Posts

The Radical Threat They Won’t Name

,

The Albanese Labor government is failing to address the primary threat to national security: radical Islamic terrorism.

Political correctness and left-wing politics have allowed radicalisation to fester. The Bondi massacre (and other historical attacks) should be labelled exactly as they are – radical Islamic terrorism.

The Prime Minister and ASIO have been more focused on right-wing extremism while missing red flags regarding Islamic radicalisation and the firearms the Islamic killers were able to access.

One Nation rejects the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026, which is nothing but a “dog’s breakfast.”

This Bill will:

  • Target law-abiding firearm owners instead of criminals.
  • Threaten free speech.
  • Lead to the deplatforming of political opponents.

This Bill is “anti-Christian” and will protect Islam while ignoring antisemitism. Instead of legislating new laws, we should:

  • Enforce existing laws.
  • Immediately deport and “remigrate” radicals.
  • Protect the rights of lawful gun owners.
  • Implement “castle law” (self-defense in the home).

One Nation would hold a genuine Royal Commission to investigate government and security failures.

The Labor government is using “shoddy” legislation to distract from a failure to confront religious radicalism, while unfairly penalising ordinary citizens and firearm enthusiasts.

Transcript

Part of the Bondi massacre horror was the realisation that the great Australian ‘she’ll be right, mate’ has failed us. We’ve watched the growing pro-Gaza demonstrations openly calling for violence against Jews and anyone who supports them. We’ve watched Islamic clerics preach hate against Western civilisation and call for jihad—violence against unbelievers. Many Australians thought: ‘She’ll be right, mate! This is Australia. This will sort itself out.’ It did not. 

For many years, the left-wing commentariat, politicians and media accused those who sought to raise the alarms around rising antisemitism and Christianophobia with the crime of ‘threatening social harmony’. The very elastic crime of racism has now been extended to describe as racist anyone who defends Australia and our way of life. Many Australians have been guilty of shooting the messenger, while the message itself—the hatred and radicalisation—went unchallenged. We were told that highlighting radicalisation, rather than the radicalisation itself, was the problem. Well, now look. Look! 

Australia will not be a safe and tolerant society again until the evil encouraged to fester in our beautiful country is cast out. It is an evil that has become an ‘ecosystem of poison’, as Labor’s Mike Kelly so aptly described it recently. The Bondi massacre was not Islamic-on-Jewish terror imported from the other side of the world. The gunmen did not stop to ask if the victims were Jewish before executing them. We must call Bondi what it is: a radical Islamist attack on all Australians. 

Why were the Labor Party, the Greens, the teals and the globalist Liberals so blind to the growing threat of Islamic terror in this country? As recently as 16 May 2023, Prime Minister Albanese denied the reality of Islamic terrorism when he said: 

… the strongest threat that has been identified for our security has been right-wing extremism. 

This statement from the Prime Minister and quisling bureaucrats is misdirection. Fascists and white supremacists are a straw-man argument; their numbers are tiny and their influence non-existent, yet the Prime Minister knowingly and deliberately uses them to divert Australians’ attention away from radical Islam. 

The Greens are advocating an extension to the hate crimes legislation to cover hate against LGBQ+, transgenders and anyone else who does not worship their religion of the sky god of warming. Okay—I threw in the climate. But, once censorship laws such as those the Prime Minister is pushing are introduced, the inevitable outcome will be the deplatforming of political opponents. The Greens’ call to extend the hate crimes provisions are designed to confuse the issue, to create multiple moving targets and to allow the government to pretend it’s doing something without ever taking action against the real problem: Islamic terror. 

One only has to look at the history of Islamic terror attacks against Western civilisation to see strong measures are needed now. In the Munich Olympics massacre of 1972, there were 12 dead. In the Bali bombings of 2002, there were 202 dead, including 88 Australians. In the second Bali bombings, 2005, there were 20 dead, including four Australians. In the London bombings, 2005, there were 52 dead. In the Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris, 2015, there were 12 dead. In the Brussels Airport bombings, 2016, there were 32 dead. In the Nice truck ramming, 2016, there were 86 dead—and no calls for a truck buyback. In the Berlin Christmas market truck ramming, 2016, there were 12 dead—no truck buyback. In the Pulse gay nightclub attack in Orlando, 2016, there were 49 dead. In the Manchester Arena bombing, 2017, there were 22 dead. In the Hamas attack in Israel on 7 October 2023, there were 1,180 dead. In Moscow’s Crocus City Hall bombing and stabbing attack in Russia in 2024, there were 145 dead. And now there’s Bondi, which was not the first Islamic terrorist attack in Australia. There was the Lindt Cafe siege in Sydney in 2014, with two dead; the car ramming in Bourke Street, Melbourne in 2017, with six dead—no car buyback; and the stabbing of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel in 2024. Islamic terror is here—right here—on Australian soil, and it’s been here for 25 years. All these terrorist attacks were predicated on a hatred of Western civilisation and a fundamental belief that Islam will rule the world and nonbelievers will convert or die. 

ASIO can’t warn against what it can’t see. ASIO’s budget is now over a billion dollars a year, double what it was five years ago, and it’s not enough. Australia must decide: does it further increase ASIO funding or does it start sending home people who have demonstrated hatred for Australians? 

At ASIO, there are 230 potential terrorists being monitored while they participate in deradicalisation therapy at the taxpayer’s expense. Here’s One Nation’s deradicalisation therapy: boarding passes, immediate deportation and remigration, never to return. While ASIO were busy mollycoddling violent extremists, they missed the Bondi shooters travelling to a known Philippines terrorist training ground for an extended stay before returning and committing their terror. ASIO missed that the father of a suspected terrorist purchased three guns on the same Thursday night in September 2023 from the same New South Wales firearms dealer. 

ASIO missed that hate preacher Wissam Haddad holds a current New South Wales firearms licence. Haddad led Sydney’s Al Madina Dawah Centre where Naveed Akram, one of the Bondi shooters, studied. Akram’s father had a gun licence for six guns in New South Wales. How did none of this trip a red flag for New South Wales police, Home Affairs or ASIO? A royal commission must determine if this was wilful ignorance to protect a demographic that’s much more likely to vote Labor than conservative. 

Australia is not the country it was when I was growing up. The destruction of social harmony started when successive governments let in people who came to live apart from us and not to assimilate with us. Those who betray the hospitality we show them must be required to leave. Those who wage war crimes against Australians should be charged. As an example, ISIS brides travelled overseas to conduct war against Australia and against our armed forces. 

ISIS bride Zehra Duman spoke on social media in 2015 and demanded that the faithful ‘attack the UK, Australia and the United States’. ‘Kill them, stab them, poison their food’—your food. This is who Minister Burke knowingly and secretly enabled and helped to be smuggled back into our country. They perpetrated criminal activities and should be prosecuted instead of making work for ASIO by needing to be followed around. 

Under our Westminster system of government, the buck for these failures stops with Prime Minister Albanese and Premier Minns. The terms of reference for the royal commission—if we ever see them—must allow scrutiny of how these failures occurred. This is no doubt why the Prime Minister refused for so long to call a royal commission: to protect himself and his ministers and to hide the truth. 

Today, the Senate is voting on legislation which could have been brought in on a regular sitting day later in the year. What we are not voting on is the enabling legislation for the royal commission, to first get the data and the facts. This is what royal commissions are for—to inform bills like this. The Albanese government is putting the cart before the horse and burying the facts. Prime Minister, Australia is watching this royal commission. Do not cover up anything. If the cards are not allowed to fall as they may then it’ll be your government that will fall. 

One Nation will oppose this rushed dog’s-breakfast bill—the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026—and the second bill coming after it later tonight. There are processes to produce good legislation. This government has made a mockery of them all. The atrocious, shoddy legislation reflects contempt for our democratic process and for the people of Australia. The hate provisions for the Commonwealth Criminal Code that Labor introduced in 2010 and subsequently amended to make prosecutions easier have never been used—not one prosecution. 

Australia does not need more laws which take away the right to free speech, freedom of association, freedom of movement and freedom of protest. We need the government to start policing the laws we already have. Whether people are Christian or another civilised religion, there can only be one set of laws, which are laws based on our Christian, Western heritage. There can only be one allegiance in our community and it’s to those laws. Tolerance has been weaponised. Labor, the Greens, the teals and now the Liberals have elevated tolerance to be the end itself. The thing being tolerated became irrelevant. 

Speaking about Islam has been made prima facie racism, yet criticism of Christianity and Judaism is encouraged as being the religions of white-skinned people and of colonisers. White-skinned people are being demonised by the left-wing lobby groups and by other white-skinned people, like Greens Senator McKim, who said yesterday that Australians will not be safe until we’ve eliminated Islamophobia. In ‘Greens-land’, apparently there’s no radical Islam and the terrorist attacks I listed earlier never happened. It’s this illogical, suicidal empathy that’s led us to this moment. 

The list of terror attacks I read out used guns, bombs, knives, cars and trucks. Guns are a straw-man argument. ‘Look over here at these evil guns and don’t look at the person wielding the gun.’ Failing to act against radical Islam will lead to more Australians losing their lives. Australia does not have a gun problem; we have a radical ideology problem. One Nation strongly supports the right to own and use firearms lawfully and responsibly. This Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026 penalises legitimate, law-abiding gun owners. The poor wording shows a failure to understand how guns are used on farms and in sport. This is what happens when city based antigun groups are consulted and gun owner associations are not. 

The bill proposes limiting the use of carriage services. This is pitched at limiting the use of the internet to access blueprints and use 3D printers to print guns. This is already illegal under state law. This bill elevates the description of ‘illegal material’ to mean whatever the hell the government decides is illegal. It could include a legal owner downloading the manual for a gun or educational YouTube videos on how to pull down, clean and reassemble a gun or on the science of a gun, like how the striking pin works and how to detect change, damage or wear to machine parts which may render the gun unsafe. 

Merits review of a refusal to grant a gun licence under this bill is eliminated. Appeals would now have to be undertaken through the Federal Court, which is—what?—$20,000 minimum. The Administrative Review Tribunal system is working just fine, so now the government are fixing a problem that doesn’t exist so they can use a spurious argument to take guns off anyone they dislike. 

As Minister Watt raised gun numbers, let me assist him. There are more guns in Australia now than there were in 1996, before the Port Arthur buyback, because our population has increased. The number of guns per person today is lower now than in 1996—lower—and the number of guns owned per person is lower. Honesty is important, Senator Watt. 

One Nation supports the right of Australians to participate in sports involving firearms, to use firearms for hunting or recreational shooting, to collect antique and historically significant firearms and to use firearms in rural areas for pest and stock management. One Nation seeks to end discrimination against legitimate firearm owners and users, ensure all stakeholders are fairly consulted in the development of firearms laws and regulations and make existing laws fairer. We seek to improve community safety by cracking down on illegal firearm use with stronger penalties if firearms are used in committing crimes. The buyback scheme is a blank cheque, which industry sources we spoke to said could cost up to $15 billion. This is a tax on everyday Australians, because it must be paid for with a tax. One Nation supports castle law—the right to use force, fatal force if necessary, in proportion to defend one’s home and family from an intruder. Bring that legislation before parliament and One Nation will support it. 

The Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 has been so badly rushed that critical passages are inconsistent to the point that a court is likely to refuse prosecution based on these inconsistent provisions. The changes on which the government and the Liberal leader, Sussan Ley, surrendered do not justify Liberals supporting this bill. The government said that creating a new offence of racial vilification was removed from the hastily redrafted bill, yet some elements are hidden in the revised bill. The bill still includes supremacy. Anyone who says ‘Australian society is superior to Islamic Society’ is off to jail for five years, 12 if you are a priest or a lay preacher. Will the government start rounding up hate preachers in the electorates of senior Labor ministers like Messrs Burke, Butler and Bowen for declaring the superiority of Islam over Christianity? Of course not. 

Make no mistake, this bill continues the war on Christianity and the promotion of Islam that has been a feature of left-wing politics for a generation. I welcome the last-minute government amendment to include a clause attempting to guarantee freedom of political communication, even if that protection is already in the Constitution. It may make it less likely this bill would be used to ban political rivals, including One Nation. 

The bill still does not mention antisemitism, not once. It was never about protecting Jews; it was always about promoting Islam over Christianity. Liberal leader Sussan Ley has sided with the Labor Party to wave it through without due process and with onerous clauses that take away peoples freedoms, will cost all Australians more in taxes and will, in the end, fundamentally change the nature of Australian society without protecting against a recurrence. Australians, your choice is now One Nation or no nation. 

/0 Comments/by

Are There Really 200 Would-Be Terrorists in Australia?

,

During the recent Senate Estimates, I questioned Mr Burgess, Director-General of ASIO, about the scale and nature of extremist threats in Australia. I cited figures of 200 potential terrorists and 18,000 people on threat-related watchlists.

Mr Burgess clarified that while “tens of thousands” have been investigated since 2001, not all remain active threats. He stated that the vast majority of individuals investigated since 2001 fall under religiously motivated violent extremism. However, he noted growth in other sectors, specifically – nationalist and racist violent extremists; extreme left-wing groups (anarchists and revolutionists) and broad “issue-motivated” extremists.

Mr Burgess declined to say whether the majority of persons under investigation were Islamist extremists.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: In terms of root cause analysis, you’ve reassured me already. Thank you for your statement. I have a few questions. Is it true that there are approximately 200 would-be terrorists living in Australia? Is it true that there are over 18,000 people on the threat related watch list?  

Mr Burgess: What I can say publicly is we have a number of people we have subject to investigations, including a number of people in our priority counterterrorism caseload who obviously get the priority. There are tens of thousands of people who have come to our attention and are no longer being investigated by us. That does not mean tens of thousands of people are potential terrorists, but they’re people we have investigated.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that the majority of these are Islamic sympathisers?  

Mr Burgess: The vast majority of people we’ve investigated since 2001 have come from a religiously motivated violent extremism cohort. But of course we have seen growth in broader issue motivated violent extremists, including nationalists and racist violent extremists and people with a range of other grievances, including on the extreme left, anarchists and revolutionists, which is something recently that we’re getting involved in. The mix is spread.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will ASIO take direct action in the future on strong suspicion of threat even if the action runs the risk of being branded racist or the result of profiling religion or whatever? It seems to be a matter of life and death.  

Mr Burgess: If it’s a matter of life and death, we and the police will be on it. We’ll be doing that together with the police. If it’s an immediate threat to life, you need the police to go through the front door, not the security service. We always investigate threats to security, and that’s what we’re investigating. We’re not racially profiling or doing anything else. We’re looking at people who hold certain ideological views that think politically motivated violence or promotion of communal violence is something that supports them or in their remit. We will act accordingly with the full force of our law. Everything we do and everything we must do has to be legal and proportionate to the threat before us.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will you label them at the risk of being called names?  

Mr Burgess: It depends what you mean by ‘label’. We assign ideology—  

Senator ROBERTS: Identify their background. 

Mr Burgess: Religiously motivated violent extremists, Sunni violent extremists, Neo-Nazis, nationalist and racist violent extremists—we call them what we need to to explain their ideology and motivation.  

Senator ROBERTS: One last challenge for you, and a very difficult one. Could you teach the minister about root cause analysis, please?  

Mr Burgess: That’s a matter for the minister, if he’s interested. He probably has a very busy day job. 

/by

Prioritising Australian Safety

,

The safety of Australians is the first priority of any government. Following the horrific Bondi atrocity and the attempted Australia Day bombing in WA, I questioned the Australian Federal Police (AFP) on what they are doing to bridge the gaps between ASIO, Home Affairs and the AFP, and what specific new steps are being taken to prevent future acts of terrorism?

The response from the Commissioner and the Deputy was that while their “architecture” is mature, there is nothing specifically new being implemented in response to these recent events. They are relying on existing “enduring relationships” and a new National Security Investigation Team to monitor “hate extremism.”

While they claim information sharing is “excellent,” we cannot afford to be complacent. “Strong and enduring” relationships are good, however they don’t replace the need for constant improvement when lives are at risk.

I will continue to monitor these “joint arrangements” to ensure they are actually delivering the protection all Australians deserve, NOT just more bureaucracy.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

CHAIR: We can rotate the call. Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Given the role of the Australian Federal Police to enforce Commonwealth laws and to protect Australians, what further steps have been taken to open up the lines of communication between ASIO and the AFP and between the AFP and Home Affairs to prevent future acts of terrorism post the Bondi atrocity and the attempted bombing in Western Australia on Australia Day this year?  

Ms Sirec: The AFP has long and enduring relationships with in particular ASIO. Our counterterrorism construct has been in for a significant amount of time and the information sharing is excellent. Equally with the various Commonwealth agencies, in particular Home Affairs, there are enduring and constant relationships and information sharing.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have any additional arrangements been made?  

Ms Sirec: The relationships there are strong and enduring. When we do set up new capabilities such as the National Security Investigations apparatus, there’s a restrengthening of relationships there in particular even with the states and territories. The AFP brokers relationships of the Commonwealth with states and territories as well. It’s a very mature apparatus and architecture.  

Senator ROBERTS: But nothing specifically new?  

Mr Nutt: I’d go further to not only what the commissioner has said but also the deputy around the announcement of the National Security Investigation teams as a new initiative and also, as the commissioner said in the opening statement, around working with state security investigation or intelligence units on intelligence security investigations. One of the key aspects of that is looking for any intelligence or investigation that involves hate extremism that could transition into a joint counterterrorism arrangement, which has been in place for a very long time. Again, it’s another mechanism that supports existing arrangements nationally.  

/1 Comment/by

ASIO’s Role in Monitoring Security Threats

,

During my session with ASIO, I asked why they did not intervene when terrorist flags were flown, which is an offence, at demonstrations. Mr. Burgess explained that he was actually pleased when such incidents like this occurred because it made it easier to identify persons of interest and monitor them more closely in the future.   He stated that it’s not ASIO’s role to enforce the law, as that responsibility falls to the Australian Federal Police (AFP).

He clarified that ASIO functions as a security service.   From a security perspective, Mr. Burgess noted that they would assess whether a visa applicant was a Hamas or Hezbollah sympathiser. He also confirmed that ASIO collaborates closely with the AFP and international partners.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you have the last five minutes. We’re finishing on 10.30.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Burgess and others, for attending. At recent pro-Palestinian rallies in Australia, the Hamas and Hezbollah flags and symbols have been highly visible and displayed by participants. This is an offence. Why did ASIO not step in with the AFP and arrest the offenders?

Mr Burgess: Firstly, and again, ASIO is not a law enforcement agency. We don’t arrest anyone. What I can say on this matter is that, as the head of a security service, I welcome when individuals fly the flag, so to speak, and indicate that they’re someone we should have an interest in. If people are silly enough to do that—whether it’s unlawful or not is a matter for law enforcement—I personally welcome people declaring their hand, which allows ASIO to conduct lines of inquiry and investigation into those individuals should they be a threat to security.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you sending two messages there? One is to encourage people to fly their flags even though it’s illegal. Or are you encouraging people to do that and be identified?

Mr Burgess: No; I’m just making the comment that if people are silly enough to do that, then it actually is something that we can use as a point of interest. Of course, if people are actually flying symbols which are unlawful, then they’re breaking the law. But I’ll leave that to our Federal Police colleagues to talk about when they’re up at estimates.

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t think you had the power to arrest people, but what are your responsibilities? What avenues do you have?

Mr Burgess: We’re a security service. We get to investigate threats to security, including politically motivated violence, promotion of criminal violence, sabotage, foreign interference, espionage and anything that jeopardises the integrity of Australia’s border or attacks Australia’s defence systems.

Senator ROBERTS: The flying of a flag would be seen as flagging someone of suspicion to you, but it’s up to the police to prosecute.

Mr Burgess: It’s an indicator that there may be a violent ideology behind that. It might just be the actions of a misdirected individual who doesn’t really know what they’re doing.

Senator ROBERTS: By the way, I’ve read your opening statement, and I won’t be asking questions about the Gaza visas. Is it true that many Palestinian and Lebanese visa applicants are sympathisers of Hamas and Hezbollah?

Mr Burgess: Let’s get into a conversation about what a sympathiser is. Are you asking whether there are people who actually support listed terrorist organisations?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Mr Burgess: Yes. Are they all supporting listed terrorist organisations? No. The nature of that support is actually—when we get involved in a process of looking at someone, a visa holder, if it’s referred to us or intelligence indicates that we should look at someone, we’ll look at everything that’s before us and available to us through our international partnerships to make an assessment of whether someone in that case represents a direct or indirect threat to security.

Senator ROBERTS: You look at individuals.

Mr Burgess: We’ll look at individuals when they’re referred to us or intelligence indicates that we need to look at someone, and we’ll investigate them with rigour.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that many Palestinian and Lebanese visa applicants are sympathisers of Hamas and Hezbollah. I’m told you do the screening in terms of security.

Mr Burgess: We’re looking at security, yes. A very small number of them turn out to be an indirect or direct threat to security, based on our current work.

Senator ROBERTS: At mosques in Sydney and Melbourne, there have recently been speakers preaching hate and violence to their followers in relation to antisemitic themes. Why have ASIO and the AFP not intervened and arrested these pedlars of death and destruction? I know that you can’t arrest someone.

Mr Burgess: I obviously won’t talk about specific cases, but if we’re looking at individuals who are actually very cleverly staying on the right side of the law but could be interpreted by someone as actually still giving permission for violence, of course we would be interested, and our investigative efforts would be applied with rigour. How much effort they get depends on what we find as we make our inquiries and up through our levels of investigation, including the use of special powers if warranted.

Senator ROBERTS: What do those special powers involve?

Mr Burgess: A range of interception, computer access warrants, enter and search operations. We get highly intrusive under a warrant authorised by the Attorney-General, if we have the grounds that warrant that.

Senator ROBERTS: If it involves a breach of the law, will you report it to the police?

Mr Burgess: We pass that straight to our partners in the law enforcement joint counterterrorism teams.

Senator ROBERTS: You work together with the AFP and the state police forces, presumably.

Mr Burgess: In every state and territory, there is a thing called a joint counterterrorism team, which includes the state or territory police forces, the Australian Federal Police and ASIO officers.

Senator ROBERTS: Coming back to Senator Rennick’s questions, what do you see as your responsibility once exposing a foreign agent?

Mr Burgess: If we’ve got a threat to security, someone’s engaged in foreign interference or espionage, we will deal with it through either an intelligence-led disruption or pass that matter over to our mates in the Counter Foreign Interference Taskforce, and the Australian Federal Police will take it from there, as was the case with the two Russian-born Australian citizens this year.

Senator ROBERTS: You and Senator Rennick may not have agreed on the words and not understood each other’s words, but do you need any laws passed to enable you to do your job better?

Mr Burgess: No, not at this stage.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Burgess.

/by

Peter Dutton’s Unsettling Stance: Is Free Speech Under Threat?

,

Last week, Opposition Leader Dutton replied to an interviewer, calling for the public to dob in loved ones, friends, or workmates who have changed their opinion of the Government for the worse to ASIO. After facing backlash on social media, I expected the Opposition Leader to clarify his remarks, but he has yet to do so.

His advocacy for Australians to report their fellow Australians to ASIO for expressing concerns about government COVID measures—which destroyed lives, health and families—is deeply troubling. 

We are witnessing police actions in Canada and the UK where merely attending a protest rally, without any violent actions, is grounds for arrest and imprisonment. Is this a glimpse into the future under the Liberal Party?

Transcript

Last week, Opposition Leader Dutton, in a media interview, made a comment we expected he would clarify but he hasn’t. In the interview, the interviewer said: 

“We saw the terror threat raised to Probable yesterday. But there are multiple fronts now. 

One of those fronts that I found most interesting has come out of Covid. There’s the conspiracy theorists, the anti-vaxxers … what does it say to you about government overreach, and government, essentially, controlling people’s lives and the effects that that can have?” 

Peter Dutton’s answer: 

“None of that, though, should give rise to the sort of conduct that you’re referring to. I would say to anybody in our community, whether it’s within your friendship group, your family group, the work group, whatever it might be, where you see somebody’s behaviour changing, regardless of their motivation, or if they’ve changed radically their thoughts about society and government … you need to report that information to ASIO, or to the Australian Federal Police as a matter of urgency”. 

In 1997, in the legal case Lange v the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the High Court found: 

  • Under a legal system based on the common law, everybody is free to do anything, subject only to the provisions of the law, so that one proceeds upon an assumption of freedom of speech and turns to the law to discover the established exceptions to it. 

To protect human life, free speech stops at incitement to violence against others and at incitement to break the law.  

Free speech does not stop, as Peter Dutton suggests, merely at criticisms of others. Advocating that Australians be dobbed into ASIO for venting about government COVID measures, destroying their lives, health and families is a tone-deaf disgrace. In Canada and the UK right now, police response to criticism of the government is underway. Mere attendance at a protest rally without any violent words or actions is now enough to be arrested and imprisoned. Is this a glimpse of the future everyday Australians will endure under the supposedly honourable men and women of the Liberal Party, under an opposition leader who has come to bury Menzies, not to praise Menzies. I call on the Opposition Leader to clarify his remarks immediately. 

/1 Comment/by

Traitor Former Politician MAY Still Have Access to Parliament House

,

The Government has refused to confirm whether the former politician who sold out Australia to advance the interests of a foreign regime still has access to Parliament House. Former parliamentarians are automatically entitled to passes which grant them access to the private areas of Parliament House in Canberra.

In the words of ASIO spy chief, Mike Burgess, the former politician that “sold out their country to advance the interests of a foreign regime” could be sitting in an office in Parliament House right now and no one would know.

Instead of treating this concern seriously, the Government’s response to my question on this was laughter.

The Government, or the ASIO Chief, must name this traitor as soon as possible. This cloud over Parliament’s security must be fixed immediately.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Gallagher. When will the government name the former Australian politician that ASIO Chief Mike Burgess yesterday referenced as someone who sold out Australia to advance the interests of a foreign regime? 

Senator Gallagher: I thank Senator Roberts for the question, and I note the annual threat assessment that was delivered last night by the director-general of ASIO. We have utmost confidence in our security and intelligence services. The director-general made a comment about this. He was specifically asked about this last night. He said he’d made a deliberate decision not to name the individual, and he provided reasons for this. The government respects his judgement. He has our 100 per cent support. He has the full picture, and he made an informed decision. 

The threat assessment made clear that we need to continue to be vigilant and sober in how we respond to threats, and this is what we are doing. The annual threat assessment is an assessment made by ASIO. It is delivered by the director-general of that organisation. It’s not something that the government authors. It’s a document that is very much the director-general and ASIO’s to do so, and he has all the information available to him. He made a decision about that. If that decision changes, that’s his decision as well. It is not a decision for the government to make. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, former parliamentarians, as I understand it, have an automatic pass to enter Parliament House. The former politician who sold out this country could be in this building right now, in a parliamentarian’s office, and the office holder, MP or senator, would have no idea they’re talking to a spy. Why won’t you name the traitor now? 

Senator Gallagher: I think passes to this building are a matter for the Presiding Officers—the rules around that. 

Honourable senators interjecting— 

Senator Gallagher: I think it is, isn’t it? 

An honourable senator: Yes. 

Senator Gallagher: Yes, it is. 

Honourable senators interjecting— 

Senator Gallagher: Well, it is. Sorry, but it’s not a matter that the government is responsible for. In relation to the question you asked, which was about naming an individual, it’s a matter for the director-general of ASIO. If he were to choose to name an individual, that would be a matter for him. As part of his annual threat assessment, he made a decision to raise the issue, I think, and to rightly point to the fact that foreign interference is an issue. It’s an issue that all of us, as members of parliament, need to be aware of— (Time expired) 

The President: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, you have just put the Presiding Officer in a difficult position. Why is this government afraid to say the c-word and acknowledge the country that is the greatest risk to Australia’s interests and largest perpetrator of foreign interference—China, the Chinese Communist Party? 

Senator Gallagher: I’m not sure of the question really. We talk about China all the time as a government. We’ve been seeking to stabilise the relationship. We’ve been seeking to remove some of the trade bans. But we’ve also been very clear that we must disagree where we do, and, where we can agree, we should reach agreement. But there are things that are in our national interests that we may disagree on, and then we will be upfront about that. We will always act in our country’s national interest. That’s what we’ve done from the first day we were appointed and it’s what we will continue to do. That’s what guides us in relation to our interactions and our work across the world. There are a number of countries that we engage with regularly, but it’s always in our national interest that we do that. 

Media Release

Media-Release-1Download
/37 Comments/by

ASIO Not interested in Investigating COVID and Wuhan Bio-lab

I asked ASIO if they would investigate the origin of COVID, which is now known to be the Wuhan bio-lab and involves illegal USA Dept of Defense research?

The answer was clearly an emphatic NO.

Our head of intelligence has no interest in digging into events that led to COVID and worse still, the deadly COVID response.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I just want to come back and follow up on a question from Senator Rennick. In World War II we lost 34,000 troops in addition to 70,000-plus casualties and about 10,000 deaths in Japanese prisoner-of-war camps. We were told by the previous government that it was nonsense, initially, that it came from Wuhan gain-of-function research. We now know that’s the case. In America they set up—you’re probably aware of this far more than I am—a Department of Defense medical countermeasures consortium involving Australia, Canada, the United States and Britain. It was a military operation, and we now know gain-of-function research was the origin of COVID. The number of deaths we’ve now had, around 30,000 to 40,000 deaths, rivals World War II. We know this was a military operation in that military departments from those four countries were involved. Surely it’d be something you’d research.

Mr Burgess: You’re saying it’s something we know. I don’t agree with you on that. I don’t know that, and I’m not taking any further action on the COVID matter.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s killed almost as many people as troops died in World War II.

Mr Burgess: I recognise the impact COVID had on the globe. As for the matter of whether it’s a threat to security and ASIO are investigating it, I can tell you we’re not investigating its origins.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to be clear: COVID didn’t cost those lives; the government’s injections cost those lives. Surely you want to know whether gain-of-function research led to the spike protein also in the injections.

Mr Burgess: I stand by my comments. We’re not investigating it.

/5 Comments/by

CCP Office in Sydney? Nothing to See Here!

,

This is the second Senate Estimates I have raised questions about Chinese Communist Party contact points (or Chinese overseas police stations) in Australia. We know they exist and that this issue has been investigated and confirmed by mainstream media.

I asked Home Affairs, the department responsible for Australia’s security, why there is a CCP contact point office in Sydney. Home Affairs avoided answering – this from the department responsible for national security policy. What hope have we got? This is the same department that helps META censor accurate social media posts from Australians, yet it won’t discuss CCP activity within Australia.

I was told Home Affairs was not the correct agency to ask these questions and was directed to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO). The head of ASIO said he has no knowledge of a contact point in Sydney and referred me to the Australian Federal Police (AFP), who likewise stated that they had no evidence or information of this.

There must be a reason why they refuse to discuss this and are maintaining the secret.

Transcript below.

Transcript below.

Transcripts

Home Affairs

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Given the general concern about the Chinese Communist Party’s global involvement in overseas affairs, in many countries’ affairs, why is there a Chinese contact point in Sydney? The
contact point is a Chinese Communist Party-staffed office set up in a country outside China.

Mr Smyth: I would refer you to the Department of Foreign Affairs for matters in relation to that?

Senator ROBERTS: Well, you’re in charge of security.

Mr Smyth: I look after policy in relation to issues. But issues that go to bilateral relations with foreign governments or countries or their activities is a responsibility of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m after program 1.2, national security and resilience, so I’ll continue.

Senator Watt: With respect, Senator Roberts, you can’t just ask any question that includes those words in it. There are particular departments that are better suited to answering certain questions, and I think DFAT is probably the best department to answer the questions you’ve just asked.

Senator ROBERTS: I would doubt that, Senator Watt, because this is a security issue.

Senator Watt: Sure, but we want to make sure that you get the very best possible answers. You’ve already heard from the officials that DFAT is probably best placed, and they’ll be up on Thursday.

Senator ROBERTS: The AFP deputy commissioner investigations, Reece Kershaw, addressed this matter in a Senate estimates hearing in November 2022. He said that he did not believe the Sydney contact point was active, without going into further detail. So these questions are being asked to update the current situation. Is there still a CCP supported contact point in Sydney? That’s a yes or no answer. It doesn’t need to upset anyone.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, the AFP will be appearing a little bit later today. If you’ve got questions for them or are following up from answers that they’ve given at previous estimates, they will be available for you to ask those questions then.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m stunned that the Department of Home Affairs cannot face questions about security?

Senator Watt: That’s not a fair way to put it.

Senator ROBERTS: It is true.

Senator Watt: That’s your take on it, Senator Roberts. We’ve tried to assist you by—

Senator ROBERTS: Let the people of Australia decide on what their take is.

Senator Watt: We’ve tried to assist you by telling you the two different groups you could put those questions to. We’re all going to be here all week and there are opportunities for you to ask those questions.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the role of Home Affairs with regard to national security and resilience? Minister?

Senator Watt: I’ll suggest that the deputy secretary in charge of that area answers your question, Senator Roberts.

Mr Smyth: In relation to resilience, we have a task force that was established in November 2022, and that’s to better position Australia for what we see as a significant set of risks and challenges that it faces across the full spectrum of national and human induced crises. The task force leads on national resilience policy and strategy. That ensures that the Commonwealth has the necessary policy, legislation and capability to manage what is really an increasingly complex and cascading set of concurrent national crises in the current geostrategic and geopolitical environment. We provide advice to government around issues in relation to national security. We look after national security policy. We look after legislation for intelligence services. We look after countering foreign interference policy, terrorism policy et cetera.

Senator ROBERTS: Counter and foreign interference policy—that’s what I’m talking about.

Mr Smyth: And we do that in collaboration with other portfolio agencies.

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know your role in that collaboration.

Mr Smyth: My role is as the National Counter Foreign Interference Coordinator.

Senator ROBERTS: What would be your role in knowing whether or not there’s a CCP-supported contact point in Sydney?

Mr Smyth: I’d have to take that question on notice. I think the evidence that was given to you by Commissioner Kershaw was that that is not an active—

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know what it is now.

Ms Foster: I think that the difference perhaps is that Mr Smyth is responsible for the overall policy and coordination, but operational issues will typically fall within the purview of the operational agency which is why the Australian Federal Police is best placed to answer questions about current operations.

Senator ROBERTS: Wonderful! Before you start getting into policy—unlike climate change, where there’s no data, despite driving that policy—what is the purpose of the Chinese Communist Party contact point in Sydney? What is its purpose?

Mr Smyth: I would refer you to the AFP in relation to the evidence that has been previously given by Commissioner Kershaw.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to know what it is now. That was 12 months ago.

Ms Foster: Yes, Senator, and that’s an operational issue, which Senator Kershaw is well placed to answer, and he will be appearing later tonight.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to know what your take on it is, because we’re trusting you with our security.

Ms Foster: I’ve just made a distinction between our role in providing the overall policy framework and coordination and the role of individual operational agencies to manage specific operational issues. I think it’s evident from the fact that the evidence last time came from Commissioner Kershaw that this is an operational issue which the AFP is best placed to deal with.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s your policy for handling the Chinese Communist Party contact points, and what’s the basis of that policy?

Mr Smyth: The issues that relate to that, I think, are best referred to the Counter Foreign Interference Taskforce, which is an ASIO and AFP led taskforce that deals with operational matters in relation to foreign interference activity on Australian soil.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll acknowledge that you’re talking about operations with other people. I want to know what the basis for your policy is in regard to the Chinese Communist Party contact points in Sydney, because initially they weren’t existing and then we find out they do.

Mr Smyth: Where foreign governments seek to interfere in the democratic process of Australia, we take an interest, but those issues relate more to operational matters for taskforce agencies. In relation to the contact point that you’re referring to, I’d have to take on notice any specific information that we have that resides in this portfolio.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. That’s two questions you’ve taken on notice. Are there Chinese police officers working out of the premises? You can take that on notice. And are—

CHAIR: Senator Roberts!

Mr Smyth: That would be an operational matter for the taskforce members and also a matter potentially for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Ms Foster: Senator, we’re not seeking to be unhelpful. It’s just not helpful to you if we take something on notice which we’re then going to refer to someone else.

Senator ROBERTS: Are there any concerns of the security agencies about potential breaches of Australian national sovereignty?

Ms Foster: That would have to be addressed to the security agencies.

Senator Watt: ASIO will be on later today as well, Senator Roberts. There are opportunities for you to ask these questions. It’s just that they’ve got to go to the people who can answer them.

Senator ROBERTS: I’d would like to know that Home Affairs knows something about this. Should Chinese people living in Australia be concerned? You’re in charge of security.

Mr Smyth: Again, I’ll refer you to previous answers that we’ve given.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, are those all the questions you have?

Senator ROBERTS: Thanks, Chair.

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO)

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Burgess and your staff, for being here. I asked a question of Home Affairs, and they said to come here and also AFP. Given the general concern about Chinese Communist Party global involvement in overseas affairs, why is there a Chinese contact point in Sydney? A contact point, I’m sure you know, is a Chinese Communist Party staffed office set up in a country outside China.

Mr Burgess: I’m not aware of a Chinese contact point in this country other than the official consulate and embassy presence.

Senator ROBERTS: The Australian Federal Police deputy commissioner of investigations, Reece Kershaw, addressed this matter in a Senate estimates hearing in November 2022. He said he did not believe the Sydney contact point was active, without going into further details. These questions I’m going to ask are to update the current situation. You’re not aware of it, so what is the purpose of a CCP contact point?

Mr Burgess: I can’t comment about the purpose of something I’m not aware of. What I will say is my agency does consider and look for signs of foreign interference, and it’s more the behaviour we’re focused on in terms of anyone in this country that might be here doing something which is against our national interest, represents a threat to security and is not publicly declared.

Senator ROBERTS: Would it be something you’d investigate if it wasn’t a threat necessarily to Australian security but a threat to the security of Chinese citizens or former Chinese citizens?

Mr Burgess: Anyone in this country gets our protection.

Senator ROBERTS: Good. As I said, Reece Kershaw addressed the matter and said he didn’t believe it was active, without going into further detail. You can’t tell me how long it’s been in operation? You can’t tell me, a year later, whether there are Chinese police officers working out of the premises?

Mr Burgess: I would stand by my judgement that there is not a Chinese contact point in this country.

Senator ROBERTS: Are there concerns at the security agencies about potential breaches of Australian national sovereignty?

Mr Burgess: Every day in my line of business.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you surveil any threats from the CCP in this country that could affect Chinese residents or Taiwanese residents?

Mr Burgess: I do not talk about operational matters publicly.

Australian Federal Police

CHAIR: Thanks, Senator Scarr. Against my better judgement, Senator Roberts has got two minutes. That probably equates to two questions, and we thank you for your brevity.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. The 60 Minutes program broadcast on 18 June this year—an investigative story—showed interviews with several Australian citizens who had been intimidated by Chinese authorities and showed proof of the existence of at least one Chinese overseas police station in suburban Sydney. What actions have been taken by the AFP with whom the information was shared?

Mr McCartney: I think we’ve been asked this question a number of times during past Senate estimates and I think we’ve been consistent. In terms of the construct of a Chinese police station operating in Australia, I also heard the Director-General of ASIO state today that we’ve got no evidence or information on that. But, having said that, is Chinese foreign interference a threat? Yes, it is, and we continue to work very proactively with ASIO and other agencies in relation to that space.

Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question. The Australian Federal Police deputy commissioner of investigations, Reece Kershaw, addressed this matter in Senate estimates hearings in November 2022, I
understand. He said he did not believe the Sydney contact point was active, without going into further detail. These questions are asked to update the current situation.

Mr Kershaw: Senator, I’m the Commissioner of the AFP. I think you called me ‘deputy’. You’ve demoted me!

Senator ROBERTS: I have a lot of respect for the AFP; believe me. And I’m pleased you can see it with a sense of humour.

Mr Kershaw: So what was the end of a question?

Senator ROBERTS: Reece Kershaw said that the Sydney contact point was active, without going into further detail. I was going to ask more questions.

Mr McCartney: Senator, I think it was actually me who said that at the last Senate estimates. I would go back to my first answer: there’s no information that indicates that a Chinese police station is operating in Sydney, and that’s a position that’s supported by ASIO.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much, Chair.

CHAIR: Thanks, Senator Roberts. We appreciate you keeping to your word. That’s all the questions we have for the Australian Federal Police. Thank you, Commissioner.

/2 Comments/by