Recent scientific papers, including one by Dr. Yaakov Ophir from the University of Cambridge and another by Dr Raphael Lataster from the University of Sydney, reveal high rates of severe adverse events such as myocarditis, pericarditis, and cancer links following COVID-19 vaccination, which were censored or downplayed by authorities.
Australian health authorities ignored these risks.
The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) silenced dissenting doctors, forcing practitioners to violate the Hippocratic oath. According to AHPRA’s own data, 16 doctors under AHPRA scrutiny have died by suicide.
Doctors’ registration fees have skyrocketed fivefold — not to keep standards high, but to fund Ahpra’s mounting mission creep.
With a growing appetite for complaints and power, AHPRA lack the ability to manage processes fairly or swiftly. When a regulator’s actions lead to serious distress and suicide risks, it’s no wonder they had to convene an “incidents of distress” review.
This isn’t regulation anymore; it’s harming our medical community.
A One Nation government is committed to calling for a royal commission into the COVID-19 medical response and convening a conference of state health ministers to review and reform AHPRA’s regulatory model.
Australians deserve to know who knew what and when regarding the COVID-19 medical response.
https://youtu.be/-HmexHho1zk
Transcript
Senator Roberts: In the week since I spoke about the huge volume of scientific papers on the COVID scandal, more new papers have been published. After years of censorship, Dr Yaakov Ophir from the University of Cambridge published an excellent paper in the EXCLI Journal titled ‘Real-time pharmacovigilance and cardiac risk communication during the COVID-19 vaccination campaign in Israel’. The paper included the Israeli Ministry of Health’s actual internal pharmacovigilance dataset, showing that, far from being rare and mild, adverse events from the COVID jab are dangerously high. From March to May 2021, immediately after injection started among males under 20, 85 per cent of the hospitalisations involved myocarditis or pericarditis. Among females under 20, 68 per cent of hospitalisations involved myocarditis or pericarditis. Two thirds of these patients had no medical history of heart disease, and 46 of these young people died.
These are hospitalisations and deaths amongst healthy young people for whom COVID would not have been serious and certainly not fatal. This paper shows Israeli health authorities warned US and European authorities, ‘We are seeing a large number of myocarditis and pericarditis cases in young individuals soon after Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination.’ Yet the data behind that large number never reached the public. Instead, the warning was framed as ‘rare, mild and transient’—a lie—and the injection regimen was extended to even younger people. Australia did the same. Did we get the data Israel shared? Was our pharmacovigilance compromised? Only a royal commission can get to the bottom of who knew what and when. Only a royal commission can unpack decisions made and recommend changes for those who ignored the adverse events and acted contrary to the best interests of the public.
Australian researcher Dr Raphael Lataster from the University of Sydney has published in the peer reviewed dedicated cancer journal Oncotarget. His paper shows a mechanistic link, which means the process that links, in this case, COVID injections with an outcome—in this case, cancer. I spoke last week of a paper from the McCulloch Foundation, which established a similar mechanistic link. The work in this area is now impossible to ignore.
Why is this not big news? We have cause and effect, absolute proof of actual cases and hundreds of autopsies of people who should still be alive, and nobody in authority cares. Only One Nation will call a royal commission into a medical response that killed thousands—tens of thousands—of Australians due to adverse events, suicides, incorrect protocols or delays in medical treatment. That is criminal.
What’s also criminal is the performance of the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, which is tasked with maintaining Australian medical standards. In Senate estimates hearings I’ve questioned Ahpra on many occasions. I’ve mentioned their jihad against any doctor who refuses to follow their self-determined medical truths and I’ve spoken about capable, sound doctors who are deregistered for the crime of providing their patients with the best possible medical care. Their actions during COVID and since show that Ahpra is dedicated to protecting orthodoxy, maximising pharmaceutical use and causing doctors to break the Hippocratic oath.
I read an article in the Australian newspaper last weekend from obstetrician Dr Michael Gannon, former head of the Australian Medical Association. The headline correctly summarises the situation in which Ahpra has put us: ‘System to catch bad doctors is causing harm to the good ones.’ It’s killing good ones, and the regulator meant to protect patients has no filter on accepting complaints. Ahpra’s own data shows 16 doctors took their lives while under its scrutiny.
Doctors’ registration fees have risen fivefold to pay for Ahpra’s mission creep, which is more reminiscent of a ministry of truth than a studious group of medical professionals ensuring their colleagues’ skill levels meet practising standards. In April this year, Ahpra convened the ‘organisational review group—incidents of distress’ to consider serious incidents relating to the suicide of people involved in their regulatory processes, and it’s no bloody wonder. This regulator has an appetite for more and more complaints, growing its budget and power. It’s lacking the ability to manage complaints in a morally fair and expeditious manner and it’s harming our society.
A One Nation government will convene a conference of state health ministers to review the performance of Ahpra and explore alternative models of regulation based on correcting the balance between the practitioner’s standards and rights and the patient’s best interests. In doing so, One Nation will listen to doctors, nurses and health practitioners.
During this session with the Office of the eSafety, I requested an updated, detailed breakdown of the Commissioner’s overseas trips, including destination countries, separate trip counts and specific cities and dates for travel to the United States – which was taken on notice.
I then turned to the March 2026 compliance update that states that 4.7 million (now 5 million) accounts have been deactivated, pointing out that these likely included bots, orphaned profiles and inactive accounts rather than active users.
Despite repeated questioning, the eSafety officials admitted they do not know how many of those closed accounts belonged to actively engaged Australian children, relying instead on self-reported figures from tech platforms under compulsory notices without verifying if the accounts were dormant.
Citing public reports and industry feedback, including data showing 70% of children aged 10 to 16 are still on social media and criticism from platforms like Meta, I highlighted that the ban is largely failing to stop workarounds and bypasses.
While the Commissioner defended the figures as a useful baseline for harm reduction and pointed to a 37% overall drop in young people holding accounts, I maintain that “stating” millions of deactivated accounts misleads the public when the eSafety office cannot prove how many active under-16 users were actually removed.
— May | Senate Estimates
Transcript
CHAIR: We will keep going with the eSafety Commissioner. Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Moving on to travel, in previous estimates, I asked how many overseas trips the eSafety Commissioner had undertaken and I received reply SQ25-002143. This shows 22 destination countries including Canada, France, Switzerland, Ireland, Japan, United States, Germany, Italy and the list goes on. This answer, though, does not say how many trips to these destinations were made. Please update this reply on notice for recent trips and indicate for all destinations how many separate trips were made to each destination. In the case of the United States, please indicate cities visited and dates.
Ms Inman Grant: Sure. I’m happy to take that on notice, but I try and hit as many places on one flight as possible.
Senator ROBERTS: I note your March 2026 compliance update is still talking about the 4.7 million accounts that were deactivated at the time the under-16 ban started. I would suggest these were accounts that tech firms, preparing for the introduction, were shutting down for being mostly bot and orphaned accounts. Since you’re still claiming the win, let me ask: can you tell me how many of those 4.7 million accounts were confirmed as an active account of an Australian child under 16?
Ms Inman Grant: There have been 300,000 subsequent accounts that have been restricted or deactivated, so a total of five million. If it gives you any comfort, it’s not like I pulled out a piece of scrap paper and wrote down a bunch of numbers.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not suggesting that.
Ms Inman Grant: These numbers are provided by the companies themselves through legally enforceable notices. As I mentioned earlier, we’re sending out subsequent data notices. We are interrogating those numbers to make sure that they accord with what we’re seeing through our various tools. We’ll be asking additional questions. Where our real focus is now—that was really the low-hanging fruit when we deactivated and restricted the known under 16s at that time. What we really need them to focus on is preventing any sort of reregistration or circumvention of the systems that they have in place, and, certainly, we want them over time looking at much stronger sign-up restrictions so that they’re not continuing to attract or trying to attract tweens, in particular, between the ages of eight and 12. One of the platforms said in discovery documents that tweens have a herd mentality. They said, ‘We should try and get them locked in as early as possible, so we have customers for life.’
Senator ROBERTS: You didn’t answer my question. I asked: how many were active accounts of an Australian child under 16? It tells me that you don’t really know because the numbers were what you were told by the tech platforms.
Ms Inman Grant: Right. We’re asking—
Senator ROBERTS: You don’t know?
Ms Inman Grant: We’re asking some deeper questions about the nature of those accounts. Is there anything you’d like to add, Ms Snell?
Ms Snell: I think what we can add to that is to say that there were accounts that were registered as being held by an Australian end user under 16. That was the basis on which the platforms took action to restrict access to those. We don’t have a breakdown of how recently those accounts have been used and whether, for example, they were dormant or not. But I think what’s important to understand there is just because an account hadn’t recently been active is not to mean that the owner or user of that account couldn’t start using it again. Part of the intention of this law and all of the regulations that eSafety enforces is it’s a proactive protection. That’s about making sure that kids under 16 don’t start using these harmful services.
Senator ROBERTS: The point is you do not know how many accounts of under 16-year-old children were shut down. Here’s an article from Tech Guide by Stephen Fenech, ‘After 100 days of the Under 16 social media ban the verdict is in—it’s a massive failure’. The article says, ‘Seventy per cent of Australians aged between 10 and 16 are still on social media platforms.’ It goes on to say: Snapchat reported it had closed down more than 415,000 accounts with its own age detection technology but parents, teens and experts are all saying it is easily and routinely bypassed— we’ve heard that a lot too— A poll on X showed 45 per cent of respondents said their child had found a workaround to the ban with a further 34 per cent saying the ban has had no impact at all. In this sample, eight out of 10 parents says there is no effective enforcement of the social media ban. Then it goes on to say: Meta—the platform that owns Instagram and Facebook—also shared its feed back after 100 days of Australia’s social media ban. “Australia had the opportunity to set a single, accurate standard for age assurance across the whole app ecosystem,” Meta said in a statement. “Instead, the Government chose a patchwork approach that’s inconsistent across services and risks pushing young people towards less regulated, less safe corners of the internet— that’s exactly what we said would happen— “If the goal is genuinely safer, age-appropriate experiences, we believe the best option is to raise the bar across the entire ecosystem and give parents a simple, consistent point of control— that’s exactly what we said before it was applied— “App-store level age assurance is the practical path that Australia missed.” Those are some comments.
Ms Inman Grant: Sure. There was a lot there but let me say this is a pretty typical playbook I’ve seen many times before. The platform that doesn’t want to be regulated says that the third-party technology that they’re using isn’t efficacious, even though it’s already been tested, and it’s not getting better, so they blame the policy or they blame the regulatory guidance. They then say it should be somebody else’s responsibility to age-gate our platform. We don’t tolerate that in the real world. This would be like a bar or a pub saying, ‘Carding a child at the door is not our responsibility. We should make the brewery or the wholesale manufacturer be responsible for them getting into the bar.’ You own the risky environment. You need to own that space. Where I agree is there are things that we can and should be doing up and down the stack to help give these platforms more signals, and that’s particularly what Apple’s age range API does. Interestingly, some of the companies have taken it up and some have not. I think it’s also interesting to note you mentioned Meta, and I think they put in their blog that they had deactivated about 554,000 accounts. They were asked in court in New Mexico because they told the New Mexican government they couldn’t deactivate accounts for New Mexicans. The court pointed to the fact that in their own blog they said they were able to do this. I take a little bit of that with a grain of salt. The 70 per cent number that you mentioned came from our public compliance report and that’s accurate. Seventy per cent of kids who were on Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram, Facebook and YouTube were still on, and, in many cases, they were never even asked to age verify. That is precisely why we’re taking on and looking more closely at those five particular companies because what we have seen, in terms of our data, is the number of young people holding under-16 accounts on social media has decreased by 37 per cent. If you think about any other public health movement over a three-month period, that’s a very impressive reduction, and this is what we’re going for. We’re not just looking at numbers; we’re looking at realistic harm reduction. That goes alongside the reduction of young people on these platforms. That’s a really important measure, not the initial—obviously it’s impressive that those initial accounts were deactivated, but the test for the companies right now, and whether they’re continuing to improve and live up to the reasonable steps, is whether they’re preventing them from re-entering and reregistering their platforms to let them back on.
Senator ROBERTS: With respect, there were parents quoted, surveys quoted and big tech platforms quoted. I remember all of the Apollo moonshots had a quote that was their guiding theme, and one of them was: ‘In God we trust. All others bring data.’ You are giving me no data. You’ve had three chances. You’ve given me no data that tells me anything about the number of active accounts shut down.
Ms Inman Grant: How much does it matter to the ultimate goal of the policy which is to keep children off social media accounts?
Senator ROBERTS: It goes to your statement that 4.7 million accounts were deactivated at the time the ban started.
Ms Inman Grant: Yes, and we stand behind that to the extent—
Senator ROBERTS: But they’re not active.
Ms Inman Grant: Pardon me?
Senator ROBERTS: They’re not active. You don’t know that. You trusted the tech platforms. You said that you didn’t have the data and you don’t know.
Ms Snell: Can I just say, on that, that the data we have and the number of accounts the platforms have advised us—whilst you say we trust the platforms, they provided that information to us under compulsory notices. There was a penalty for them if they didn’t respond to those notices; they all did respond. There was also a criminal offence if they provided false or misleading information. At the moment we have no evidence to suggest the information they provided was false or misleading. But we also accept there are still kids on platforms, and we are concerned with the platforms’ compliance. That’s why we have ongoing investigations where we are interrogating the platforms and the steps they are taking to determine whether they are complying with the law.
Senator ROBERTS: The commissioner told me that the tech platforms have provided the number. There’s no way you can check to see which were active. You don’t know how many active accounts were shut down.
Mr Fleming: The legislation asks platforms to prohibit under-16s from being on that platform. It doesn’t mention active or inactive users. That’s data that is not necessarily needed for the purposes of compliance.
Senator ROBERTS: If you’re talking about 4.7 million accounts being deactivated at the time, the public would take that as 4.7 million under-16-year-old children have had their internet accounts deactivated. That’s not what it means at all.
Ms Inman Grant: It’s important to go back—and we can provide you further information on notice. These numbers weren’t totally plucked out of thin air. We worked with the platforms using our section 20 transparency powers a year prior to this coming into place, to ask them to give us a realistic estimate of how many under-16s they had on their accounts there. We did some of our own youth research, and we triangulated those—it was a multimethod type study. The numbers they provided us are not out of the realm of what we expected, based on that earlier set of research and transparency data. If you look at the regulatory guidance and what we’ve asked the companies to do, the first thing we asked them to do—again, the low-hanging fruit—was, ‘Let’s just start by getting rid of the under-16 accounts you know exist.’ Some of them may have been deactivated, some of them may be live, some of them may have been double. But the important part of taking the reasonable steps is exactly what Mr Fleming said: we’re trying to reduce the number of under-16s that have and hold accounts on social media. That is the measure, and then there is the harms reduction that that affords them by not being exposed to the harmful and deceptive design features on these social media platforms. I don’t want to get caught up on those particular numbers because they give us a baseline, but we’ve moved on in terms of what we’re looking at with respect to compliance and lifting that compliance.
Senator ROBERTS: It doesn’t matter how many times you say it; the 4.7 million accounts that were deactivated at the time were not all active. We know that. You are trusting the tech platforms you say should not be trusted. You also say the person who owns the risky environment should be the one enforcing it—that’s the parents—and they have the tools. But you’ve bypassed the parents.
Ms Inman Grant: No, I’m talking about the platform, the online space. Of course parents have an important role, but they’re not targets of compliance. We’re trying to empower them to do what they can to be engaged in young people’s digital lives. From everything we have seen in terms of the increase in visits to our website and the conversations we’re having, and even the letters we’re getting into the office, it indicates that parents have been hyperengaged—which is great.
Senator ROBERTS: This echoes something I said before the ban came in: “If the goal is genuinely safer, age-appropriate experiences, we believe the best option is to raise the bar across the entire ecosystem and give parents a simple, consistent point of control. “App-store level age assurance is the practical path that Australia missed.” So it’s not all roses.
Ms Inman Grant: Actually, we put some restrictions on the app stores in the context of our age appropriate design code. To me, that’s passing the buck. You’re the social media site that is building these deceptive and harmful design features to keep young people on there and to track them in the first place, and to monetise them. You have no responsibility for being the bouncer at the door to make sure that young, underage people aren’t getting in. I don’t see how any organisation could shirk that responsibility. There should be shared responsibility up and down the stack, but it shouldn’t be, in my view, primarily on the app stores or the devices. We need more protections on both.
Senator ROBERTS: Parents are the best. We’ve undermined parents.
Ms Snell: If I can just add one thing: it’s also important to understand that a number of these services are accessible via the web without the need of having the app. If you had the requirement only on the app stores, young people would still be able to access these services by logging into an account through a web browser—so that would not achieve the result. That’s why it’s important to have it at the level of the service itself.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m saying: give the parents the responsibility back.
Senator Green: Parents are the ones that asked us to introduce the laws.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/qoNOtohlH48/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-09-24 14:54:302026-09-24 14:54:53The Social Media Ban Illusion
One Nation strongly opposed the Online Safety Management (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026 and its draconian amendments – which passed the Senate today.
The social media minimum age framework has fundamentally failed because a nanny state cannot outsmart tech-savvy children using VPNs and other “workarounds”. Instead of protecting kids, it isolates them and pushes them into less supervised spaces like game chat rooms, peer-to-peer apps and Tor.
This Bill increases penalties to nearly $100 million and grants the eSafety Commissioner terrifying, unchecked powers over Australians, including the power to compel people to travel (at their own expense and under threat of prison) to answer questions before her.
Which platform do you think she will demand appears first?
And more importantly, the dangerous abolition of the right against self-incrimination without proper age protections or mandatory legal representation.
The eSafety Commissioner’s office has become a heavily politicised weapon rather than a protector of children. When in government, One Nation will abolish this position, moving staff back into the department of media communications so they can focus on their actual, vital work of removing abuse material, revenge porn and deepfakes.
The legislation relies on vague definitions of “reasonable steps” completely dictated by the commissioner. The government is simply doubling down with massive fines because their initial unworkable ban is failing in the courts.
How much government is too much government? This is too much government and too much control over the people.
Transcript
Officially, the Online Safety Management (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026 amends the Online Safety Act 2021 to strengthen the operation of the social media minimum age framework, the SMMA. The bill expands the eSafety commissar’s information-gathering powers and increases civil penalties for noncompliance to around $100 million—$100 million—depending upon state. In reality, the social media minimum age framework legislation has failed, and now the government is doubling down.
One Nation does not support the social media minimum age ban, for two reasons. Firstly, what children do online is the responsibility of parents, not the nanny state. Secondly, the technology will never be smarter than a resourceful and tech-savvy child.
In November 2024, I moved an urgency motion arguing that a blanket ban expropriates parental power. Parents in the home can supervise a child’s device better than a tech company or a Canberra bureaucrat. No country has made age limits work, and the ban would make parents who let children watch educational YouTube content law-breakers. I call for better parental locks from platforms and device makers instead of a nanny state rule. Parental locks from platforms and device makers have been proven to work.
I quoted the Australian Human Rights Commission warning that a ban would isolate young people. I predicted that the ban would fail because of VPNs, impersonation and other tricks while pushing children onto less supervised spaces, such as game chat rooms, peer-to-peer apps and Tor. This is exactly what’s happened. The ban has failed, and the answer from the eSafety commissar is bigger fines, more power over you and more removal of human rights. A government amendment circulated overnight is draconian and terrifying. The amendment will provide powers for the eSafety commissar to demand that a person travel at the person’s cost to appear before her in person and includes penalties of up to a year in prison for refusing to do so. Which platform do you think will be the first that the eSafety commissar demands to appear? No doubt X, to continue her obsession with Elon Musk. If the commissar thinks she will be demanding that witnesses appear from overseas, I would point out that Julie Inman Grant, the commissar, refused to appear before a US congressional inquiry into her actions last year. One can’t demand a higher degree of accountability than the commissioner was prepared to demonstrate herself.
The amendment abolishes a basic human right against self-incrimination. While it does say the evidence can’t be used in a court of law against a person, there is a known backdoor entry to this. The amendment does not protect young people, which is ironic, given it sits in a bill supposedly designed to protect young people. The subject of an examination order can be a person of any age. There is no age restriction on that power. There are no protections requiring a minor to be legally represented or have a parent present—none. There is a right to have a lawyer and not the requirement for one. We know how that works in practice. In short, turn up and get done over or go to jail. That’s life in the ‘Soviet Republic of Australia’ under this Albanese Labor government.
One Nation will oppose the amendment. We will oppose the bill and, when in government, we will abolish the position of the eSafety Commissioner. The role was intended all along to be a political appointment, and the incumbent is proving the truth in that statement. One Nation will not, though, throw the baby out with the bathwater. We will maintain the functions of the office of eSafety and move the staff back into the department of media and communications. The staff are doing very good work taking down abuse material, revenge porn and deepfakes and must be allowed to continue that work.
Other provisions of the bill include a doubling of fines on social media companies for failure to demonstrate reasonable steps to comply with the ban. The problem with the legislation is and continues to be the definition of ‘reasonable steps’, which is—hang on, there is no definition. The commissar sets the rules in a legislative instrument titled ‘Social media minimum age: regulatory guidance’. Then the commissar enforces them as the commissar sees fit. Reasonable steps is anything the commissar decides it should be. Defy the commissar, and you will cop a fine that’s been increased from $48 million to almost $100 million in this bill. What next? How about $200 million fines? No, $500 million fines. Do I hear a billion? That’s not how legislation is supposed to be drafted, and this is not how government power is supposed to be used. This is power over the people. They should be serving the people.
The real problem around compliance from social media companies, though, is the inconvenient truth that the eSafety commissar has lost all except one court case her office has started. Perhaps strengthening the legal basis for these fines in the first place would have been more important than simply allowing the commissar to threaten a larger fine. I say ‘threatened’ because no social media company has been fined under legislation relating to age verification—not one. So why increase the fines—the ones that haven’t been used yet? The government continues to pursue a strategy it can never win. Harsher penalties are a typical bureaucratic response to being defied when in fact the defiance is because the ban is not technically feasible.
Moving on, the bill enables the commissar to compel the production of information or documents from any person. All that’s needed is for the commissar—or the commissioner—to believe on reasonable grounds that the person has information or documents relevant to compliance from a provider of an electronic service that is or may be—notice the opening of the envelope!—an age restricted social media platform. If this looks like unchecked power, it is—unchecked power over not just children and social media platforms but over every Australian, adults included. For example, information from third parties, such as age assurance providers or app store operators, may assist in validating or testing claims platforms made about their compliance with the minimum age obligation. Once again, these powers are not limited by age. An individual who discovers a workaround may be compelled to provide information around how they did that, no matter the age. The committee report recommended the bill pass as written. There were concerns from submitters whether the measures imposed, increased discovery and higher penalties, were necessary and proportionate to enforce the social media minimum age framework, the SMMA ban. the office of the information commissar made a great point that the information-gathering powers in the bill should be extended to their office. This would allow them to determine if the information that age-verification companies are collecting was being dealt with according to Australian privacy legislation.
The Law Council of Australia criticised the new information-gathering powers under section 63G as being too powerful for the stated outcome, as did Free Speech Union, and X sounded like they were lining up to challenge them in court. Multiple submitters complained about the very high fines, up to slightly over $100 million, depending upon the state. The Australian Human Rights Commission recommended a review after 12 months into the effect of the social media minimum age framework, SMMA ban on children, which is faster than the statutory two-year review. I would recommend that submission to the government. How much government is too much government? This is too much government and too much control over the people.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/bgRC0t8robs/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-09-10 14:59:202026-09-10 14:59:24The Terrifying Scope of the eSafety’s Power
I questioned representatives from AHPRA regarding their heavy-handed and unjustified actions against Dr Amos, an academic psychiatrist from North Queensland.
On 26 February 2026, the Medical Board of Australia slapped immediate restrictions on Dr Amos’s medical registration, banning him from patient contact and social media commentary on gender.
This move was triggered by just four complaints (three were anonymous and none were from patients) concerning three X posts — one questioning whether trans identification can be differentiated from psychosis and another using biological pronouns during an exchange.
When I pressed Mr Untersteiner on what specific parts of those posts allegedly posed a “serious risk to public health and safety” to justify an immediate action order, he hid behind confidentiality provisions and refused to discuss individual cases. Even with support from Senator Henderson challenging their secrecy, the agency repeatedly dodged direct questions.
When I asked Dr Orchard whether a health practitioner has the right to refer to biological sex, or if doing so constitutes discrimination, they hid behind vague codes of conduct and social media guidelines instead of giving a straight answer.
AHPRA claims they only intervene when debate crosses into hate or discrimination, yet they couldn’t provide a clear set of guidelines defining what they actually consider “misinformation.”
I questioned their process of issuing severe penalties before facts are even established or investigations conducted, ultimately destroying doctors’ careers over anonymous complaints and standard public commentary.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Could I have Ahpra please? Thank you all for being here. Dr Amos is an academic psychiatrist based in North Queensland. His academic work includes numerous published journal articles and conference presentations on gender medicine. On 26 February 2026, the Medical Board of Australia placed restrictions on Dr Amos’s medical registration, preventing him from having direct or indirect contact with patients and banning him from posting on social media on the topic of gender. This was in response to four complaints about three X posts. Three of the complaints were anonymous. It’s important to note that there was no patient complaint. He had posted that ‘there is no reliable evidence that trans identification can be differentiated from psychosis.’
ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, given that it is almost 10.30 and we’ve had all of these questions from senator Henderson—
Senator ROBERTS: No, we haven’t had these questions.
ACTING CHAIR: I think you’re going to get a similar response.
Senator ROBERTS: We’ve had this topic but not this question. Another complaint was that, in a post exchange, Dr Amos used biological pronouns and thereby was accused of misgendering a UK trans activist. The immediate action order used by Ahpra against Dr Amos is meant to be reserved, as I understand it, for when there is a reasonable belief that a health practitioner poses a serious risk to public health and safety. What specific elements of those posts did the board determine posed a serious risk to public health and safety under the socalled national law?
Mr Untersteiner: As the chair has highlighted, I’ve answered this question numerous times. My response will remain. I can’t comment on individual cases, because we have very clear confidentiality provisions.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on then. Does a health practitioner have the right to refer—
ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, just one moment. I hope it is a point of order, Senator Henderson, and not commentary.
Senator HENDERSON: No, of course not. This is just a point of order in relation to advice that I’ve just received through the secretariat. If the information is public, there’s no basis not to answer these questions. We’ve checked the advice with the chair. So I would just challenge—
ACTING CHAIR: You haven’t checked the advice with the chair.
Senator HENDERSON: Sorry, I meant with the secretary. Apologies. I’m just saying through the chair that I don’t think it’s appropriate that you decline to answer these questions. It’s not consistent with the rules of the Senate insofar as—
Mr Untersteiner: Sorry, to confirm—
ACTING CHAIR: I think this is an interpretation issue. The information that that you have is not necessarily the stuff that is printed in whatever publication it is that has been quoted. There is a big difference in reporting from wherever you got it and the agencies actually providing you with their detailed private information that is protecting other people’s privacy. But I’m happy for Mr Untersteiner to take that on notice and provide the rationale and the breakdown. Perhaps you, Senator Henderson, could provide the information that you were reading from previously in terms of your—
Senator HENDERSON: I’ve tabled that, Chair. That’s been tabled.
ACTING CHAIR: Right. I still haven’t seen it. Nobody’s given it to me, I’m afraid.
Senator HENDERSON: Please speak to the secretary. Please don’t—
Senator Roberts interjecting—
ACTING CHAIR: I’ll just finish. I believe you’ve been asking the Clerk about a public interest immunity claim, and we can go to that point at that time. But let’s just take it on notice and come back with the rationale and the understanding, and then Senator Henderson and Senator Roberts can go through that and determine what steps they might like to take next.
Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate Senator Henderson interjecting, but the ultimate umpire is the TV camera—the people watching this at home, the Australians. Does a health practitioner, Mr Untersteiner, have the right to refer to a trans person’s biological sex?
Mr Untersteiner: I’m struggling a little bit with that question in regard to our role as the regulator. I don’t know—
Senator ROBERTS: Is it discrimination for a health practitioner to refer to a person’s biological sex? Is it discrimination?
Dr Orchard: I understand your question to be: is there an issue with a practitioner making public reference to someone’s gender or sex?
Senator ROBERTS: To refer to a person’s biological sex.
Dr Orchard: Generally, in respect of public comments by practitioners, you’ve heard earlier the discussion around the right of free speech and the fact that Ahpra and the boards are committed to those ideals, but there are limits to free speech and how people express themselves—
Senator ROBERTS: So a doctor talking about biological sex is going against free speech?
Dr Orchard: What I was going to say is that the codes of conduct and the social media guides that are published by boards set out quite clearly the expectations of practitioners when they are making public comments. They should make comments that are respectful and that rely on the best available information and so on—
Senator ROBERTS: I think you’re a man.
Dr Orchard: I beg your pardon?
Senator ROBERTS: I think you’re a man.
ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, it’s not appropriate to get personal with the witnesses. Please have some respect.
Senator ROBERTS: How can a doctor fulfil their ethical obligation to inform the public of potential harms of gender interventions and gender ideology without being accused of discrimination against LGBTIQA+ people?
Mr Untersteiner: I’ve answered this question several times. As a regulator, we think health practitioners have a right to have public debate about a range of different issues, which include, again, gender-affirming treatment, gender blockers and other like treatments. We would not be taking regulatory action on that basis. Again, I think I’ve got to be very careful here about selective media and about using that as the basis.
Senator ROBERTS: What specifically would Ahpra consider to be misinformation in a post? If you can’t speak to that now, take it on notice.
Mr Untersteiner: Sure.
Senator ROBERTS: How do Ahpra staff acquire the capacity to know what is true or false information in this highly contested area? How do you know?
Mr Untersteiner: We rely on the existing clinical guidelines, but we also will look at the specific facts of the case, the specific facts of what was said and what context that was said in. Again, I want to be clear here that we will intervene where this goes beyond a debate about clinical pathways and treatments and moves into a place of hate or discrimination against individuals or groups. Again, I see firsthand the harm that discrimination and hate cause the community. I see vulnerable people in all walks of life in this country who fear seeking help because individuals go beyond debating appropriate clinical pathways or advice and move into very clear discrimination.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you give me specifically, please, a set of guidelines of what would be deemed by Ahpra to be misinformation in a post.
Mr Untersteiner: That’s a hypothetical. I don’t think I can answer that question.
ACTING CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re breaking careers on it. The Medical Board of Australia’s immediate action orders are implemented before the facts are established and before an investigation occurs. Is it reasonable to destroy a doctor’s career for three social media posts without conducting an investigation—three anonymous complaints, no patient complaints?
ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you’re working on a limited basis there.
Mr Untersteiner: Again, I’d just say I don’t agree with your characterisation there. There’s a lot more information that won’t be public and isn’t appropriate for me to talk about. I’ve got legal obligations that I must meet—
I’ve been attending public hearings in relation to Climate Integrity and what I’ve witnessed in these hearings reveals a sobering preview of Australia’s future under this government.
Instead of using the Senate Committee to find the truth, I watched this Labor-Greens government use the platform to bully experts and silence dissent.
To hear a Senator claim that science is “not contested anymore” once a consensus is reached isn’t just wrong, it’s a rejection of the scientific method itself. Science relies on evidence and questioning, not government-mandated agreement.
Labor wants to be the “thought police” of Australia, censoring any opinion they find inconvenient. They are treating our Senate like a rubber stamp for censorship.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: One Nation will fight this every inch of the way. We will not let this government, with the help of the Greens, turn our beloved country into a place where free speech is not allowed.
– Senate Speech | November 2025
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Last week, Australians witnessed a terrifying demonstration of where our future lies under this Labor-Greens government, which implemented policy that the Morrison government initiated. It’s a future that does not include the right to free speech or even the right to hold an opinion which conflicts with the government’s. Labor senator Michelle Ananda-Rajah used her position as the Deputy Chair of the Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy to impose her views on witnesses, the reverse of the committee process, which allows all opinions to be heard. From that testimony the truth shall emerge. The senator dismissed expert testimony from the Institute of Public Affairs with this comment:
The thing about science is it is contested until it is not. When consensus is arrived at, it is not contested anymore.
The senator has a PhD in artificial intelligence, has published 40 papers and should know better.
The United States National Academy of Sciences defines the scientific method as ‘a process for developing and testing explanations of the world that relies on evidence, with the understanding that new evidence may revise or replace existing explanations’. There is no consensus provided for in that definition of the scientific method. Senators and witnesses who disputed the belief, based on the evidence, that humans are responsible for our changing climate were subjected to hostility, rudeness, smugness and arrogance unbefitting the Senate. The inquiry is a travesty of the Senate process. It’s a waste of taxpayer money and is designed to justify legislation to censor opinions it does not like. The government does not get to shut down dissent, censor inconvenient truths and cancel the right to free speech. One Nation will fight, every inch of the way, your attempts to set the government up as the thought police of Australia. You will not turn our beloved country into communist China.
I went into this session with the eSafety Commissioner, Ms Inman Grant, with a few goals.
Firstly, I asked Ms. Grant about her recent trip to Stanford University. If Australian taxpayers are footing the bill for a trip to meet with AI and social media giants in the US, they deserve to see the receipts. The Commissioner has taken on notice to provide a full log of her meetings, speeches, and the total cost.
I then shifted to the “international alarm” surrounding her conduct. I asked the Minister if it concerned the government that Congressman Jim Jordan and the US House Judiciary Committee are so troubled by her actions that they’ve called for her to testify.
Senator Green tried her best to dodge the question sprouting bipartisan support and protecting children, however I stayed focused on how the Commissioner is being seen as a “global censor.”
I asked about her personal philosophy on censorship. The Commissioner was quick to deny the label, claiming she only acts on public complaints regarding high-threshold harm. She insists she doesn’t regulate political speech, yet in my view, she wields enormous power.
While I’ve complimented her office’s work on child safety in the past, the potential for her “world-leading” reach to impact the free speech of adults remains a serious concern of mine.
— 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.
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.
https://image2url.com/r2/default/images/1769654088997-9e0ba7dd-2657-48fe-b136-9ff6339848f1.png6361135Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-01-29 12:57:422026-01-29 12:57:50The Fine Line Between Safety and Overreach
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
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.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/b69d5c74-8e91-4b3f-9e45-f7742d71a2bd_1494x1037.jpg?fit=1494%2C1037&ssl=110371494Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-12-03 18:10:072025-12-03 18:17:02Bigger than the Burqa
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.
