Dr Duxbury: Sunita, did you want to take that? 

Ms Bose: Jenny, I will hand over to you, but there is an additional reflection we had over the weekend that we didn’t have a chance to include in our submission issued on Friday evening that we might touch upon here in addition to what you’ve read there, Senator Roberts, around the need for reasons for a decision. Let me hand over to you, Jenny, to elaborate. 

Dr Duxbury: We have recommended additional consultation because we think that, in the current context, it’s quite likely that the bill will proceed and proceed quickly. We understand that this committee will only have one day to basically ponder that question. If the bill is going to proceed on its current timetable then, frankly, adding in a consultation requirement seemed to be the only thing that was likely to improve it, given the complete absence of detail as to how it will be implemented. However, another possible improvement to the bill would be to require additional transparency regarding the making of these decisions. I believe the minister has the power both to include particular services within the scope of the bill and also to exclude them. To the extent that legislative instruments are going to be made to flesh out the detail of the bill, I think additional transparency could be very helpful. 

Senator ROBERTS: ‘A complete absence of detail’—thank you. 

/by