Posts

The Fine Line Between Safety and Overreach

,

I questioned the Commissioner regarding her September trip to Stanford and meetings with US tech firms. She will provide a detailed log of her itinerary, speaking engagements, and total costs on notice. Australians deserve to know exactly how their money is being spent and what is being discussed behind closed doors.

I then queried the Minister regarding concerns raised by US House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan about the Commissioner’s conduct. While I support protecting children from harm, we must be vigilant when unelected officials are labelled “extreme” by international peers.

Lastly, I was interested to know what the Commissioner’s philosophy was regarding censorship, noting the “enormous power” that has been given to her. She denied being a censor, stating she only acts on public complaints regarding “highly damaging” and “refused classification” material, specifically excluding political speech.

The eSafety Commissioner has enormous power over what you see and say online. I will continue to hold this agency to account to protect the rights of adult Australians from government overreach.

P.S. At one point during this session, Senator Green accidentally called me “Minister” – saying “maybe one day, if the LNP has their way.” She even joked that One Nation is already writing policy for the LNP! 😆😆

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I understand you have a few more questions.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, just three. Commissioner, you visited Stanford University in September this year as part of a USA trip. Did Australian taxpayers fund that?

Ms Inman Grant: Yes, I went, and I met with eight of the AI companies and the social media companies. Then I spent a day and a half at the Trust and Safety Research Conference.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you please provide a log of meetings and a record of your speeches, or any other documentation, to assure taxpayers that their money was spent appropriately, as well as the total cost of the trip?

Ms Inman Grant: I sure can.

Senator ROBERTS: On notice.

Ms Inman Grant: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. You’ve already answered a question from Senator Whitten about the House Judiciary Committee chairman wanting you to testify, so I don’t need to cover that. Minister, does it concern you that your commissioner is engaging in conduct that is so extreme that the US Congress, specifically the House Judiciary Committee chairman, Jim Jordan, is alarmed?

Senator Green: Minister, I think the eSafety Commissioner’s address—

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not a minister.

Senator Green: Sorry, Senator—maybe one day, if the LNP has their way.

*Senator Henderson interjecting—*

Senator Green: You never know. They wrote your net zero policy, so you never know. We are very proud of the reforms that we are undertaking. To be fair, I’m sure the coalition was very proud of the steps that they took in terms of online safety when the eSafety Commissioner was established. For the most part, we have had bipartisan support for these types of reforms, because they keep Australians safe. The social media ban or minimum age will seek to keep our children safe. It’s incredibly important. I know you come in here quite often talking about the safety of children and wanting to keep harmful material away from them. That is the work of the eSafety Commissioner. It’s open to other governments or other people in other parliaments to have their judgment of it, but from an Australian government point of view we are very proud of the work that she does.

Senator ROBERTS: Commissioner, you said earlier, in roughly these words, that you’ve never claimed to censor the net globally. Why do you think people think this?

Ms Inman Grant: We talked about Elon Musk’s tweet that said she’s the eSafety commissar trying to globally regulate the internet, and then Ben Fordham then picked it up, and it’s just had a life of its own.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve complimented your office on its work in protecting children, quite clearly. There are other concerns we have with your work because it can cause consequences for adults that we don’t like, but it’s not appropriate to discuss it here. What’s your philosophy on censorship?

Ms Inman Grant: My philosophy is I’m not a censor. I respond to complaints from the public. We received many about the Charlie Kirk assassination and about the stabbing of Iryna Zarutska on a train where she bled to death and the decapitation of the Dallas hotel owner. If you think that that’s overstepping when that’s something that’s highly damaging and was determined—

Senator ROBERTS: No, I didn’t say that. I was wanting to know your thoughts on censorship—that’s all—because you’ve got enormous power.

Ms Inman Grant: My thoughts on censorship? Well, what has been helpfully built into the Online Safety Act is that we’re not regulating for political speech or commentary. It’s where either online invective or imagery veers into the lane of serious harm. You provide us with thresholds. Sometimes those thresholds are tested and sometimes they’re a grey area, but I think we help thousands of people every year. We’re doing world-leading work that the rest of the governments around the world are following. I think we’re punching above our weight. We’re a very small agency given the size of our population. So I guess I don’t have a view. I don’t see myself as a censor. I don’t tell you what you can or can’t say unless it’s refused classification or it’s trying to silence someone else’s voice by targeted online abuse that reaches the threshold of adult cyberabuse.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Lastly, I think it was Mr Fleming who invited us to have a briefing. We haven’t forgotten. We’d like to do that, but we’ve been a bit busy. We will do it one day.

Mr Fleming: Maybe in the new year. The offer still stands.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you

/3 Comments/by

Say Its Name, Albanese: Islamic Terror

,

This bill is a licence to arrest dissidents, halt debate, and silence political opposition.

On December 14, 2025 – an Islamic terror attack occurred in Australia.

Two individuals associated with the foreign ISIS group, one of whom ASIO was supposedly ‘watching’, went to an Australian beach and started murdering innocent people.

On Australian soil. A massacre of innocent people.

These individuals and their anti-human murderous intent are presumed to be products of an Islamic theocratic ideology which is part of a network of militant Islamic groups that engage in a combination of regional conflicts, power struggles, and the global act of intifada in which they seek to spread Islam ‘by the Sword’ and subjugate the peoples and religions of the world.

Islamic terror is not a response to the behaviour of the Australian people. Indeed, it has been forming caliphates for over 1,400 years. To make any insinuation that Australians and their speech are somehow to blame is an insult to rational thought.

These statements about Islam and its history of creating violent militancy are factual statements that will no doubt become criminal hate speech if the Prime Minister and his government are allowed to shamelessly exploit the Bondi Islamic terror attack.

As we speak, the Prime Minister and his ministers are busy creating a political firestorm to fabricate the feeling of existential terror – the purpose is to rush people.

To panic people.

To pass the single, most dangerous piece of legislation this nation has ever seen.

An Islamic terror attack took place, and yet this omnibus bill doesn’t have the guts to name the ideological perpetrator. Look at it. Where is the call to identify radical Islam?

Where does it cite the ideology that is the chief cause of fear among Australians?

Australians are smarter than that. Go online – before social media is banned – and listen to what people are saying. They spotted the oversight immediately.

The title of this bill is a real-time rewriting of the narrative. The Prime Minister has repackaged Islamic terror as some sort of vague antisemitism and the impossible-to-define ‘hate speech’.

This matters because Islamic terror is not a reaction to criticism of Islam, criticism of mass migration, support of Australia’s Western heritage, our Christian foundation, our demands for women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, or other Western-centric thought.

Nor do French satirical cartoons or Salman Rushdie’s literary works cause Islamic terror.

Islamic terror exists to oppress, to kill, and to convert.

Enacting ruthless, politically motivated censorship against the Australian people – and specifically conservative Australians – will not stop a single Islamic terror attack.

Let me repeat – this bill will not stop a single Islamic terror attack.

Islamic terror’s hatred – its antisemitism – its desire to ‘behead the infidels’ – which was shouted on the streets of Sydney ten years ago and with no response from authorities, politicians, or this Parliament – stems from its radicalised religious belief that is an ideology for structuring society.

An inhuman, uncivilised society.

Shutting up Australians and interfering with what should be the sacred, unassailable right to free speech and political communication – is not an act of protection. It is an act of aggression.

The Australian people asked you, Prime Minister, to stop Islamic terror. To deport the Islamic hate preachers. To find out why people on an ASIO watchlist had access to firearms. To find out why people on an ASIO watchlist were able to travel to known Islamic terror training areas.

They want to know why your government has not proscribed various known Islamic hate groups despite our allies doing so. They want to know why your government brought back female members of the Islamic State terror group despite the community telling you no.

And why your minister lied to cover up the ISIS brides’ return as it was being planned – and while it was underway.

They want to know why people holding Jewish and Australians flags are routinely arrested while those carrying Hamas, Hezbollah, and ISIS flags are not.

They want to know why current and former members of government marched beneath a portrait of the Ayatollah whose Iranian regime serves as the heart of Islamic terror – exporting it to the world including Australia.

And cruelly treats its own citizens.

Why are you, Prime Minister, presenting to us this omnibus bill which fails – catastrophically – to confine itself to the religious ideology that is murdering Australians, attacking the Jewish community, and spreading hate and violence in our country?

You and your government were given a very specific and narrow request from the people of Australia: get the Islamic terrorists out of this country or put them in jail.

What you have done instead is sloppily and dangerously draft an astonishingly extensive omnibus bill – which must be the work of months, not weeks – to make it nearly impossible for the average Australian to voice their God-given dissent, concern, and disgust at various policies and cultural changes to our country.

It is the codification of blasphemy known under the new name, ‘Islamophobia’.

As the late, great, left-wing figure Christopher Hitchens said: ‘Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons. Resist it, while you still can.’

I look around and think how far the left have fallen.

This bill is, without question, without any doubt, an abuse of Parliament’s power.

It’s a licence to arrest dissidents, halt debate, and silence political opposition the likes of which we have not seen in a hundred years.

The Prime Minister hopes that obstructing the Parliamentary process with grief and fear will be his means for creating a moral panic and that my fellow Senators will act rashly.

This bill extends the victims of the Bondi Islamic terror attack to all the people of our nation.

If this bill is passed, those who voted in favour will be betraying everything our ancestors built, everything they believed in, and slamming the door to democracy.

We make a tragedy worse – we multiply the fear – when government puts into law a document expressly PROTECTING the agents of Islamic terror and jails the Australians who try to warn against it.

This bill is the opposite of what the Australian people asked members of Parliament to do.

I believe my role is as a servant to the people of Australia. I was elected to the Senate to help shape the law and to serve Australians and to serve Australia – not to expand the reach of government into the realms of petty censorship.

After all, was it not the Senate that censured my Party Leader, Pauline Hanson, for wearing a burqa to warn that we were sleep-walking into radical Islamic terror? Two weeks later, her warnings were made real and yet she is denied a place to vote on the very issue for which she was silenced.

This bill must be voted down – in its entirety – and re-written to serve the true purpose for which it was intended: to stop Islamic terror.

It should be renamed the Combatting Islamic Terror and Hate Preachers Bill – or nothing.

As many have pointed out, our existing laws were sufficient to stop the previous terror attacks, to deport hate preachers, to disband terror networks, and arrest those who march in support of terror groups.

And yet we do NOT use those laws.

Why? Are police afraid to arrest Islamic terrorists? Are courts afraid to convict? Is the Labor government afraid of the next election?

We are not at the limit of the law – so why are we sitting here drafting new ones?

If the old ones are not used to combat Islamic terror – what makes anyone think the news ones will be?

It is far more likely – and I put this to the Australian people – that by Australia Day, it will still be acceptable to state and federal governments for demonstrators to break the law and walk under the Hamas-aligned pro-Palestine banner shouting the genocidal ‘from the river to the sea’ – while it will be illegal, or at least dangerous, to fly the Australian flag and call for an end to mass migration.

Come on. Let’s face truth and put Australians’ safety first.

Enacting ruthless, politically motivated censorship against the Australian people – and specifically conservative Australians – will not stop a single Islamic terror attack.

Say its name, Albanese: Islamic terror by Senator Malcolm Roberts

This bill is a licence to arrest dissidents, halt debate, and silence political opposition

Read on Substack

/3 Comments/by

Bigger than the Burqa

,

Why Pauline Hanson was censured and our Bill – silenced.

They called it ‘a stunt’.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Senate was not envisioned as a stuffy room.

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

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

‘Truth’ is exactly what Pauline Hanson was seeking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They probably agreed with her the first time too.

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

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

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

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

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

Voters are smart. They know something is wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

Bigger than the burqa by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Why Pauline Hanson was censured and our bill – silenced.

Read on Substack

/1 Comment/by

Net Negative Migration: Rebuilding the Lucky Country

,

Australia was once the lucky country—rich in opportunity and security. Today, families are working harder yet going backwards. Young Australians can’t afford homes or start families. Homelessness is rampant. This is managed decline.

Globalist agendas and net zero policies are stripping wealth from citizens while predatory, parasitic billionaires profit.

Farmers are under attack using the guise of “climate change” – reducing their ability to produce the food and fibre that’s needed to sustain and clothe the global population.

We’re seeing foreign-owned insurance rackets, radical content in children’s spaces, a growing war on Christianity, digital ID rollouts and censorship laws. Australia is being pushed toward a future of fear, surveillance, and thought policing.

Mass migration has overwhelmed infrastructure and law enforcement. One Nation will implement net negative migration—deporting visa rorters, overstayers, and offenders, and limiting new arrivals until Australia catches up. Our fight isn’t about race—it’s about patriotism, fairness, and preserving our identity.

One Nation will repeal Digital ID, Net Zero, and DEI measures, protect women’s spaces, enshrine free speech, and defend your right to protect your family. Australian wealth will stay in Australia to create jobs for Australians.

One Nation provides strong leadership and a clear vision. We will restore opportunity, security, and freedom for every Australian.

Australians have had enough. It’s time to put Australians first.

Transcript

For 30 years, Pauline Hanson has warned Australians the life they had growing up was slipping away. We were once a country so rich in resources, in harmony and in security that we were called the lucky country. Our national slogan was ‘She’ll be right’ because it always was. It’s now clear from talking to everyday Australians attending One Nation’s branch launches that Australia is no longer right. Australians are working harder and still going backwards. Social cohesion is unravelling in the face of over immigration, mass migration. Our children do not have the opportunities my generation enjoyed. Buying a home, starting a family and enjoying a life of peace and abundance is not in the future of most young Australians. This is called managed decline. Homelessness in Australia is rampant in a way that just a few years ago would have caused outrage. People now walk past the tent cities and rough sleepers, and, rather than outrage, they give thanks that they have been spared so far. 

Farmers are being demonised using net zero junk science, reducing their ability to grow food and fibre to feed and clothe the world. The United Nations World Economic Forum’s net zero is about transferring wealth from everyday citizens into the pockets of predatory parasitic billionaires who are being protected with a growing security state designed to control us not protect us. We now have ruinous electricity bills, racketeering from foreign owned insurance companies, perversion disguised as tolerance and sex instruction manuals written for young children available to read in the children’s section of public libraries. There’s a war on Christianity, often coming from fake Christians in very high office, and there’s an agenda underway to advance Islam over Australia’s national security interests. For everyday Australians these are all shock points causing and awakening. For those who haven’t yet been shocked, your time will soon arrive. Look around—internet age-gating and compulsory digital IDs are rolling out as we speak. Mis- and disinformation censorship laws are current being stage-managed into existence in the Labor-Greens stitch-up, based on the Morrison-Littleproud Liberal-Nationals government’s designs. This bill is designed to usher in a new age of fear—of late night knocks on the door and of family members being snatched up and sent to prison for thought crimes, as the UK and parts of Europe have been doing for years now. 

Australia is now suffering mass migration, with many coming here to build Australia and so many arriving to take a slice of what has already been built. Attendees at our branch launches tell me they no longer feel safe in their own homes. Their children are not safe playing outside, and our women are not safe walking after dark. Every day, with every new poll, it’s clear that we the people are waking up to the global agenda that the Labor Party, the Greens, the Teals and the globalist Liberals are promoting—an evil agenda designed to make the world’s predatory billionaires even more rich and powerful. 

Let me make my position very clear: immigration grew this country. Greek, Yugoslav, Italian, British, South American and Vietnamese arrivals all rewarded Australia for the opportunity we gave them, through their loyalty, hard work and endeavour. Some of them made their way into state and federal parliament—a wonderful example of the opportunity available to new Australians in their own home. 

I hope the changing political landscape in the near future will bring together Australian nationalists of all backgrounds and races to save this beautiful country from the greed of crony capitalists and the tyranny they’re spreading. Recent well-attended protests must have the billionaires and their political and media lap dogs terrified, as they should be. The common sense of the Australian people has thrown off the shackles of political correctness. People are realising the water around them is almost to the boil and action is necessary. 

One Nation offers strong leadership to restore opportunity, wealth and abundance for all. We will repeal the digital ID, social media age ban, all net zero measures and all DEI and related measures so our women are safe in women’s spaces and so Australia can once again know what a woman is. One Nation will enshrine freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and your right to defend your family in your own home, with force where necessary—castle law. Australian wealth will be invested in Australia, creating jobs for all who are here to work. 

I notice Prime Minister Albanese has just promised to loan almost $2 trillion of Australian superannuation money to America, to make America great again. What about Australia? President Trump is doing great things in America and for peace around the world. Wouldn’t it be great if our Prime Minister visited Australia and did the same thing here? When I hear misguided people talking about White Australia, one way or the other, I wonder if they have given this phrase enough thought. The world’s crony capitalists are all white and almost all male. Their tokenistic campaigns like net zero, transgenderism, DEI and feminism and their war on masculinity all stop at the door of their palaces of power in London, Geneva, Zurich and New York. Let me be clear: One Nation does not confuse skin colour with patriotism. Ours is not a conversation about skin colour. It’s a conversation about loving our country, pulling your weight and following our laws. 

In the Senate yesterday, I heard Senator Mehreen Faruqi use the phrase ‘white people’ derogatorily. I must direct a rhetorical question to Senator Faruqi. Senator, you realise your party is white, yes? The left see race where none exists or where it’s irrelevant to the matter being discussed, and that’s the definition of racism. The Greens are racist. How about we all stop talking about white people and instead discuss our real problems, starting with managed decline. 

Today, another Greens senator, another white male who is part of Greens party leadership, called every Australian who attended the recent marches for Australia ‘scoundrels’. Every day Australians concerned about where their country is heading are, according to Greens leaders, ‘scoundrels’. Marching under Australian flags? Scoundrels. Protesting peacefully instead of using violence, as the left often do? Scoundrels. If Palestine and Pakistan matter more to you than Australia, if you hate this country so much, might I recommend One Nation’s one-way airport express—we’ll take you to the airport, leave you there and put you on a plane. The Greens preach hate, division and separation to cripple people in victimhood, dependence and hate. That’s how today’s Greens get votes. Thirty years ago, Senator Pauline Hanson saw all of this coming. That’s why our party is called One Nation: to unite, liberate and strengthen all Australians as individuals and as communities and to strengthen us as a nation. We will defend the Australian ideal of one community made of people from many different backgrounds and religions, working together to lift all Australians. 

Our vision has nothing to do with skin colour or religion within the limits of social harmony. After all, every human has red blood. One Nation tells the truth and strengthens every Australian with the truth. We believe it’s fine to bring your own culture with you providing it fits in with and around our Australian culture. Do not try and change our culture, our way of life, to make room for yours. If you have come here to leech off our welfare and take for yourselves the wealth our forebears have created over hundreds of years then you can join the Greens at the airport. 

We will remigrate hundreds of thousands of people who have deliberately broken their visa requirements, finished studying or rorted the visa system and taken advantage of Australia. This includes deporting people who have deliberately broken their visa conditions, students who have completed their study and never left and the families who came with them. Since when did accepting students turn into accepting half their family permanently? It includes students who came here to study and never did study and visa holders who have committed an indictable offence. We will implement net negative migration and limit new arrivals until infrastructure and law enforcement can catch up with Labor’s flood of new arrivals. Net negative. We will reverse Labor-Liberal mass migration—reverse decades of it since John Howard doubled immigration. We will still allow a small number of workers with skills we need, especially in building trades, but that will be many less than the number of people who leave—net negative migration. 

The Prime Minister of Australia supports President Trump putting America first yet continues to put Australia last. I’ve heard the same message over and over at public meetings in recent years. Australia has had a gutful. Shut the gate. Tighten standards. Be careful who we let into the country—only producers. Preserve Australian identity and heritage. Australians wants our country back. 

/by

Digital ID Spreads Across the West

How ‘child safety’ and ‘mass migration’ is used as cover for control.

Last weekend, UK streets filled with thousands of people opposing Digital ID. The rally was prompted by their Labour Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, declaring that Digital ID would be made mandatory by 2029.

His excuse?

Digital ID stops illegal migrants from working.

It was a claim that no one, not even left-leaning TV broadcasters, believed. Keir Starmer was grilled for days on end and never managed to make a single coherent argument about why Digital ID would ‘solve’ any of the major problems facing the UK.

Digital ID has no ability to stop the zodiacs full of illegal migrants washing up on British beaches. Nor can it resurrect the manufacturing industry and give desperate working-class towns back their industries which have been gutted by Net Zero policy. It also won’t stop their Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, threatening to raise income taxes on the poorest of Brits.

…sounds like Australia.

What Digital ID might do is allow the government to control what people think, write, and say online.

Indeed, many joke that you’re more likely to be jailed in the UK for political speech than serious criminal activity. Currently, the UK is making more than 30 arrests per day for ‘offensive social media posts’ and over 12,000 across the year.

The bulk of these offences relate to politically-contested ideas that ‘offend’ people.

It is much the same in Australia where high-profile takedown notices show no attempt to apply an equal level of ‘safety’. The stabbing of a religious figure in Australia and the murder of a woman in the US were targeted for censorship by the eSafety Commissioner, although not thousands of violent images and video coming out of foreign accounts aimed at radicalising Australian users.

We believe it is undeniable that politics plays a role in digital censorship and that destroying privacy will only make people more afraid to speak their minds.

Just as ‘child safety’ was used to implement wide-spread social media censorship, many rightly fear that Digital ID will give the government excessive visibility and control over the actions of citizens.

Privacy was a valued asset in democracy because it was recognised as necessary to limit the power of government.

Suspicions are raised, for example, when official UK Labour press releases started calling Digital ID ‘a boarding pass to government’.

As the director of civil liberties group Big Brother Watch said:

‘[Digital ID] is fast becoming a digital permit required to live our everyday lives. Starmer has sold his Orwellian Digital ID scheme to the public on the lie that it will only be used to stop illegal working but now the truth, buried in the small print, is becoming clear. We now know that Digital IDs could be the backbone of a surveillance state and used for everything from tax and pensions to banking and education. The prospects of enrolling even children into this sprawling biometric system is sinister, unjustified, and prompts the chilling question of just what he thinks ID will be used for in the future.’

Today, politicians are exploiting public fears – Covid, terrorism, migration, crime, child safety – to coerce citizens into giving up essential privacy protections.

‘If you accept Digital ID now, it may be the last real choice you ever make.’ – UK protest sign

‘The systems involved are profoundly dangerous to the privacy and fundamental freedoms of the British people,’ said Sir David Davis.

Digital ID is the very definition of ‘mission creep’ where earlier calls to online safety and an upgrade to ailing government computer systems has been jumped on by data-hungry entities within the government.

The UK have used mass migration as their excuse – what of Australia? Our Labor-Liberal uniparty has decided to use children.

As we approach the December Under 16 social media ban, the widespread implementation of Digital ID is beginning to take effect.

Already, social media companies are taking steps to verify the identity and age of users – a necessary step if they are to avoid the crippling fines proposed by the Labor government.

Regardless of the specifics for each platform, the escalation of ID verification and near-total collapse of anonymity online has changed the relationship citizens have with the online world and – perhaps – the reach of the law.

Anonymity online has been used as a protection for political speech.

Australians have used their online accounts to add to the digital political conversation without fear that their employer might sack or demote them for something as simple as disagreeing with ‘pronouns’ or ‘Net Zero’.

This is necessary, given the rise of ‘Woke’ puritanical speech obsessions implemented by many employers.

The use of Digital ID and other forms of verification dramatically increases the risk for those Australians who wish to continue engaging politically.

We have seen how frequent data hacks have become and there is now a real possibility that people might be blackmailed for what they say.

Gmail confirmed that 7 million of its email accounts had been compromised. (People often use email to verify their identity for social media.) This was part of the enormous data link that involved 183 million accounts across Google and Apple. Earlier this month, Discord reported its proof-of-age ID data had been breached. These are the very same pieces of sensitive personal information that government wants all social media companies to collect.

Proof-of-age ID data is some of the most sensitive and can include driver’s licence or passport.

Forcing this data into the hands of more organisations is a public safety and privacy issue that has not been properly considered by the government as it rushed into so-called ‘child safety’ protections.

The only reason Discord was holding this proof-of-age data was, as they state, to satisfy UK and Australian age verification laws.

According to Proton, ‘Typically, Discord required a user’s selfie and then used software to scan the photo and estimate their age. Discord would then delete the photo at the end of the process. The system that was allegedly hacked was part of its appeals process.’

Essentially, when the photographs failed to correctly guess an age, users could back up their claim with government ID.

Everyone is talking about the Discord hack because it is a warning – a real-world ramification of rushed age verification laws that, without explicitly stating, require the widespread use of Digital ID.

Discord stresses it was only ‘a limited number of users’ except this reportedly equates to 70,000. That is a lot of people left vulnerable from information that never should have been surrendered.

It’s this under-handed spread of Digital ID via online safety rules that deeply concerns us.

Effectively, adults are being told that if they want to keep engaging online, they have to sign up to some form of Digital ID. We are social creatures. We have friendship groups online. Australian businesses rely on social media to operate and compete. Interfering in this space turns Digital ID from ‘optional’ into a heavily coerced requirement.

It’s like saying the Covid vaccines were ‘optional’.

Optional … but the government will ruin your life if you say no.

Digital ID spreads across the West by Senator Malcolm Roberts

How ‘child safety’ and ‘mass migration’ is used as cover for control

Read on Substack

/by

Charlie Kirk and the Defence of Freedom

More debate, not fear, is how we honour him

The assassination of Turning Point CEO Charlie Kirk has shocked the Western world, and in particular, young conservatives who saw his good-faith debates as an escape from a hostile learning environment.

It’s hard to believe that a 31-year-old father of two could be shot in the throat in front of both his family and a crowd while having a conversation.

University campuses are meant to be a cradle of learning – not a slaughterhouse.

We should all be deeply concerned about the normalisation of political violence, and it would be wrong to assume that this dark chapter has closed with his death.

Political leaders have responsibility to promote peace and democracy.

Voters take their lead from elected leaders and so today I call on every member of the Senate and House of Representatives to lead. Make a declaration against violence.

A lack of clear leadership on this topic risks isolating young conservative Australians who are frightened by the celebration of their peers. They need our support. They need to trust that they are safe.

Western politicians are not paying attention to the rising tensions amount young voters. Additional deaths are being called for, and political violence is being discussed as casually as we might chat about the weather.

This behaviour is a natural response to the new paradigm that ‘words are literally violence’. If words are violence, they can be responded to with violence. At first this belief was used to justify censorship. Now, it’s being used to justify violence.

This is wholly unacceptable. If there is one lesson that Charlie Kirk put forward, it’s that conversation is the pathway to peace.

Charlie would want us to have more debates.

Talking is what keeps us away from violence.

Look what happened in Nepal where the communist government used a social media ban to conceal its corruption and silence political opposition. Gen Z rose up in revolution, and then that revolution was taken over by criminal and depraved forces who spread violence, mayhem, destruction, and left the impoverished country in flames.

This is not the future we want for the West.

We do not want to open the door to civil unrest or malicious actors who want nothing more than to destroy our peace.

The answer to this rising normalisation of violence among the young Left is not to push social media censorship demands. Rather, we should insist the education system encourage and facilitate open debate. Australian universities are active participants in the censorship of conservative thought. Universities have allowed disruptive protest groups to hound and intimidate. Sometimes, the administration encourages it. That must end.

Western Civilisation is built on the free and unfearing pursuit of knowledge, not paranoid gatekeeping

Our political class must immediately walk back its undemocratic desire to censor young people on social media and stop pretending that its pursuit of ‘misinformation and disinformation’ is anything other than a cynical attempt to shut people up.

If you have a political idea, it must be won in the fire of debate – not with the match.

Charlie waded into the thick of propagandised university thought and sought to help young minds escape the prison of dogma built for them by their lecturers, politicians, and peers.

He did what the rest of us should aspire to do.

Charlie invited students to a fair debate which usually became a patient attempt to return each person back to first principles. It was here, with the implementation of reason and knowledge, that so many young people found their way back to the truth.

His approach to freedom of speech was to educate, not indoctrinate.

To open minds.

Donald Trump says that Charlie Kirk is: ‘A martyr for truth and freedom.’

For Australia, let him be a warning for us to change our ways and correct our course. While we are still one united people, our children can be brought together in conversation to disagree peacefully and build a civilisation.

Charlie Kirk and the defence of Freedom by Senator Malcolm Roberts

More debate, not fear, is how we honour him

Read on Substack
/by

eSafety Commissar Bullies Social Media Platforms

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, recently directed social media companies to take steps to prevent children from altering or falsifying their age to bypass upcoming restrictions for users under 16. This directive is part of the broader implementation of the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024, which requires platforms to enforce age verification and block underage users starting December 10, 2025.

The Commissioner stressed that platforms must identify and remove existing underage accounts (84% of children aged 8 to 12 already use social media, often with parental assistance) and implement “reasonable steps” to prevent new sign-ups or age changes by minors.

This will include multi-layered age assurance technologies, such as facial age estimation, behavioural inference and successive validation – to detect and block attempts by children to lie about their age, or edit profiles post-creation, without relying solely on self-reported birthdates, which can be easily manipulated.

Non-compliance may result in fines of up to AUD 49.5 million per violation, as platforms such as Meta (Facebook and Instagram), TikTok, Snapchat, and others were explicitly required to audit their user bases and redesign onboarding processes to close existing loopholes.

The guidance builds on earlier research from September 2024 showing that only 13% of underage accounts were previously shut down for age violations, highlighting the need to stop children from “changing their age” on profiles to evade detection.

This aligns with the law’s goal to stop social media access until age 16 in order to “protect young users from harms such as cyberbullying and addictive platform features”, while exemptions will apply for non-social platforms like gaming and messaging apps.

/by

Child Safety or Deliberate Political Censorship?

Life will never guarantee safety. That is not an excuse to legislate danger.

Australia is set to ‘quietly’ introduce ‘unprecedented’ age verification checks for YouTube and Google as part of a wider push to gate-keep access to social media.

Quietly.

Without the consent of the Australian people.

Labor is pushing ahead despite alarming fallout from the UK where their Online Safety Act, claimed to be created in the interests of ‘child safety’, has led to the immediate censoring of political discussion surrounding mass migration and Grooming Gangs.

What began as genuine concern for children on social media has rapidly expanded to mandatory, wide-ranging, biometric age checking across the digital landscape.

Not only here – throughout the Western world.

Australia, the United Kingdom, and the European Union have all decided that information is the enemy of political ideas.

The Coalition established the eSafety Commissioner

Liberal Leader Sussan Ley continues to support the eSafety ‘Commissar’s’ proposed restrictions on X, Facebook, TikTok, and Instagram, set to begin in December and now expanded to YouTube and Google (including Google maps).

Failure to comply will see the imposition of extraordinary and ludicrous fines.

This is to satisfy an age verification technology whose reliability is yet to be proven. While these biometric technologies can guess at ages, they cannot return a reliable result to distinguish teenagers, even for the same individual. How can this be the proposed basis for adult rights to digital communication?

It is only natural that when adults find themselves unable to access essential digital services, or a 16-year-old on their birthday wants to download X, that a more reliable form of identification will be sought – and that will almost certainly be Digital ID.

So much for promises that this will be ‘voluntary’ and ‘only for government paperwork and applying for rental properties’.

Most believe, logically, that the point of ‘child safety’ legislation is to force the implementation of Digital ID and perhaps begin the crackdown against VPNs.

These are policy positions that would have been rejected if it weren’t for the added layer of ‘think of the children’ just as deconstructing our energy grid required the weaponisation of screaming children gluing themselves to the road believing they were ‘going to die’ because of fossil fuels.

It is a sickening form of confected emotionally-manipulative hysteria.

We may ask, for what other reasons have these extreme measures been placed upon the digital realm?

Especially considering YouTube is one of the most heavily regulated established platforms and Google has a fully-functional adult-content setting.

Safety?

I don’t believe that. I’m sure you don’t believe that. Chalk up another Uniparty lie.

There is more going on.

While the government continues turning a blind eye to gaming chats and unregulated message boards, it clearly does not believe in child safety online. And even if the eSafety Commissioner believes in her mission to ‘protect children online’, why not wait until the Under 16 social media comes into force in December?

There is enormous doubt about its functionality and, most assume, its public reception. It is likely to be a social disaster. Children around Australia will suddenly realise that government power extends beyond campaign slogans aimed at their frustrated parents.

The UK is experiencing a fraction of the power the Australian legislation proposes, and it is an unmitigated disaster which has been called an assault on fundamental human and civil rights. Instead of protecting children, the UK’s Online Safety Act has put them in danger because it silences information about police complicity in the Grooming Gang assaults and removes public protests about illegal migrants who have been accused of sexually assaulting young people on the street.

Censorship is creating a world where criminals and predators are protected for the sake of political harmony

This is why we say, over and over, the government cannot be trusted with censorship.

Even good intentions turn sour, and we are confronted with ridiculous scenes, such as Peter Kyle, the UK Science Secretary, accusing Reform leader Nigel Farage of being on the side of Jimmy Savile. Needless to say, Farage is demanding an apology.

‘If you want to overturn the Online Safety Act you are on the side of predators. It is as simple as that,’ Mr Kyle spat back.

This is what authoritarian governments do when they have overreach – falsely frame a legislative reform as an existential threat to safety. If you don’t want your free speech rights or privacy erased, you must be supporting predators. If you think industrial renewable energy projects are a bad idea, you must want the world to burn. Or freeze. Or flood. (They’re not quite sure on that one.)

The truth is, the UK has shown us what awaits Australia in the immediate future.

Even those who dislike social media need be concerned about the impacts on search engines such as Google and Microsoft. Those who do not verify their age will have their results automatically filtered to child settings. This does not mean the standard ‘safe search’. No, it is instead a more complex algorithm that we have been warned will include harmful content which could simply mean a discussion on migration or whatever the government deems to be misinformation.

It might be an article from the wonderful Professor Ian Plimer challenging the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

It is via these methods of ‘child safety’ that our access to knowledge shrinks.

The government has become what the late Christopher Hitchens warned about – an entity deciding what you can read.

Did the Prime Minister mention this at the last election?

Who is responsible for subverting democracy and taking this decision away from the Australian people and our elected representatives?

This intolerable story of the erosion of rights comes down to the eSafety Commissar, Julie Inman Grant. She seems absolutely giddy at the thought of more power. I’m disgusted. Enough is enough. We need to have a talk about digital overreach and the misuse of child safety as a means to control people’s access to the digital world.

Based on the Coalition’s introduction of necessary precursor policies and legislation, Labor’s assault on the digital world is so expansive and severe it is difficult to know which argument to take into battle.

And that is the point.

Destroying the modern public forum is an essential step on the path to cementing an era of unchallenged propaganda capable of re-shaping the social conversation of Australia.

The people who founded our democracy wrote privacy into the system for a reason.

It was to protect people from the government

First, terrorism was used. Then climate change. Then Covid. Now, child safety.

All of these have been used to deceitfully chip away at privacy and free speech. It must stop. We have to draw a line in the sand and protect the internet, for ourselves and for the next generation of children who deserve to grow up in a free country and indeed, a free world.

Life will never guarantee safety. That is not an excuse for the government to legislate danger.

‘Child safety’ or deliberate political censorship? by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Life will never guarantee safety. That is not an excuse to legislate danger.

Read on Substack
/3 Comments/by

Australia Must Unite Against Globalist Control

Last weekend, the Australian National Review hosted a free speech summit on the Gold Coast. Although I was unable to attend in person due to commitments in Canberra for the opening of the 48th Parliament, I expressed my strong support for all those standing in defence of free speech and national sovereignty.

We answer to God, our communities, and ourselves.

Transcript

Thank you to the Australian National Review and the organisers of this summit on Free Speech. I can’t be with you in person because I’m in Canberra attending the opening events of the 48th Parliament and working with our newly elected Senators from NSW Warwick Stacey and from Western Australia Tyron Whitten to hit the ground running in the 48th Parliament.

As Senator Pauline Hanson said after the recent election – this is not the end of an election, it’s the start of a movement.

A movement that requires conservatives and patriots to set aside political differences, to forgive those who tried to take a slice out of each other to grow their own support and to band together against the evil that threatens our beautiful country.

Australia is under threat from a parliament that’s been captured. Globalist interests continue pursuing an agenda leading ultimately to serfdom for everyday Australians.

When the World Economic Forum says, “you will own nothing and be happy” they actually mean “The billionaires they work for will own everything and you will be happy – or else”.

This was never a conspiracy theory. Their annual meetings in Davos spend days explaining how the transfer of wealth and sovereignty will be conducted.

Most elements of their control agenda have already been put in place. Continuous, hidden facial recognition and identity verification tied back to a Digital ID is already in place in Australia.

There are no controls over the data, no audits to ensure data is not being copied and that deletions occur in the correct time frame. The audit that’s done looks only at the procedures in place with no forensic audit to see what’s really going on.

Children under the age for Digital ID are being disenfranchised not just from social media, they’re cut from the internet as a whole.

Earlier this month Bing and Google announced they are trialling a system that prevents anyone under 16 accessing the internet without a parental lock. For those who would defend the idea based on “keeping kids safe” understand that evil always finds a way.

Protecting children is the role of the parent and should involve educating the child on how to recognise and avoid harm. Above all else, it should involve defeating grooming. And that involves showing our children love and enabling them to feel valued and worthy. Thereby preventing groomers from cultivating feelings of being valued and worthy.

These are the Christian values on which our society has been founded. The further we move away from these principles, giving life to an age of needless white guilt, victimhood and immorality the worse our society has become.

I was astonished to read a story a few weeks ago of a child predator here in Australia who met his victims on dating apps. Children as young as 13 are on dating apps.

Most of the sites which are of concern, and these are not X, Facebook or Youtube, have apps that the current legislation does not cover. Virtual Private Networks, VPN’s, will become huge.

The Government’s war on freedom of association will have no benefit beyond increasing the tech skills of children so they can continue to talk to their friends online.

This may involve migrating chats from regulated social media to porn sites like Pornhub whose forum has over 300 million users.

To sign up requires no age verification. Visitors simply click a check box saying they’re over 18 and provide an email address.

Video games now have chat facility, and this is a growing area for groomers to find their victims. These are not included in the Government’s control agenda.

What can we conclude from this situation? The social media ban is not about protecting children because it only protects children from the least dangerous websites.

IT’S ABOUT CONDITIONING THE PUBLIC TO ACCEPT THIS LOSS OF PRIVACY AND PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY.

It’s about perfecting the technology to be used at some point against all of us.

And it’s about getting children used to government control from cradle to grave.

We’re seeing the weaponisation, the inversion, of human rights to justify the loss of freedoms to an extent that just a few years ago would have been unthinkable.

No longer are human rights about DEFENDING freedom. In this inverted world human rights are used to limit our freedom, limit our choice of words, limit our right to protest, limit our right to freedom of association and freedom of commerce.

This is a move that’s an essential precursor to the final stage of their global control agenda, which is the imprisonment of citizens inside home units that are nothing more than human filing cabinets, located in prison communities, called variously 15-minute cities dishonestly labelled as so-called “sustainable” cities.

In these digital prisons you will not own a car, your furniture, your whitegoods. Instead, there is life-by-subscription. Which is well underway.

During the governments’ COVID response we witnessed these predatory billionaires respond to the virus using their control of the media and their control of corporations like Coles and Woolworths to spread fear.

Fear that offered as the solution jabs from pharmaceutical companies these same parasitic billionaires own.

In this way, $5 trillion was transferred from everyday citizens worldwide to the world’s predatory billionaires.

All under the protection of politicians who take donations from these crony capitalist companies.

This is called crony capitalism and it’s the greatest threat to human rights in our lifetime.

The growth of conservative powerhouses such as Reform in the UK and AfD in Germany shows the public have finally realised the water around them is boiling.

The fight for free speech and human rights is the challenge those at this conference have accepted.

Praise to you.

Restoring freedom must start with the people’s media, which is rising. Yet it won’t bring enough people to our movement without improving credibility through more rigorous journalism.

Self-control is something we adults teach our children yet often forgot to use ourselves.

In the Senate, I’ve prided myself on being factual and this has protected myself and One Nation, playing a large role in the growth of our electoral support.

Finally, as a movement we need to restore Christian values, biblical values.

We do not answer to Julie Inman Grant. We do not answer to Anthony Albanese. Nor to the World Economic Forum, nor to the UN World Health Organisation, nor the UN.

We answer to God. We answer to our communities. We answer to our self.

Good luck to all the award nominees for the Australian Media Awards and enjoy the summit.

/2 Comments/by

Age Checks on Google? Censorship Disguised as Child Safety

The e-Safety commissioner wants search engines like Google to have mandatory age verification. This will automatically censor search results.

We need to have an urgent and serious talk about the misuse of ‘child safety’ for the purposes of mass government censorship.

/by