Using ‘child safety’ to restrict social media is a dangerous path for Australia
There are some policies so unworkable, so obscene, and so detached from reality that the public may be forgiven for thinking they will never come to pass – even after the Senate approves a bill.
Banning Australians under 16 from social media was an idea pitched by former Liberal Leader Peter Dutton and formalised by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese before the Federal Election.
Then it was forgotten…
The policy had a strange birth, following a tiny frenzy of media articles which sprung up out of nowhere describing a ‘social media bullying epidemic!’ A ‘crisis’ that vanished from the headlines once digital censorship had been cheered into the agenda by politicians desperate to talk about anything other than energy, migration, or debt…
These articles briefly reappeared when criticism against the original bill reached its peak, painting those who dared to oppose online censorship and intrusive biometric identification as being insensitive to the ‘plight of children’.
It’s not clear who is pulling the strings.
However, on more than one occasion the media has pitched a ‘crisis’ peddled by ‘experts’ that was ‘solved’ at a politically opportune time.
Call me a cynic, but something’s up. Another agenda disclosed to a select few, perhaps?
The under 16 ban will enter the real world in December, with children already being advised to ‘download their profiles’ and delete social media apps.
Some parents believe having the strong-arm of government in the living room will help, although it is more likely this interference will create an acrimonious social rift between generations that is far worse than the ‘you don’t understand my music’ sentiment.
‘I used the government to ban you from talking to your friends…’ is hardly expected to help strained relationships between parents and children.
Every generation has a desire to preserve the world they grew up with, and I understand a lot of people are hostile to social media and its uncertain future.
This is often because media entities describe the online world as a ‘sewer’. To them, X, Facebook, and YouTube represent an army of keyboard critics and free market competition.
The media present a narrow view of a sprawling advancement which has become as integral to civilisation as the roads our truck drivers use to deliver food.
Social media is one technological creation to which we must adapt – or accept – as we did with the invention of the internet itself.
Banning children from what has become a fundamental tool for future business could saddle them with a disadvantage on the global scale and deny them opportunities.
Australia’s eSafety Commissioner has evolved from the late Christopher Hitchens’ warning about ‘who gets to decide what I can read’ into the more sinister ‘we will decide which libraries you can enter’.
While regulator might not be burning books, they are definitely smacking children that try to read them.
Worse, this expensive regulatory mess will solve nothing. It may even be used to create additional restrictions on adults as part of a larger crackdown on freedom.
Certainly, it is already spawning censorial bureaucracies to watch over us…
As the eSafety Commissioner menacingly advises, ‘We’ve only used our formal powers 6% of the time.’
The demonisation of the digital world is a philosophy the major parties share.
Opposition Leader Sussan Ley made her position clear at the National Press Club:
‘Another area that demands stronger government intervention is the protection of our children from devices and technology. We have allowed the smartest people in the world to make billions of dollars by peddling addictive technology to children and it is shortening their childhoods. Parents need government in their corner.’
Do they?
Do parents want government in their homes, holding the strap?
That is not something I hear from the community.
I’ve never had a parent lean on my shoulder and exclaim, ‘Gosh! If only we had MORE government!’
It is terrible to watch the Labor and Liberal parties treating young people like helpless sheep – herding them into government-moderated holding pens until they have endured 16 years of uninterrupted brainwashing from the education system.
Re-making bright, eager, healthy children into docile sheep.
These are children who know more about the Digital Age than every single adult drafting the under 16 ban.
Not a ‘ban’, apparently…
‘Calling it a ban misunderstands its core purpose and the opportunity it presents,’ said the eSafety Commissioner.
‘We’re not building a Great Australian Internet Firewall, but we are seeking to protect under 16s from those unseen yet powerful forces … it may be more accurate to frame this as a social media delay.’
Later she contracts herself and adds: ‘Children have important digital rights to participation.’
This is not only about Australia. The eSafety Commissioner was adamant that this regulation was both ‘bold’ and ‘leading the world’.
‘Global collaboration is what we have to be doing. The internet’s global. We know laws are national and local and that’s why we’re the founders of the Global Online Safety Regulators Network – as we’re much stronger together. A lot of these companies are as large and wealthy as nation states so we need to band together with like-minded countries.’
A ‘United Nations’ of Digital Censors operating above government to control global speech…?
Astonishingly, that did not make it to the headlines.
Cutting Australian children off from the outside world leaves their minds to be poisoned with government-scripted paranoia. These are the fears and terrors of Parliament. Once mistrust has been sown against alternative media sources that contradict policy – only then, apparently, can young Australians be ‘safely’ released into the digital wilderness to become crusading activists policing the digital realm on behalf of the government.
This is how you create neurotic, ideological busy-bodies championing government policy.
It is not how you support young Australians in their experience interacting with and shaping the digital realm.
Listening to the eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, give her recent speech at the Press Club in Canberra, it appears her ‘advice’ is being crafted from two positions: a grievance regarding her brief employment at Twitter (now X), and the belief that a global framework of eSafety bureaucrats should control the flow of information online.
Julie Inman Grant, who once introduced herself as the ‘censorship commissar’ (quoting Elon Musk) described her interaction with the tech giant as a ‘war’.
‘I made a strategic decision to withdraw here … let’s face it, the war is going to be much longer and more extended.’
That was in 2024.
As an elected Senator, I find it extremely concerning and distasteful to hear the eSafety Commissioner openly pitch the regulation of digital media as a ‘war’ which insinuates that social media platforms are hostile foes rather than private companies providing an extraordinary advancement of technology and – for the first time in human history – a global platform for real-time speech between the peoples of the world.
While speaking to the Canberra Press Club, the eSafety Commissioner pitched her argument by comparing social media to a beach.
‘There are indeed treacherous waters for our children to navigate, especially while their maturity and critical reasoning skills are still developing. And this is where we can learn so much from tried and tested lessons of water safety that Australia pioneered. From the backyard pools to the beach, Australia’s water safety culture is a global success story.’
Pardon me, but the eSafety Commissioner appears to be confused.
Australian children under 16 are not banned from pools and beaches. Nor are they indoctrinated into a cult of terror surrounding water.
‘A mixture of regulation, education, and community participation that reduces risks and supports parents keeping their children happily and safely frolicking in the sea. Picture any major beach in Australia and [it] will likely include the familiar sight of yellow and red flags fluttering in the breeze, children splashing in the waves, and lifeguards standing watch. Parents keep a watchful eye too, but are quietly confident in the knowledge that their kids will be okay. Not because the ocean is safe, but because we have learned to live beside it.’
Aside from the insult of using an Australian beach scene to sell censorship to children, her focus on community adult presence as a safety measure side-steps wildly from her comments later where she says: ‘…the difference will be that they are grouped more with their peers rather than – you know – billions of people around the world that are adults and kids and strangers.’
Are communities good or bad?
The eSafety Commissioner doesn’t know because she cannot get her messaging straight from one breath to the next.
Too much focus has been placed on the (manageable) problems unavoidable in a revolutionary technology development and not enough said about the extraordinary benefit that comes with opening up the world’s information, opinion, debate, and minds.
Of course, there will be a period of adjustment.
For children and parents.
That is not an excuse for regulators to reach into the cradle and suffocate social media in its crib.
This attitude would have seen Rome’s stone tablets smashed, Alexandria’s libraries burned, and the printing presses of Europe fall silent. All to ‘protect’ people from unregulated knowledge.
And it is not as if the internet is an unregulated ‘Wild West’ as claimed. There are many laws – most of which go unenforced for reasons that remain a mystery to the public – that deal with most of the examples the eSafety Commissioner offers as justification.
Deep fakes, blackmail, underage sexual content, harassment – these are all crimes.
We would support an investigation into how many of these reports authorities leave unanswered.
These failures are domestic. They are related to Australia’s weak criminal justice system, not Silicon Valley CEOs who are being used as scapegoats to disguise the irresponsible failure of ‘soft-touch’ sentencing.
Peer-based bullying, which makes up the bulk of tragic youth suicides, is largely due to school peers known to both the parents and teachers. These terrible stories almost always reveal the systemic failure of the education system which has shied away from punishing bullies and removing them from the school environment.
Before banning children from the internet, we should find out why schools have lost control of students.
Banning under 16s from social media also has the potential to turn the government into the worst schoolyard bully.
Imagine a class where only one person is under 16. All of their peers are on social media – except them. Differences are what drives exclusion, and in this case the government is creating an insurmountable social divide that will expose untold thousands of children to a friendship disadvantage.
And what of children who struggle with school?
The eSafety Commissioner said at one point, ‘…a vision the Prime Minister had of seeing more kids kicking the footy. That’s what we plan to help measure in…’
Not all kids ‘kick the footy’.
The children who do not fit in with their school peers often engage with small international niche creative communities. These children make school bearable through their social media friendships in the same way my generation had pen pals or friends in other clubs and areas.
Cutting children off from their best friends online is worse than bullying. It is cruelty.
Despite what is suggested by regulators, these children will not ‘just move to other platforms’. One Australian child cannot compel international children to change to another unregulated social platform because that is not how reality works. They will simply be excluded and forgotten.
This is before we consider sick children who live at home or in hospital and for which social media is the thread that connects them to the world.
Social media lived peacefully side-by-side with the Millennial generation, who are now in their 30s-40s.
How is that possible?
No doubt it had something to do with the rigour of their education and domestic environment which provided the balance lacking in schools which routinely engage in public activism – dragging children onto the streets as pawns in adult political games.
When the education system decided to focus on politics, it began to see free speech and the platforms that facilitate critical thinking, live news, and global knowledge as ‘dangerous’.
School eSafety programs spend much of their time obsessing about which sources of news can be ‘trusted’, although it is never made clear when educators were handed the task of ranking news organisations in the minds of children.
Who gets to decide which news outlets are ‘trustworthy’?
The hypocrisy of National Press Club host Tom Connell informing the audience that they could watch YouTube and follow the conversation on X cannot be overstated.
In 2025, the news unfolds on social media – much to the frustration of the legacy media.
World leaders correspond via Truth Social and X.
The eSafety Commissioner is effectively banning children under 16 from the news – from the world – and from their friends.
Imagine if she had insisted children be banned from reading newspapers ‘for their safety’.
It’s the same thing, yet the danger is easier to recognise in the latter.
Our children deserve protection – protection from the expansion of government into the role of parenting.
The eSafety Commissioner has gone too far by Senator Malcolm Roberts
Using ‘child safety’ to restrict social media is a dangerous path for Australia
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/7f69e525-6660-434b-83a2-24e4ddebf828_720x960.jpg?fit=720%2C960&ssl=1960720Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-07-01 16:01:192025-07-01 16:01:23The eSafety Commissioner Has Gone Too Far
Joel Jammal: Ladies and gentlemen welcome to episode 25 of the Ark podcast. I have missed you guys. Just come back from the US watching exactly what happened at CPAC USA in Washington DC, my first time being to America – my first time seeing snow. It was amazing. It was actually really cool. I’ll get into a bit of that later in other videos where I’ll go into a bit more depth, but today I’m joined by a very special guest – The Honorable Senator Malcolm Roberts. Malcolm, welcome to the Ark Podcast.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much Joel. Good to be here at last now.
Joel Jammal: Malcolm, I mentioned to a few people that you were coming on and I was obviously very keen to have our chat and people know we’re friends. People know we like to have chats every now and then on your Friday Q&A’s, which are very popular, but the big elephant in the room that I’ve addressed previously about the the hate speech bill. I wanted to give you first the opportunity before we get into it. Mate, what happened to that because a lot of people I’m coming up to in the Freedom Movement they’re like – why did Malcolm and Pauline not show up for that vote, for that hate speech Bill vote. Mate, what happened with that?
Senator ROBERTS: Well it was difficult. We had a discussion as to whether we oppose or abstain and I’ll explain why we abstained. But before doing so, the pile on that resulted from Senator Rennick’s lie when he said that we joined with the Liberal and Labor parties in supporting the hate crimes bill was a complete lie. Then the pile on from the Libertarians and the pile on from other parties was just disgraceful, but I want to compliment five people, yourself included, because you took a neutral stance and there are others – Topher Field, John Ruddick, Ralph Babet and Jim Wilmott – for their civility and their honesty. They didn’t pile on. They showed some character in abstaining from criticising us. So normally Joel, what happens is that if, as in happened in this case, the Labor party or the Liberal Party bring something in, rush it in, don’t have proper committee scrutiny of it, don’t have proper time for us to scrutinise it then guillotine the vote, then we just straight oppose it. It’s got to be very very outstanding to support a bill that goes through that mess. So, we were inclined to oppose it and then Ralph and a couple of others came up to me and said what are you doing. I said we’re abstaining. What? You’ve got to support it – got to oppose it and I said no mate, there’s a logic to what we’re doing. Because as you know, Pauline’s pretty strong on this kind of stuff as am I and it’s important to understand that it’s the Hate Crimes Bill – not the hate speech bill. It’s the Hate Crimes Bill and we said we cannot support it – this is just a discussion between Pauline and myself – we just cannot support this because of the language, because some of the assumption, some of the context of the bill, we just could not support it. It was a dog of a bill, plus it was bulldozed through the Senate and then Pauline said – you know, we got to be careful, because we were clearly going to stand on our own. That didn’t bother us. It doesn’t bother Pauline and me to be the only two in the Senate. So, we had – it was a stitch up. The Liberal and Labor had about 60 and the Greens all combined, and the Nationals combined to have about 66 of the 76 votes, so there’s no way we could win, no way we could influence the vote at all, so without having said anything, we wanted to send some signals because we believe, and I think most Australians would believe, that the use of physical force or the threat of violence or the threat of physical force is abhorrent and Australians don’t put up with that, so we couldn’t let that go just by opposing it, but we couldn’t support the bill so we had to oppose the way it was done and the way it was introduced. So we said okay let’s send a signal to Australians because we know there are people, the groups, and I haven’t got my notes with me, but there are many groups including people who are disabled, here they are. There’s sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, disability, disease, religion – many groups in Australia who are currently under threat, physical violence and physical threats. We’re not going to accept that. Hate crimes are real and they are being exercised on people, and so we wanted to send a signal saying we do absolutely support the protection of those people. Every Australian has a right to live in security and safety. So we wanted to say that, but we couldn’t support the bill because of the reasons I just mentioned – the language, the looseness – so we said well bugger, everyone’s going to expect us to oppose it, but we have to send a signal to those people that are looking for support, right?
Joel Jammal: So you do actually believe that there needs to be, there was a lot of good things about the bill now, but there’s a lot of bad about the bill as well. So you were sort of in an awkward position where it was like look, we don’t support the worst kinds of excesses on this bill on free speech but at the same time, you actually needed some work and the government wasn’t really working with you – they just sort of guillotining through. Is that right?
Senator ROBERTS: Correct. So normally what would happen is sometimes I’ll get up in the Senate and talk about some of the positive aspects of a bill – not this bill – but positive aspects of a bill and then say however, we’re going to oppose it for this reason.
Joel Jammal: Right.
Senator ROBERTS: Or I might say there’s some merit in this bill, there’s some dogs in this bill, we’re going to abstain.
Joel Jammal: Right.
Senator ROBERTS: We didn’t get a chance to speak.
Joel Jammal: No speeches.
Senator ROBERTS: No speeches at all.
Joel Jammal: No speeches, right.
Senator ROBERTS: And the core part of the bill is – a person commits an offense, if the person threatens to use force or violence against a group. The targeted group is distinguished by race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, disability including disease, nationality, national or ethnic origin, or political opinion, so it also applies to political opinion, and a reasonable member of the targeted group would fear that the threat will be carried out and the threat if carried out would threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth. Well that makes sense to me, but then the language was so sloppy and so loose.
Joel Jammal: Yeah.
Senator ROBERTS: And we couldn’t support it. It was too vague.
Joel Jammal: Like you didn’t have to prove intent of the actual person that’s saying something as well, you just had to prove that the person felt hurt that received that comment.
Senator ROBERTS: Well no, that the person would genuinely feel fear that the threat will be carried out. So it can’t be just a reckless –
Joel Jammal: Right. That’s insane. That’s insane! So Pauline’s comments, when you guys were at that press conference, because from an outsider –
Senator ROBERTS: I was there.
Joel Jammal: You were there. From an outsider’s perspective, from me just sort of following what was going on, we’re about to kick off a campaign, we’re about to kick off a campaign for a big election, and it kind of has already started. Albanese and Dutton –
Senator ROBERTS: They’re copying our policies already. Both the two tired old parties are copying four of our policies. Pretending to.
Joel Jammal: Yeah exactly, like the alcohol excise.
Senator ROBERTS: Immigration, student caps.
Joel Jammal: So and they’re already campaigning on the public dime. What it seemed to me on that day – you guys, as part of your campaigning, had a press conference. You had, in my view, more pressing things actually going on that day and that’s what I remarked to people in the last episode before I left. I said look, Malcolm wasn’t sipping pina coladas in his office, it’s not like he was not doing anything else. He just knew that this vote was going to go 41 to 6, which is I think what it ended up being, which is not possible guys, it’s not possible to win that. It’s just not. And guillotining debate, guillotining –
Senator ROBERTS: And opposed all the guillotining which sends a very strong signal. Sometimes guillotine is necessary because people don’t understand why it’s done, but the Senate is the controller of what happens in the Senate and so sometimes a guillotine is necessary when it’s been debated plenty and it’s just one party trying to talk it out and stop the vote, so we will, everyone will sometimes support a guillotine but it’s very very rare. So, when you do something like this with a serious bill with …. to it, then you just, we opposed all the bills, so basically we were sending a signal. We opposed the guillotines. We basically opposed the bill. We were sending that signal right the way through.
Joel Jammal: Right. So when Pauline, who was doing a press conference for something completely unrelated, was asked an off-the-cuff question which, you won’t say this but I will say this, she doesn’t do off the cuff very well. She tends to get her back up a little bit about it. She’s not, she’s not a Rhode Scholar. I’ll put it that way.
Senator ROBERTS: She’s very bright. I’ll take exception to that. She is extremely intelligent.
Joel Jammal: I totally agree, but in terms of debating techniques and like I’m just saying, she’s no Rhode Scholar in that sense, she’s actually more a street smart sort of person. It’s a compliment in a way, but I can see how that answer she gave was misunderstood by people and I’m just watching this slow motion train crash knowing Pauline’s intent on that and I can see she wanted to deliver some actual results for some of those groups you were talking about and I can see how this bill with a few amendments could actually be quite a good bill.
Senator ROBERTS: It needed a lot of work on it.
Joel Jammal: It needed a lot of work.
Senator ROBERTS: Basic thrust is fine because it’s a Hate Crimes Bill not a hate speech bill, which is what Clive Palmer misleadingly reported it as and others in the debate.
Joel Jammal: No absolutely and so I look at this whole situation and I’m just like okay so this is what happened, this is the miscommunication between people and I feel very, this is going to come out very strange coming from a 27 yr old but I do feel very fatherly and protective of this sort of Freedom Movement including all of the freedom senators. And you know the different organisations and groups and podcasters and so when I see everyone fighting, it hurts, it actually feels like your family’s fighting, your mom and dad are having a fight. It’s terrible to see and so, then I see the opportunism from these other parties and these senators and these potential senators and candidates running and I’m just like this is a disaster. I mean we are not looking like a winning side. We’re going into an election, we need to be consolidating our efforts, consolidating our energies so that we can be one force just like the Greens are on the left. We need to become one force.
Senator ROBERTS: Exactly.
Joel Jammal: And that’s why I didn’t appreciate that whole saga with everyone and that’s where I’m coming from when I’m looking at all this because like I’ve just come back from America. I’ve seen the sense of coming together. They had Trump build an amazing coalition between RFK and Tulsi Gabbard and Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswarmy.
Senator ROBERTS: They all want the truth and they all want to fix America. That’s why RFK came in.
Joel Jammal: Absolutely and I’m looking at that spirit of camaraderie and coming together against this Goliath of a foe and I’m like okay great, so that’s the winning attitude we need to have, where are we at, and then this is what we’re doing and I’m like –
Senator ROBERTS: I could tell you’re concerned and I appreciate the way you spoke. It was very well done. So I don’t look at you as a 27 yr old, I look at you as a human, a mature human, very understanding of politics but you raised two points that I’d like to cover. One was the mandatory sentences. I can read out something from Pauline but I was there standing next to her – we actually posted about this – and by the way, I’ll get to that other point in a minute, but Pauline, our policies were introduced into the News Corp papers in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and maybe Adelaide I think and they were phenomenally well received and the comments below the articles from everyday Australians were amazing, just stunning and that caused a lot of turmoil amongst some other minor parties who were quite frankly jealous. We worked that out. They were like, what the hell do we do now they? They were thinking that, but Pauline she’s never one to back away from something and the policies were so well received that it was a funny conference, media conference, because no one was asking a question about the policies. Pauline gave a little speech, I said a couple of words and then she said “where are your questions” and there are only two journalists and they arrived late. The rest were all cameramen and so one of the cameraman, Pauline looked at the cameraman and when you have Pauline’s eyes on you, you do something you know. He asked a couple of sensible questions because they’re no journalists and we worked out later why the journalists weren’t there and that was because how could you possibly tear holes in these policies. So anyway, the cameraman asked a couple of questions and then the two journalists arrived Probin and somebody else from Sky I think, and they asked questions about Gaza and about, what was the other one? Oh, mandatory sentencing. Not the Hate Crimes Bill, just the mandatory sentencing and Pauline has long thought that mandatory sentencing is not good except for terrorism, where it’s necessary because some judges are just weak and so she explained that and she said yes I support it under certain circumstances but she basically said that she would – the bill had just been thrust upon her, been rushed through, and she had no time to look at it which is the absolute truth. Our office was still dissecting it and so she left it open because that was the only thing she could do. So that was one thing. The second thing that I want to talk about is we agreed exactly with you, so even though there were lies being told by the Libertarian party and by Senator Rennick and Clive Palmer later that day, we said we’re not going to get into a dust up because this is just a, come on it’s just a shit fight – everyone loses in a shit fight, so we zipped our lip and said just let it all subside a little bit but it didn’t stop me talking about it on Saturday night 2 days later at a function, nor the following week. We just waited for the heat to come out of it because no matter what we said the people who are incensed by Senator Rennick’s lie and some of the comments that the Libertarians were making, there’s no way you could pacify them. It’s just stupid. You don’t argue with it, with people who are crazed and then bit by bit we started realising and people started realising and they’re waking up and they’re saying hang on a minute, you guys have been lied about here and then we saw the people waking themselves. But then we came out and explained it in full. So, I’m happy to do that.
Joel Jammal: It’s astonishing to me –
Senator ROBERTS: I mean we did not want want to cause a fight in the Freedom Party. So we abstained. Because we also knew that it would be like talking to a madman.
Joel Jammal: It’s astonishing because I look at this and I’m just like Malcolm and Pauline between them, I don’t know how long – how many years have you guys both been serving in the parliament?
Senator ROBERTS: Pauline served three in the House of Reps, then she served six and one that’s seven, that’s 10 years for her. I’ve served one and 7 and a half.
Joel Jammal: So you know we’re we’re looking at you know almost 20 years of service and voting records and this one vote, this one vote, you know people were just so willing to just throw it out. I’m just like guys if this is how we treat our veterans for God’s sake, for God’s sake. And it’s just, cause –
Senator ROBERTS: Well, the other thing –
Joel Jammal: And again, it wasn’t the politicians that, I kind of expect from MPS and Senators that are trying and candidates that are trying to get votes out of one nation being the biggest fish out of the minor parties I get that but some of the podcasters, me being one, I was like guys why are you just spurring this on, why are you going hard.
Senator ROBERTS: There are a lot of trollss in there working for the, we believe, the Libertarian Party and a couple of bots as well, just spurring it on. So a lot of it was was orchestrated. It was orchestrated and it was coordinated across several different parties.
Joel Jammal: Mmm. And again, guys for those people thinking this is a One Nation love fest, you know Malcolm knows –
Senator ROBERTS: You can be pretty blunt with me at times.
Joel Jammal: Yeah exactly and you know and everyone knows that you know that Turning Point Australia we don’t support you know just One Nation blindly across the board. It certainly has not been the case with the elections and all of, Craig Kelly, Gerard Rennick, a lot of these candidates that were alluding to they’re actually coming on to this podcast at some point as well before the election, because I’m trying to help the movement and that’s kind of the whole point about this thing but you asked this question and so –
Senator ROBERTS: And we’re happy to answer it.
Joel Jammal: So, I’m being honest you know.
Senator ROBERTS: We’re happy to answer it and would we do it again? Well Pauline will always be true to herself and I will always be true to myself. Now as I said, I was conflicted. On the one hand we had a couple of people saying you should oppose it. Yes, but that’s leaving people vulnerable people alone and isolated. We need to send them a signal so that’s why. So would we do it again? We probably would do it again because it was a right thing to do and one of Pauline’s staff came up to me, he’s a very sensible politically astute person and he said I am so proud to be in One Nation because you did stand by principle and that was wonderful. And the other thing is that not only was One Nation a short-term casualty, but the English language was a casualty because the dictionary meaning of abstain was completely thrown out the window. The word abstain suddenly meant support which is completely wrong. The dictionary meaning of abstain is to “hold oneself back voluntarily especially from something regarded as improper.” Hello!
Joel Jammal: Well they made it sound like you proposed the bill yourself Malcolm, that’s what they made it sound like.
Senator ROBERTS: And it was improper because I’ve voted due to the rushed vote and a guillotined debate and the second definition is to “refrain from casting one’s vote” and that’s what we did. We couldn’t support it. No way we could support it but we want to send a signal but the other thing that’s really important for us is that within about 2 weeks, we got the highest polling numbers we’ve ever got right. Within two weeks we got more volunteers signing up than we’ve ever had before. Within two weeks we got an increase in membership with the party and we got a lot of people starting to change and say oh we can see who the villains are here and it’s just so sad that people who I e had a lot of time for and I wouldn’t have thought would tell a lie, told a blatant lie and when I pointed it out to Gerard, he acknowledged it and then I said you need to retract it and he acknowledged that and left it up there. You know that’s inexcusable in my opinion.
Joel Jammal: Yeah well look, I think people that, generally people that are listening to this right now and getting you know this end to end answer will appreciate it and I think they’ll see it in the perspective of – you know I want to see these parties work together a lot more. I don’t want to see my mom and dad fighting per se in the parliament. You know, I want to see them getting on.
Senator ROBERTS: Yeah.
Joel Jammal: And that’s the truth. I think that is the truth of the punters that are out there that are watching politics and that are voting and that are volunteering for these different parties. They want to see more collaboration.
Senator ROBERTS: One of the things that’s left a bit of taste in my mouth, not about this, back three years ago was that I was one of the most vocal in the country and so was Topher Field. He was a bloody good but we said, let’s work together, Libertarians, United Australia Party, One Nation and other freedom parties – let’s work together. We had joint candidate forums in an electorate and in the Senate. We would have a candidate from each of those people conducting a forum together and it was on the basis that we would support each other. We would recommend the other minor parties, we’re going to recommend One Nation 1 and then UAP, Katter, Libertarians, 2 3 4 etc.
Joel Jammal: There was 10 of them I think in the last federal
Senator ROBERTS: So that’s what we said we would do and Clive Palmer came out and said put the majors last and we then started saying put the majors last, and so we were wondering what happened to Clive Palmer’s party up in Queensland, why their ‘how to vote’ cards weren’t out. And then the day of the prepoll, not – it didn’t come out the couple of days beforehand, it came out on the day of the prepoll – we found out why. Because it was 1 United Australia Party, 2 LNP.
Joel Jammal: Yeah.
Senator ROBERTS: So he completely sold us out.
Joel Jammal: Yeah that’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: So we can’t trust someone like that.
Joel Jammal: Yeah. Look I God, I was in America when I, I haven’t said a thing on the Trumpet of Patriots thing but I was in America when it came out, just landed, and I went and gave a speech at the America for Tax Reform. It was huge. Amazing, it was amazing. It was, like they had 50 different groups, each person was the head of a group and you go to this thing if you’re trying to pitch yourself or just introduce yourself and I’m like hi everyone, I’m Joel Jammal, head of Turning Point Australia. You know, I teach people who’s punching them, why they’re punching them and how they can punch back and I just gave my two minute speech and whatever. I get out after –
Senator ROBERTS: It would have gone down well. It would have gone down very well.
Joel Jammal: You know how I am Malcolm. You know how I am. I’m a very shy person.
Senator ROBERTS: They love, the Americans love that when someone stands up and they love it when someone stands up in a country like Australia that was perceived during COVID to be the worst country in the world.
Joel Jammal: Yeah. No, you’re absolutely right and you know they did ask about that. But I got off stage and you know, I said don’t be shy, come up to me and give me your business cards or whatever. A few of them came up to me and said what’s this about the Trumpet of Patriots. I mean why would they pick such a stupid name and I’m I just, and I think it was because they were trying to back like you know, be like have Trump in it or something. I think that’s what Clive Palmer remarked in the press conference you know. Trumpets of Patriots! And I don’t mean any offense to that new party or Suella who’s obviously the head of it with Clive but it’s silly, the whole thing is silly and the idea that you know, in the news it came out that they were going around basically offering different parties to buy the parties and apparently they offered One Nation $10 million but Pauline wasn’t for selling.
Senator ROBERTS: We are not for sale. That was made very very clear to Clive.
Joel Jammal: Yeah and that’s what’s bizarre and maybe I should ask you about this you know back in December and most people missed this story, but I saw that Clive registered and trademarked the name The Clive and Pauline Party, as well as The Teal Party and a few other things. How –
Senator ROBERTS: I think that was before he approached Pauline and James.
Joel Jammal: That was before.
Senator ROBERTS: I think so, but I don’t know.
Joel Jammal: Look the story came out on the 26th of December so I think it was, this story came out after but maybe they had the –
Senator ROBERTS: Someone’s been reading the patents, not the patents the registrations.
Joel Jammal: The registrations right and it was just bizarre that he would like The Clive and Pauline Party? I mean how can he trademark the Clive and Pauline Party without her permission. It just struck me as odd.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, it’s a crazy name. You know, could you imagine the Pauline and Clive Party? It just does not make sense.
Joel Jammal: No.
Senator ROBERTS: I mean, I’m not saying that they shouldn’t get together. I’m not saying that at all but having that as a as a party name?
Joel Jammal: Yeah well it’s like what do you stand for?
Senator ROBERTS: Exactly.
Joel Jammal: Clive and Pauline?
Senator ROBERTS: Exactly. So you know, One Nation is Pauline Hanson because she’s got the name and then one nation. Let’s face it Joel and you know this. She’s been around since 1996. Everyone has tried to have a go at her. The Liberals and Labor have tried to jail her. She has stood firm. She has stood in truth the whole time and she survived and they’ve done everything they can to her. They’ve called her a racist which is the worst thing you can call an Australian woman and that was done deliberately to shut down people talking about her and that worked for a while until people started to wake up in the last couple of years and she’s not at at all a racist. Asian people who’ve come here for the Australian culture and Aboriginals love our work so they think very highly of us. So she’s not at all a racist but what I’m saying is they’ve thrown everything at her and she’s still standing. She’s still got two senators.
Joel Jammal: Yeah.
Senator ROBERTS: Her candidates are the seventh, next in line, the seventh senator in every state except for Queensland where I came fourth, so we’re primed – with just a very small increase in votes to get another senator in every state and so I guess, and I don’t know what’s in their mind but if I was Libertarians, if I was another Freedom Party, I’d be trying to take votes off the Liberal Party because if you get 2% off the Liberal Party, that’s a lot more votes than getting 2% of us and and I’d be trying to work with One Nation because we are so close to getting you know five or so senators in the parliament which will give us the balance of power and the conservatives in Australia the balance of power. There’s no one else capable of doing that, no one. No one at all, not even close.
Joel Jammal: Yeah, everywhere you run you get 5% in your back pocket. That is just a matter of fact.
Senator ROBERTS: And look look at the quality of the people. Warwick in New South Wales, Warren Pickering in Victoria. Warren’s amazing, a veteran, really switched on, energetic. We’ve got Jennifer Game – don’t argue with her mate, she’ll clean you up even you.
Joel Jammal: Oh, I believe it.
Senator ROBERTS: She’s highly intelligent, and in Western Australia we’ve got Tyron and you know they’re really solid people.
Joel Jammal: Yeah, yeah.
Senator ROBERTS: So it just doesn’t make any sense. If you would want to destroy the party with the best chances of actually getting conservatives into the Senate, go ahead and destroy One Nation.
Joel Jammal: Yeah look I remember making this argument to the Victorians in their state election in 2022 – it’s hard to believe we’re coming up on another state election for them next year but I made the point to them I said guys there are nine Freedom parties for your state election and your freedom vote is about 11.6% so you need 14% to become a senator, that’s a full quota.
Senator ROBERTS: Yeah.
Joel Jammal: Maybe you need about 9 or 10% you know, kick it over a bit with preferences. There’s nine parties splitting that 11.6%
Senator ROBERTS: And as you pointed out, One Nation’s got a very solid bedrock of 5 to 8 and sometimes, probably in South Australia it’s around about 13% so nationally we got up to 9% so we’re at about 9% I think.
Joel Jammal: Yeah.
Senator ROBERTS: Which is a pretty damn solid base, foundation. No one can come close to that.
Joel Jammal: No, I totally agree.
Senator ROBERTS: So no wonder Clive wanted to try and buy us but Pauline has never been for sale, she never will be for sale. She’s that kind of woman. You know when she asked me to to stand beside her, she got wind in 2016 of me doing some work on opposing the climate fraud and she she said to me one day at a forum when I finished speaking she said will you come on the Senate ticket with me and I said well I’ll think about it, I’ll talk with my wife first. So I talked with my wife and she said yes and, it’s always good to have her onside, and then I said to Pauline – right my wife’s fine with it, she’s comfortable with it and Pauline said sign up and I said no no no no, now I talk with you. We went out there and she was thinking maybe a couple of hours. 11 and 1/2 hours later I left and I came away so thoroughly impressed and I’ve done a lot of recruiting, I’m not a not a sloppy recruiter, very impressed with her. There’s no way anyone could have pulled that thing together but the fact that here she was 20 years later in 2016 leading this party and putting her own money, I’m talking hundreds of thousands of dollars in bank loans into that and putting it all on the line, she’s just phenomenal. She has never ever told me a lie and neither has James Ashby, never, both of them together. If James was not honest Pauline would have got rid of him straight away but she’s had you know colorful people around her, some people who haven’t been worthy of the trust but she gets rid of them very quickly.
Joel Jammal: So Queensland, you know it’s alluded it’s a very hotly contested election in terms of the parties that are running and you know it’s a hot contest between yourself and Senator Gerard Rennick and I’m excited to see how the campaign unfolds with that, both being great incumbents that have both had a great voting record.
Senator ROBERTS: And there’s a chance that both of us can get in.
Joel Jammal: That’s right, that’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: Depending upon the liberal vote.
Joel Jammal: Absolutely and I pray that you do kick off that third Liberal that’s on the candidate, the candidate there. I pray that you guys do knock him off.
Senator ROBERTS: So I’m going to be parochial but I think also factual in saying putting me 1 and Gerard 2 is the best way to get us both in because I’ve got the solid base of One Nation behind me, Gerard and I have got a similar level of personal support, social media as well as just in general in the public, both recognised, so I think that so long as I get in first then our leftover votes, our preferences can, not our preferences but our voter’s preferences can go to Gerard and get him in, so that would be phenomenal, get us both back in.
Joel Jammal: So a few people have mentioned to me they’ve said all right, because whenever I, I ask a lot of people every time I come across a Queenslander I say okay, I’m putting a gun to your head figuratively you have to answer this question. I say this to every one of them and you can’t say no and they’re like okay just give me the question Joel, what is it? Gerard or Malcolm? And they’re like oh no and it’s a compliment I mean they love both of you, they love both of you, you know and that’s really good to see because you you both, as I said you both had a phenomenal voting record over the years that you’ve had respectively but you got to pick one and it’s pretty much dead even with the vote, with the two of you.
Senator ROBERTS: So the personal level is there for both of us, it’s similar and I’ve got the One Nation run underneath me.
Joel Jammal: Yeah, so now one of the big concerns though with some of the people that have said to me that they would prefer Rennick and I’ve asked the question, some of them have said to me I like Malcolm but I’m not sure that he wants to serve the full six-year term and I guess that’s my question to you. Is that something you know, are you going to serve the full 6 years or do you see yourself just serving half of it and passing it off to someone else in One Nation because this is a concern some people have. They want to know. Alright you know Malcolm is committing to this. I know Gerard’s going to do you know another term after this and he’s trying, he’s going you know, he’s saying a lot of things, he’s saying “I’m going to build the party, I’m going to democratize a party” and this and that, and again I’ll believe it when I see it because only the Libertarians –
Senator ROBERTS: No runs on the board. Libertarians haven’t done too much of that either.
Joel Jammal: Well they’re democratized.
Senator ROBERTS: Yeah they’re democratized.
Joel Jammal: And they’re setting up branches and the branches of voting rights and that that’s good to see, but I guess going back to the point is –
Senator ROBERTS: But some of their branches Joel are more akin to One Nation policies.
Joel Jammal: Yeah.
Senator ROBERTS: Immigration and so on, so they’re not a united party.
Joel Jammal: Yeah, but let’s go back to it, do you see yourself running –
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Joel Jammal: Full six years -100%
Senator ROBERTS: Yep
Joel Jammal: Right.
Senator ROBERTS: And the other thing is that I’ve come into politics in the Senate based upon my opposition to climate fraud and I’ve done a better job of researching that and the connections I’ve made. I knew, I won’t go into the details, but I knew three different topics about climate fraud before I got into the Senate and because I’ve been dealing with other MPS and Senators, I had a fair idea of what I’d find in the Senate. Well what I’ve done is I’ve confirmed those but I’ve also identified more of the climate fraud animal through the CSIRO, through the Bureau of Meteorology, through the way the agencies work and I’ve also become very very solid on COVID. okay the first three months we were everyone was saying just give the government a go because we all the videos and we had to look after the people of Australia first then we realized it was it was a con uh serious problems with it but what I’m what I’m about to say is that in the next term I don’t have any niceties about me. I don’t- I’ll still be treating people with respect I’ll still tell the truth but they can go to hell because we are after them in a big way I’ve said to my staff we’ve chased a lot of different um topics as part of our agenda supported a lot of people we will continue to do that but we are going to go Rogue on climate and COVID. We are going to tell the truth but we are going to go really really hard on that, we’re going to.
Joel Jammal: You alluded earlier that um you know some of these parties are adopting- the major parties specific adopting your policies
Senator ROBERTS: Sort of.
Joel Jammal: Sort of, alcohol for example.
Senator ROBERTS: Yeah, we’ve been given the pat on the back immigration, foreign ownership, but they’ve been committing to it in weasel words they’re not really committing to it but they know that our issues are top of the tree.
Joel Jammal: Right, so when um- so I saw Pauline came out with a video I think yesterday she was on her farm and she mentioned that uh Albanese has announced a freeze to the uh –
Senator ROBERTS: Yeah –
Joel Jammal: The alcohol excise?
Senator ROBERTS: After just raising it. It currently raises every 6 months.
Joel Jammal: Right, it’s insane. I think it’s like half of your drink uh alcoholic drink is like Government taxes or something crazy it’s insane. um so on um immigration I was listening to Pauline on a podcast uh where she was very- you know- I know I didn’t describe her as a- and we’ll wrap this up in a sec I know I didn’t describe –
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got another podcast straight after this.
Joel Jammal: That’s right, I’ve got Steve Tripp, Steve’s a friend of the show he sent me the the link and yeah –
Senator ROBERTS: I need to be early for that as you know
Joel Jammal: No worries. um I guess my last question is you know I described Pauline earlier as no Rhodes um Scholar um but I listened to her on a podcast um previously um about immigration and her analysis of the statistics and the facts, which is brilliant, I mean the numbers and recalling the percentages of okay but how many are actually tradies that are coming in for example was blown away by and and if the fact that no one’s clipped that yet is beyond me I should I should probably clip it
Senator ROBERTS: 0.6% are tradies 99.4% are not tradies and they’re going to have 0.6% of the people building houses for the other 99.4%, absolutely lies.
Joel Jammal: Right, and how do we get that out more? because people still are saying “ah well Aussies they don’t want to do the jobs so we need immigrants to do the jobs”, but that’s not who’s coming in.
Senator ROBERTS: No, they’re unskilled people, you know One Nation- Pauline talked about immigration from the the start. um she talked about two things she talked about numbers and she talked about because- John Howard is the first person to- first Prime Minister to have brought in massive immigration he doubled it in his term and every prime minister since, pretty much, has increased it. Pauline talked not just about numbers Joel she talked about the quality of the people and that’s something we’ve been talking about, I’ve been talking about the numbers and the quality ‘cos’ both need to be spot on. We need to bring in people who will contribute not take away, contribute through hard work and be productive immediately uh not go welfare not come soak up our pensions, we need to put time limits on people so they need to be here 8-15 years before they can qualify for a pension for example. So these are the kinds of things because our country has been fooled by the Liberal and Labor Prime Ministers making it so easy to come in here get our benefits get our welfare; Medicare fraud PBS fraud people getting cheap Pharmaceuticals based upon taxpayer through the PBS shipping them overseas and selling them overseas. Medicare Medicare cards without photo ID so that- not digital ID photo ID- um so that so that we can protect against fraud we’re just getting extorted. We’ve got to be very very much stricter on who we let in the country, I mean letting people into the country after one- from Gaza, a known terrorist Hotspot with HAMAS, after 1 hour of vetting?! come on. Letting 750,000 people into the country in one year?! come on. Letting uh students come in here, bring their Partners in here, bring their families in here, working well above the hours uh and then exporting $11.1 billion per year back exporting it out of the country which is money gone from our country then we’ve got 75,000 illegals at least in here what the hell have Liberal and Labor been doing? only one nation talks about this! only one nation, it’s the quality and the quantity of people that we we need to challenge.
Joel Jammal: That’s completely mad. Malcolm, um I’m glad that we- this- we’re about to cut this short now um because um I’m still feeling a bit under the weather since I got back but I want to thank you for making the time to come on here and um I appreciate that we’ve gone through that question at the with regards to the –
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not going to abstain from the question
Joel Jammal: no, not at all not at all, and that’s what I love about politics um and podcasts um I’m glad we addressed that hate um not hate speech bill but the hate the hate –
Senator ROBERTS: “Hate Crimes” Bill
Joel Jammal: Hate Crimes Bill thank you, I got to fix it myself that’s right um because I think a lot of people did have the concerns around that and it means that we don’t have to deal with that again people can watch it and it’s done
Senator ROBERTS: Well you know if I’d seen the lies that were told about us blatantly I would have had very big concerns about us but having been in the discussion with Pauline about what signals sent I am completely happy with we did
Joel Jammal: Sure, and that’s why we got to- we have to not leave it to um Liberal and Labor we need to work together to get these parties to combine their efforts combine their votes everyone that left a like even now a comment saying “Malcolm’s full of crap!” no worries, no worries, or you know maybe you don’t like what Rennick did it’s like “yeah that Renick’s he shouldn’t have gone after Malcolm in this way!” great go to both of their websites whoever, whichever one you like go volunteer get off your asses and hand out some ‘how-to-vote cards’ at the election and build the pie, build the freedom vote, do what the Yanks did, if you want- if you like what you’re seeing every day in your TV where Trump’s going after Zelensky you want that sort of thing in Australia, get off your asses and make it happen because no one’s coming to save you all right and that’s what I have to say to people that’s the truth of it and that’s why I don’t have time for um you know these sort of childish- I’m meant to be the child of the movement –
Senator ROBERTS: You’re the mature one, the sage.
Joel Jammal: It’s like ever since I left school I’ve just been like okay I’m excited to join the world of the adults and I’m still looking or the adults, I haven’t yet found them –
Senator ROBERTS: Well don’t go to Canberra
Joel Jammal: No, and don’t go to America ‘cos’ you know they’re great but they’re still not- they’re still kids. um but anyway Malcolm, thank you so much I’m looking forward to having you back on very soon so we can get a bit more into the policy because I know that is actually where your strength is and I’m itching to you know go even more into the migration data –
Senator ROBERTS: I would love- look I’ll come down especially for that it would be love to do that long as we can have a really good Go at ’em because there’s nothing like the policies in this country, my team did most of the work for it and the analysis, every one of them costed uh properly uh Pauline came in and some of her stuff added to it, it’s a real solid team effort. I am extremely proud of one policies for this election campaign there’s no nowhere that I’ve seen any party anywhere and I’ve been around a few years now that’s come even close to what we’re doing.
Joel Jammal: yeah, no absolutely –
Senator ROBERTS: And I they came from listening to you.
Joel Jammal: Yeah, and it was brilliant that podcast she did with those with those gentlemen where they put it into an app and an AI and the AI generated a podcast of the entire One Nation policy I thought that was just brilliant.
Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t even know about that
Joel Jammal: Yeah, this is what was amazing about that podcast and uh- she rocks up they’re like “yep, if you want to go to the website we’ve designed this whole website it’s got all of One nation’s policies on there. We even went and made a podcast, it generated a podcast, where two people they literally go through the entire One Nation policies it was talk about value rocking up- I’m sorry Malcolm like you’ve rocked up here, all I’ve got this is this bubble ahead for one of your staffers
Senator ROBERTS: That’s not even for me –
Joel Jammal: It’s not even for you like, here I am trying to give you value and that’s what they’ve gone and done
Senator ROBERTS: You just keep speaking up mate that’s the best way you can give value to to me, to the country, that’s it just keep going
Joel Jammal: No look my pleasure, and so look thank you for showing up and uh ladies and gentlemen there is a debate in Queensland uh virtually online uh between Malcolm, uh Gerard Rennick, uh a Greens candidate, and one other candidate
Senator ROBERTS: Legalise Cannabis –
Joel Jammal: Legalise Cannabis, and uh that’s that’s certainly one to watch.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it Greens or Libertarians? I think it’s Libertarians –
Joel Jammal: It’s Libertarians, ok maybe it’s Libertarians –
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t think a Green would be in front of a debate with me –
Joel Jammal: No –
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t think a Labor party (candidate) would either.
Joel Jammal: I think they’re shy, I mean in Victoria uh Warren Pickering he’s got a debate the Socialist, I mean the Socialist uh Alliance guy is debating so that’s going to be interesting –
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve challenged Larissa Waters, the head of the Greens party in Queensland, to debate three times and repeated the third time constantly in the Senate, no show. She’s even said publicly to me in front of an audience she will not debate me. Anyway.
Joel Jammal: So look 6News is doing that we we’re going to be streaming that so that it gets out to everyone so I want to thank Leo from 6News but Malcolm, without further Ado, thank you very much ladies and gentlemen if you enjoyed this podcast please go to uh subscribe in the description on uh on ‘Buy me a coffee’ to support the show thank you so much for listening uh Malcolm did you have any any other final –
Senator ROBERTS: No, just thank you for what you’re doing keep speaking up freely and independently, we need the truth.
Joel Jammal: Very good thank you guys, I’ll see you guys later, have a good one.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/The-Ark.jpg?fit=1389%2C781&ssl=17811389Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-04-10 11:49:542025-04-10 20:11:25Podcast: The Ark with Joel Jammal
The Office of the eSafety Commissioner does commendable work in protecting children and adults from bullying and, most importantly, removing child abuse material. I praised the Office for this work.
However, in my opinion, the eSafety Commissioner has brought the office into disrepute with her personal vendetta against Twitter/X and her attempt to become the world internet police.
Last year, the Commissioner finalised investigations into 9,500 pieces of violent and extremist content. I asked what these were. The answer provided was that the Commissioner was taking down material from anywhere in the world, detecting it in part because they actively searched for it, even without a complaint.
Given that the Commissioner is positioning herself as the world internet police at our expense, I asked what benefit removing the 9,500 pieces of material had for Australians.
The answer relied on one incident, and there was no proof it actually caused a terrorist incident. I asked why there was no explanation of what the other material was, such as a transparency register so we can see what material they are requiring to be taken down to check for political bias. The question was ignored.
I also asked what direct benefit her actions had in addressing terrorism and violent material. The Commissioner answered regarding child material, which I had already praised.
The Commissioner is avoiding scrutiny of her takedown notices for violent and extremist material, and I believe it is because they follow a political bias.
One Nation calls for the eSafety Commissioner to stand down.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Can I, first of all, pay a compliment and I’ll read out some statistics. From the ACMA annual report 2023-24, the office of the eSafety Commissioner has received 13,824 complaints regarding web URLs, with 82 per cent relating to reports about child sexual abuse, child abuse or paedophile activity. This is a 19 per cent increase from the previous year. Your office sent 9,190 notifications related to child sexual abuse material to the INHOPE network—which I understand are the good guys, the right people to work with—and referred 130 investigations to the Australian Federal Police. On cyber abuse, you received 2,695 complaints to the Cyberbullying Scheme for Australian children and 3,113 complaints to the Adult Cyber Abuse Scheme with a removal rate of 88 per cent where removal was required. My opening comment is simple: well done; thank you very much. This is important work.
My first question is that you finalised 9,461 critical investigations into terrorist and violent extremist content, representing a 229 per cent increase—that’s amazing—in these types of complaints from the previous year. I’d like to ask about that. How do you define terrorist and violent extremist content?
Ms Inman Grant : I will turn over to Ms Snell to talk about that. That is part of our illegal and restricted content team under the Online Content Scheme.
Ms Snell : I’m actually going to invite Mr Downie, who is the executive manager for our Investigations Branch, who oversees this work, to talk specifically to this.
Mr Downie : When we’re dealing with terrorism and violent extremist content under the Online Safety Act, we deal with terrorism as defined under the Criminal Code to the pure definition of what a terrorist act is. However, when we’re applying the Online Safety Act, we apply the content according to the classification scheme, and we’ll classify that material as ‘refuse classification’, which then falls into class 1 and class 2 definitions.
Senator ROBERTS: Is this content relating to Australian content or international content?
Mr Downie : With the complaints that we receive, we receive content that can be generated or hosted anywhere in the world, but the key is that it’s accessible by the people within the Australian community.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you seek this content out yourself, or do you rely on a complaint before acting?
Mr Downie : Generally, we rely on a complaint before acting; however, we do have own-motion investigation provisions where we are then able to further conduct investigations to locate material that may be in furtherance of that complaint.
Senator ROBERTS: Of those 9,461 completed investigations, what was the outcome, please?
Mr Downie: I’d have to take that on notice for the specific details of those investigations, but in the majority of cases that content is removed.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there any demonstrable benefit from you taking this material down? What is the benefit to the taxpayer of this aspect of your office?
Mr Downie : Having access to that type of content, whether it be globally or not, is very harmful to members of the community. That material can be used to incite violence. It can be used to radicalise vulnerable people or youth, which, as we’ve seen in the media, can be then used to incite further violence within the community. So less access to that type of content can only be beneficial for the Australian community.
Ms Inman Grant : And I’d note that ASIO Director-General Burgess has said that the vast majority of terrorism investigations conducted right now are of young people between the ages of 14 and 21 and in every single case they have been radicalised somehow on the internet. You would probably also be aware of, heartbreakingly, the stabbing video of bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel, which was geo-blocked here by X but was available in the rest of the world. In the sentencing of the 17-year-old Southport killer, Axel Rudakubana, who went and stabbed three little girls to death while they were making bracelets at a Taylor Swift themed dance party, that very video, that very Wakeley stabbing video, he accessed on X 25 minutes before he stabbed those little girls and claimed that that was his inspiration. So you can imagine that this is something that the UK government has wanted to talk to us about. We have a partnership with Ofcom. We of course have different powers, but I think it’s just a very powerful reminder that this kind of content is accessed by young people. It can normalise, desensitise and, in the worst cases, radicalise.
Senator ROBERTS:On page 206 of the ACMA report, there’s a graph which shows X is the source of five per cent of your cyberabuse claims and Google four per cent, compared to Facebook at 25 per cent. Page 216 of your report lists major noncompliance actions. X has four and Google one. Why does X occupy so much of your time?
Ms Inman Grant : In terms of adult cyberabuse?
Senator ROBERTS: In terms of terrorism complaints and cyberabuse.
Ms Inman Grant : If you recall back to 16 April, around the Wakeley stabbing, we worked with all platforms. With the exception of Meta and X Corp., they all did a good job in trying to identify, detect and remove the Wakeley terrorism video. We weren’t satisfied that either Meta or X did, but, once we issued formal removal notices, Meta responded and complied within the hour, and, of course—you know the story—X said, ‘We’ll see you in court.’ That’s what has taken our time.
Senator ROBERTS: What about the others? That would apply to one of your complaints against them. What about the others? Why the other three?
Ms Inman Grant : It depends on the type of harm. For instance, when we’re talking about youth based cyberbullying, most of the cyberbullying happens on the top four platforms where children spend their time, on YouTube, TikTok, Snap and Instagram. When it comes to image based abuse, there’s a much higher proportion now of sexual extortion targeting young men between the ages of 18 and 24. They tend to meet on Instagram, sometimes on Snap, and then they’re moved off platform. So it depends on the form of abuse. It also depends on the complaints we get. But, when it comes to the terrorist and child sexual abuse material, we go to where the content is hosted and shared.
Senator ROBERTS: That still doesn’t answer the question. You’ve got four major noncompliance actions against X and only one against Google, yet you’ve mentioned several platforms. Why does X have to occupy so much of your time?
Ms Inman Grant: Because they did not comply with our notices. Google came close to not complying, so we gave them a formal warning.
Mr Fleming : Those tribunal and court cases are often initiated by X, so we’re responding to the claims that they make challenging our powers. That’s why they feature the most.
Senator ROBERTS: The report goes on to list how many notices are issued under each part of the act yet does not provide a detailed list. This is fine for child and adult abuse material, of course. We’re happy with that. For class 1 extremist and violent material, why are we not provided a list of what the commissioner considers worthy of a takedown notice and the reasons why? There’s a widespread belief in the public that you’re overstepping on your choice of material to take down.
Ms Inman Grant: Respectfully, I’d like to read from some weighted and validated surveys of the Australian public. In November 2024, a weighted survey of Australians found that 87 per cent of those surveyed supported the introduction of stronger penalties for social media companies that do not comply with Australian laws, 77 per cent supported the proposed ban on social media for children and 75 per cent supported the Australian government’s plan to introduce a digital duty of care. In August 2024, a weighted survey of Australians found that 79 per cent said that social media platforms should operate with a regulator with the power to order content removal. That seems like a pretty overwhelming amount of support from the public.
Senator ROBERTS: That wasn’t my question. My question was: why are we not provided a list of what the commissioner considers worthy of a takedown notice and a breakdown of the reasons why?
Ms Inman Grant : We provide as much transparency as we can. You would understand that confidentiality is incredibly important. We can’t describe these in great detail. We can’t name names. What kind of information do you think would be helpful to your understanding? That’s something that we can certainly look at in the interests of transparency.
Senator ROBERTS: The specific behaviours, without breaching confidentiality, would be helpful. We wouldn’t expect you to breach confidentiality or name names—certainly not—but we would like the types of actions that the commissioner thinks worthy of a takedown notice, as I said, and the reasons why.
Senator McAllister: The commissioner and I are trying to understand, with a little more precision, what sort of information. You’re simply saying a generalised list of examples that are deidentified—
Ms Inman Grant : Of 40,000 complaints we receive annually.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re dealing with them, so presumably you know what they are. I’d like to see some sort of classification so that people could understand the proportions, because at the moment I don’t think you’re accountable for that.
Ms Inman Grant : We can take that on notice. We would have to look at privacy and confidentiality. We would also have to look at resource implications and how that might serve the public interest, but we’re happy to take a look at that.
Senator ROBERTS: I think the people have a right to know. Referencing unofficial takedown notices, which I note are issued under section 183(2)(zk), these go to the question of your secrecy. If these are dangerous enough to require a takedown, then they should be dangerous enough for you to list out by making the register of takedown notices public knowledge—that’s what I was getting at. Otherwise, you’re simply exercising power without any accountability, power that can be abused. How would we know? Can you, Commissioner, point to one terrorist act you’ve prevented, one person you’ve deradicalised or one benefit to Australian society from the money you have spent on your campaign against extremist material?
Ms Inman Grant : I go back to what D-G Burgess often says, ‘You’re never congratulated when you stop something from happening.’ Again, do we have to have more heartbreaking examples of, like I just explained to you, what happened with those three little girls murdered in Southport, UK? We’ll never know. What I do know is I have parents coming up to me and saying: ‘You’ve saved my son’s life. He was sexually extorted. He had just turned 18. He went to the police; no-one would help him. I wasn’t going to let it go. I found your website. Your investigators supported him, got the content down, gave him advice and sent him on to mental health support services.’ So I do know that we’re saving lives every day.
How many cases of 12- and 13-year-old girls being cyberbullied and bullied do you need to prove that this is a veritable epidemic and that young people are losing their lives? We’re here to help them and to prevent that from happening. My biggest regret, if there is one, is that more people don’t know about us. Only about 40 per cent of the Australian population knows about us, but we do everything we can to help people. When we stop helping people and making the online world a safer and better place, then, yes, it’s time to hang up our hats, but we’re just getting started.
Senator ROBERTS: With due respect, Ms Inman Grant, you didn’t answer my question—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we have to rotate the call. There are a lot of senators who wish to ask questions.
Senator ROBERTS: I just want to clarify that one.
CHAIR: I can come back to you, if you wish.
Senator ROBERTS: It’ll only take a second to do this.
CHAIR: Go on then.
Senator ROBERTS: I asked, ‘Can you point to one terrorist act?’ I accept you’re doing a good job. You’re preventing child abuse, no doubt about that. We’ve discussed that in the past. Can you point to one terrorist act you prevented, one person deradicalised or one benefit to Australian society from the money you have spent on your campaign against extremist material? That’s what I want to know.
Ms Inman Grant : We’re not going out into the public asking young people if they saw a particular video that radicalised them or not. We do know when people have been radicalised by content that has been online. Some of the gore content that we’ve taken down includes the manifestos, the horrific imagery of people at Christchurch huddling in the corner while being shot. Anything that’s dehumanising that we are able to get down to not cause further pain to victims and their families and have not incite others into taking the same action, I think, is worth doing. I don’t need proof that I prevented this, that or the other from happening. We’re trying to make the internet a safer, more positive place with less violent extremist material, and that’s why we take these issues so seriously.
Senator ROBERTS: My concern is with—
CHAIR: We’ll go to Senator Darmanin—
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll put one more question on notice.
I had a fantastic time chatting with Brodie Buchal on The Right Side Show! We dove into a range of topics, from Australian politics to the heated debate over the Under 16’s social media ban bill. We also tackled the lack of accountability in government processes and so much more.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Screenshot-2024-12-29-200244.png?fit=861%2C483&ssl=1483861Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-12-29 20:05:422024-12-29 20:05:44Podcast: The Right Side Show
The Albanese Labor Government caved into to public pressure and scrapped the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 (MAD). This was a huge win for ‘We The People,’ who rejected the level of government tyranny the bill would have legislated.
One Nation has opposed the Bill since the Morrison-Liberal government first proposed it four years ago. We have campaigned tirelessly for years to raise public awareness of the human rights failures in this Bill, successfully influencing public opinion. The Bill should never have progressed to a point where democracy itself stood on a precipice. If that sounds dramatic, then you haven’t read the submission to the Senate inquiry into the MAD bill from human rights and civil rights lawyers.
I hope this marks the beginning of an awakening to the realisation that our country faces a bleak future of totalitarian government and economic decline unless everyday Australians reclaim the government from the self-interest that stained this Bill.
One Nation will continue to defend the human rights of every Australian. I can’t say the same for the other parties. I have no doubt this Bill will return in the next Parliament unless One Nation gains the balance of power in the upcoming federal election.
Transcript
Removing the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 from the Notice Paper was a humanitarian act. It’s said that success has many fathers and failure is an orphan. If that’s the case, I would like a paternity test on this vote, because many who are taking credit for voting down this bill only decided their vote last week. One Nation has opposed the bill since the Morrison-Liberal government first proposed this bill four years ago. One Nation has campaigned for years to raise public awareness of the human rights failures in this bill, to inspire public opinion, and we were successful. It should never have progressed to a point where democracy itself stood on a precipice. If that sounds dramatic, then you haven’t read the submission to the Senate inquiry into the mad bill from the human rights and civil rights lawyers. They were scathing. How did committee members listen to three days of testimony with almost every witness calling for the bill to be scrapped yet still produce a report that said, ‘Everything’s fine; pass the bill.’ The original decision of the committee to do just that flies in the face of the expert witnesses who the committee asked to testify. Such an action will make it harder to attract the high quality of witnesses this inquiry attracted. It’s disrespectful to all concerned, and it’s disrespectful to the Australian people, who expect better of this Senate.
I understand why the Prime Minister wants censorship—he has been community noted on X 10 times and certainly needs help with the truth. For One Nation and Australia, the Christmas present in this debacle was the way everyday Australians got involved. This was an extraordinary response and one of which Australia can be proud. I hope this is the start of an awakening to the realisation that our country, this country, is facing a bleak future of totalitarian government and economic decline unless everyday Australians take the government back from the self interests which stained this bill. One Nation will defend the human rights of every Australian—every Australian.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/om0w1PWzhKQ/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-12-29 08:32:022024-12-29 08:32:05Public Pressure Forces Albanese Government to Scrap Misinformation Bill
The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 is important for families and parental responsibility, yet we were given only one hour to debate it. It’s another Labor-Liberal stitch-up to control everyone through digital identity and misinformation bills.
We support the Greens in this, because parents should be the ones to supervise their children, not the government. Age verification and facial recognition have failed globally. We should instead, make device management easier for parents.
This bill will lead to constant surveillance and push children into unsafe online spaces. We must stop the Uniparty’s globalist agenda and work for our country. We support the referral.
Transcript
Well, isn’t this a wonderful day! The Greens are normally helping the government to truncate debate, to guillotine debate. Now they’re talking about adding more time for debating—and we agree with them this time, because we agree with debate. Debate is the way to truth. We agree with their amendment and we will be supporting their amendment.
This is a vital bill, an absolutely crucial bill. It has serious consequences, and not just for people under 16 years of age. It has serious consequences for the Australian family and who has responsibility for children in this country. Is it the government, or is it going to remain the parents? Parents have already had their responsibility, their authority, whittled away at state and federal level. We need to enshrine responsibility for children with parents. That’s critical. It’s fundamental. This bill has important social and family consequences, and we’ve been given one hour!
This is a stitch-up between the Labor-Liberal uniparty, yet again. Digital identity; identity verification bill; misinformation/disinformation bill; working on digital currency; children under 16 banned from the internet—these are all working together to capture everyone in this country; we’ve said it for the last four years. We were the first cab off the rank with regard to the Morrison government’s misinformation/disinformation bill and the same with the digital identity bill. Oh, sorry; they called it the Trusted Digital Identity Bill! It’s a stitch-up.
We need scrutiny, and we will be supporting the Greens on this. Let me tell you why I’m saying this. Parents must be the ones supervising their children in their own home. It is a parent’s responsibility, a parent’s duty, a parent’s right, and you are affecting those things—parental responsibilities, duties and rights. You’re undermining parents.
Age verification software and facial recognition must be used in every device, whether it be a phone or a computer. Why do we know that? Because this banning of children under 16 years of age has failed in every country, because the bureaucrats can’t control it. So, as to what you’ve set up with your bills, one of the earliest in this parliament from the Labor Party government was identity verification software. We will need the cameras on all the time. What we should be doing, instead of sidelining parents, is making device management easier. Apple, Microsoft and Android could make parental locks easier and more powerful.
I want to acknowledge Senator Rennick’s comment a couple of days ago when he said that you can already get apps—some free, some for a price—that enable parents to control the apps that are downloaded onto a child’s phone. They’re already there. We don’t need this bill at all. We notice that opposition leader Peter Dutton has joined in supporting the need for this bill, but there’s no need for it. As I said, no country has made age limits work because bureaucrats cannot see us using the device. That’s what you need and that’s what this bill gives you with your preceding bills. We see Mr Littleproud speaking on Sky News in support of this and a huge backlash—devastating comments against Mr Littleproud. If the bill goes through, parents allowing children to watch cartoons on YouTube will be breaking the law. It will need facial recognition and monitoring of key strokes for content to police this. Hackers and burglars will be in paradise. They will be able to come in and watch your activities in the house through your camera 24 hours a day and find out when you are going to be out of the house. Parents watching a cooking video with their child on their lap will be locked out because the child is under 16. Children will be forced into the dark corners of the web—peer-to-peer messaging—with no protections against illegal material, hate, phishing, sextortion and hacking.
We have already seen these bills being introduced in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and other countries simultaneously. This goes beyond the uniparty in this country; it goes globally. We have seen in the United Kingdom police raiding journalists and commentators who have been criticising the Starmer government and jailed. That is where this is heading. We have seen the digital ID, misinformation and disinformation bill, identity verification started and introduced by the LNP—the Liberal-Nationals. Stop working as the uniparty for globalists and start working for our country. We will support the referral.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/kyQV9gLA_2s/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-12-20 13:04:052024-12-20 13:04:09Parental Rights at Stake: Debate Over Bill is Crucial
Today, the Senate held a Committee Hearing on the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024. This expedited inquiry was scheduled with just one day’s notice, as the Liberal and Labor parties want to rush this legislation through. The first witness, Ms. Lucy Thomas OAM, CEO of Project Rockit, delivered six minutes of the most relevant, heartfelt, and inspirational testimony on the issue of censoring social media for those under 16. Her insights demonstrated the benefit of lived experience.
Before taking a position on this bill, take the time to listen to her testimony.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here. Ms Thomas, there are harms and benefits at school, and there are harms and benefits in life generally. Claude Mellins, professor of medical psychology in the Departments of Psychiatry and Sociomedical Sciences at Columbia University, stated: ‘For young people, social media provides a platform to help them figure out who they are. For very shy or introverted young people, it can be a way to meet others with similar interests.’ She added: ‘Social support and socializing are critical influences on coping and resilience.’ They provide an important point of connection. She then said in relation to Covid: ‘On the other hand, fewer opportunities for in-person interactions with friends and family meant less of a real-world check on some of the negative influences of social media.’ Isn’t the professor making an important point? It’s not about stopping real-world interactions it’s about balancing social media with real-world interactions. Isn’t it about a balance, not about prohibition? Isn’t it also the fact that parents and not governments are best placed to decide how their children develop?
Ms Thomas: Thank you for the question. I think you’re speaking to that idea of balance that a lot of us have been trying to refer to. We are acutely aware of the harms, and I think they’re beautifully captured in that quote, and acutely aware of the risk that we may create new harms by cutting young people off. I think this is a really important point, and I’d like to give you one example, a quote from a young person, Rhys from Tamworth, who commented: ‘Social media has helped me figure out and become comfortable with my sense of self, as there is a large community that is able to connect me with people all over the world. Living in a regional area, it’s difficult to find people dealing with the same personal developments, and social media really helped.’ This is beyond just direct mental health intervention; this is about finding other people like you. This is about finding spaces where we can affirm ourselves, use our voices and mobilise around actions that we care about, just like we’re doing here today. I’d love to point out that the Office of the eSafety Commissioner has done some fantastic research into the experiences of specific groups—those who are First Nations, LGBTQIA+ Australians, and disabled and neurodivergent young people. All of these group face greater hate speech online. Actually belonging to one of those communities, I can say that we also face greater hate speech offline. What was really important is they also found that young people in these communities that already face marginalisation are more likely to seek emotional support—not just mental health support, but connection, news and information, including information about themselves and the world around them. So I take your point.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I have another quote from Deborah Glasofer, Associate Professor of Clinical Medical Psychology at Stanford University:
Whether it’s social media or in person, a good peer group makes the difference. A group of friends that connects over shared interests like art or music, and is balanced in their outlook on eating and appearance, is a positive. In fact, a good peer group online may be protective against negative or in-person influences.
Is this bill throwing out the good with the bad, instead of trying to improve support in digital media skills to allow children and parents to handle these trials better?
Ms Thomas: I think there is a risk of that, yes. I think we really need to, in a much longer and more thorough timeframe, interrogate and weigh up all of these risks and unintended possible impacts. I’d like to draw another quote from Lamisa from Western Sydney University. You spoke about influencers; we tend to imagine those being solely negative. Lamisa says: ‘Social media has given me creators who are people of colour, and I think it has really allowed me to learn that I don’t have to justify my existence, that I am allowed to have an opinion and that I am allowed to have a voice about who I am.’ So I absolutely think that there is a risk that we’ll throw out these experiences; in our desire to protect people, we create unintended harms that they have to live with.
Senator ROBERTS: I just received a text message from someone in this building, a fairly intelligent person, and he said: ‘I was born with a rare disorder. I spent more than four decades feeling isolated until I discovered people with the same disorder on social media. This legislation would prevent people under 16 from linking with the communities online that can provide them with shared lived experience.’ What do you say?
Ms Thomas: I’m going to give you one more quote. I’m aware that young people aren’t in the room, so I’m sorry I’m citing these references. Hannah from Sydney says: ‘Where I struggled in the physical world thanks to a lack of physically accessible design and foresight by those responsible for building our society, I have thrived online.’ The digital world has created so much opportunity for young people to participate and fully realise their opportunities. We just need to be very careful.
I know in talking about all these benefits, I’m probably going to receive an immediate response about some of the harms. I’m not here to say that harms don’t exist. They do. If anyone is aware of them, it’s me. I’ve been working in this space for 20 years. I started Project Rockit because I wanted to tackle these issues as a young person fresh out of school. We know they’re there, but we have to be very careful not to impact these positive benefits young people face.
Senator ROBERTS: Ms Thomas, isn’t there very important access to parents and grandparents on social media for their support and experiential interaction. A lot of children interact with their parents and grandparents through social media?
Ms Thomas: Am I allowed to answer this one?
CHAIR: Yes.
Ms Thomas: I think one of the big, grave concerns around implementation and enforcement is that it won’t just be young people who need to verify their ages online; it will be every Australian. The methods available, every Australian sharing their biometric data or presenting a government issued ID, are going to pose challenges for those Australians that you are talking about—older Australians who are already facing higher rates of digital exclusion and those from marginalised communities. Absolutely, this is a vital tool for grandparents and kids, for intergenerational play and learning, and we risk cutting young people off but also cutting older people off.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/3_9xU_5vYGA/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-11-27 14:56:002024-12-20 15:07:43Social Media Age Ban Faces Powerful Testimony in Senate Hearing
It’s often said that success has many parents and failure is an orphan. In that case, I’d like a paternity test on the vote that removed the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill from the Senate Notice Paper. Some Senators now being credited with this move only solidified their opposition last week. Meanwhile, One Nation has stood firmly against this bill since its first iteration was released under the Morrison Liberal Government in 2019.
One Nation has been the only party consistently campaigning against this bill since 2019. A vote for One Nation is a vote for freedom of speech. In my remarks, I’ll outline the reasons why One Nation opposed this bill.
Transcript
To the people of Australia, congratulations—you’ve won. You put so much pressure on the ‘uniparty’ that you won; they folded. Four years ago I came out against the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, and it’s been a slog ever since. That’s when the Morrison-Joyce Liberal-National government introduced it. I’ll just make some comments there. This is a part of five components—the mis- and disinformation bill; the Digital ID Act; identity verification bill; under-16s banned from social media; Reserve Bank of Australia working on a digital currency that’ll be connected to a global digital currency—of a package towards social credit. The second point is that that package is being put by the major parties—Liberals, Nationals and Labor. The third point is that it’s connected to implementation of a similar package around the world in many other nations right now. It’s led to the arrest of 150 people in the United Kingdom, with jail for some, simply for making comments dissenting against the British government.
This misinformation and disinformation bill had some worthy sections on regulating the tech giants, but it was primarily about censorship and censoring the Australian people. One Nation supports a referendum to enshrine freedom of speech in our Constitution. One Nation supports legislation to mandate and enable free speech and to make free speech sacrosanct so that no state can trump it. One Nation wants to appeal 18C. This has come out of 18C, which is scandalous. They’re some of the basics. I will read part of my dissenting report on the Senate’s inquiry into this bill. It began:
1.1 I thank the witnesses for their submissions and for attending the hearings.
There were many, many witnesses. Thank you, Australia.
1.2 The committee report—
as it was originally drafted—
into the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 flies in the face of the expert evidence the committee has received across three days of hearings into the bill.
That evidence just completely smashed it and reversed it. But, with the tidal wave of views from across Australia, the committee changed its view—wonderful.
1.3 A committee inquiry should not perform the function of gift wrapping a decision which has already been taken. A committee inquiry should have the role of deciding if the decisions taken in the bill are correct.
The first report did not do that fundamental thing.
1.4 For three days, the committee heard from human rights advocates and stakeholders who all criticised this bill on human rights grounds, and added warnings the bill would backfire.
That’s what the committee heard almost unanimously.
1.5 It is extraordinary the committee would choose to ignore the recommendations of the very people who they invited to attend to advise them on this matter.
Only when the public turned savagely against the government was the committee report changed at the last minute to reflect today’s motion. The action of the committee to that point would have made it harder:
… for any Senate inquiry in the future to attract the quality of witnesses this inquiry attracted.
Censorship was the purpose of this bill. Censorship was the purpose of the committee report. The criticism of the bill was well placed. My comments continued:
1.7 The Australian Human Rights Commission questioned a basic foundation of the bill—the definition of ‘information’. In the Explanatory Memorandum the term ‘is intended to include opinions, claims, commentary and invective’.
1.8 The Australian Human Rights Commission stated ‘considerable caution should be exercised before including opinions and commentary within the scope of “information” as this significantly broadens the potential reach of this legislation and increases the risk of it being used to censor legitimate debate about matters of public importance.
That is profound. That is the bedrock of a democracy.
1.9 One Nation agrees with this concern. The bill misconstrues human rights as relative, indeed as subordinate to the need of government to suppress opinions they don’t like.
That’s what you tried to do.
1.10 The Human Rights Law Centre recommended Clause 11(e) should be amended to reflect a broader commitment to human rights in the bill’s objectives. It also recommended the Australian Human Rights Commission should be consulted on the development of codes.
‘Consultation’—that’d be nice.
1.11 Several submissions related to the specific areas of misinformation. The Australian Medical Professional Society submitted:
By centralising control over what constitutes medical ‘truth’ in the hands of government regulators, we risk creating an even more Orwellian twist in a system that is already subject to manipulation by powerful interests, to further suppress inconvenient facts and legitimate debate. This would be disastrous not only for free speech and democracy, but for public health as well.
People’s lives depend on this. And you wanted to stop it.
1.12 The report failed to address a critical failing in the debate around COVID. Namely that information presented as medical truth at the time has been proven to be wrong—
not only wrong but completely contradicting the truth—
and information banned as misinformation has now been proven to be true.
Repeatedly, repeatedly and repeatedly.
1.13 On the issue of COVID messaging, One Nation has maintained a contrary position to the Government of the day since 2020. This followed expert testimony from multiple specialists, research doctors and whistle blowers which contradicted the official narrative.
1.14 The implication is simple—what is misinformation one day is truth the next. This is the danger in the Government deciding what is and is not misinformation. The bias will always be in favour of the government’s ‘truth’.
I asked every witness a fundamental question on the last day of the hearing: who is the arbiter of truth? No-one could say who is specified as the arbiter of truth in the bill. They all said that it would default to ACMA. Other provisions in my additional comments included: religious freedom, inauthentic behaviour and media literacy. But the fundamental thing is this was an attempt by the Labor Party to build on the Liberal Party’s previous attempts at censorship by corralling misinformation under their definition, and then driving the social media organisations, the big tech companies, to ram it down people’s throats. That was what you were doing. I’m pleased to see that the people of Australia have put the brake on you. Now I appeal to the people of Australia to keep a foot on their throat because we must stop the banning of under-16-year-old people from social media.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator O’Sullivan): Senator McKenzie, you have 10 seconds.
This is the third and final session on the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 — aka U16’s Social Media Ban – an important piece of legislation being waved through by the Liberal and Labor parties with minimal debate. The Department was called to explain the bill, which of course they defended with responses that would not hold up under closer scrutiny. If only Senators had time to do this.
Several serious revelations emerged during the Department’s testimony, including this little pearl: it’s better for foreign-owned multinational tech platforms to control children’s internet use than for parents to supervise or manage their children’s social media and online interactions. One Nation strongly disagrees.
I also raised concerns about the YouTube exemption, which is worded in such a way that it could apply to any video streaming site, including pornographic sites. The Department’s response was to point to other regulations and codes that “supposedly” protect children from accessing porn. What utter nonsense! Any child in this country without a parental lock can access Pornhub by simply clicking the “Are you over 18?” box. Teachers nationwide report that even primary school students are being exposed to and influenced by pornography. If this bill accomplishes anything good, it should be to prevent children from accessing pornography, which it deliberately avoids doing.
This bill claims to be about many things – keeping children safe is not one of them.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. Could you please explain the provisions around exemptions for sites that do not require a person to have an account, meaning they can simply arrive and watch? An example would be children watching cartoons on YouTube. What’s the definition here of a site that can be viewed without an account?
Mr Irwin: I guess it goes to the obligation around holding an account, or having an account, which relates to the creation or the holding of an account. So if there is any process—
Senator ROBERTS: Is it the creator’s responsibility?
Mr Irwin: Sorry?
Senator ROBERTS: Is it the creator’s responsibility? Is the account the creator’s responsibility?
Mr Irwin: No, all responsibility is on the platform. If a platform under this definition has the facility to create an account and/or has under 16s who have an account on there already, then they will have to take reasonable steps.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the functional difference in your definition between YouTube and Porn Hub?
Mr Chisholm: One contains content that is restricted content that is prohibited to be accessed by children under law. Porn Hub is a pornographic website.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand that.
Mr Chisholm: YouTube has a whole range of information, including educational content and a range of information that doesn’t really match up with a site like Porn Hub.
Mr Irwin: That was the second limb of the age-assurance trial: looking at technologies for 18 or over, looking at pornographic material for age assurance. That also goes to the matter of the codes that DIGI were talking about before. Those codes relate to access to particular types of content including pornographic content.
Senator ROBERTS: Let me try and understand—
Mr Chisholm: The design of Pornhub is to provide pornographic material to people who are permitted to watch it. That’s the difference.
Senator ROBERTS: I guessed that, but I asked for the functional difference. Pornhub is 18-plus, but apparently you don’t have to prove it. Could you show me where in the legislation, in this child protection bill, you’re actually including porn sites?
Mr Chisholm: There are separate laws in relation to pornographic material, which we can step you through. This bill is more about age limits for digital platforms, imposing a 16-year age limit for digital platforms. There are other laws that prohibit access to pornographic material online including the codes process and classification system.
Mr Irwin: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s required for someone aged 16 or 17 to get access to Pornhub?
Mr Irwin: That’s subject to the codes that industry is developing right now, which DIGI talked about, in terms of what specifically is required. There is also a whole system of classification laws that are designed to prevent access to adult content by children. On top of that, there’s the eSafety Commissioner’s administration of things like basic online safety expectations and the phase 2 codes that are under development.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m glad you raised that because I was going to raise it. You exempt gaming sites because they already carry age recommendations. In fact, some video game sites are MA 15+; they’re not 16-plus. What will have to change? Will it be your bill or the MA 15+ rating?
Mr Chisholm: The bill doesn’t require them to change—
Ms Vandenbroek: Nothing will change.
Mr Chisholm: because gaming isn’t caught by the new definition. There’s nothing that requires gaming systems to change.
Senator ROBERTS: So social media is 16-plus, but video games are 15-plus.
Mr Chisholm: The policy here is to treat games as different to social media. For some of the reasons we talked about before, they are seen as a different form of content consumption and engagement to social media.
Senator ROBERTS: Doesn’t this indicate to people that this bill’s intent is not about what the government says?
Mr Chisholm: No, the bill is definitely about what the government says. It imposes a firm age limit of 16 on account creation for social media for all of the concerns and reasons outlined about the damage that’s being done to under-16s through exposure to social media. Games are also subject to classification rules, so they have their own regime they have to comply with now.
Mr Irwin: They’re subject to the broader Online Safety Act as well.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’ll get you to wrap up.
Senator ROBERTS: I have a last question. I understand that there are parental controls that parents can buy—they’re sometimes free—in the form of apps that watch over what children are watching. What alternatives are already available for parents to control children’s social media and control their exposure? Did you evaluate them, and why don’t you just hand the authority back to where it belongs—to parents—because they can do a better job of parenting their child than government can?
Mr Chisholm: The very strong feedback that we received from parents during this consultation is that they do not want to bear the burden or responsibility of making decisions that should be better reflected in the law. At the moment, parents often refer to the 13-year age limit that’s part of the US terms of service—
Mr Irwin: For privacy reasons.
Mr Chisholm: for privacy reasons, that apply in Australia. That’s often used for parents to say to their children, ‘You can’t have a social media account until you’re 13.’ It’s really important for parents to point to a standard law, an age limit, that will apply to everybody. It’s also feedback we’ve received from a lot of children. They would rather have a universal law that applies to all children under the age of 16 instead of a situation where some children have it and some children don’t, and where all of the harms that we’re aware of from exposure to social media continue to magnify. We also don’t want a situation where there is any question the parents have some legal responsibility in relation to an age limit. The very strong view of the government is that that responsibility should be borne by the platforms, not parents.
Senator ROBERTS: We’re not going to have—
Mr Chisholm: The platforms are in a much better position to control their services than parents are.
Senator ROBERTS: So we want to put parenting in the hands of social media platforms?
Mr Chisholm: The parents have said to us that they have a very strong view that they want a 16-year age limit, and that the platforms are better placed to enforce that because it is their platforms.
Senator ROBERTS: How much notice did the parents get to give their comments? Because we got 24 hours notice of the closing of submissions.
Mr Irwin: We’ve been consulting, and I will add we do have evidence that 58 per cent of parents were not aware of social media parental monitoring, and only 36 per cent actually searched for online safety information.
Senator ROBERTS: So wouldn’t it be better to educate the parents?
Mr Chisholm: We are educating parents, too. That’s part of the digital literacy and other measures we are undertaking. Education is important, but it’s not enough.
Senator ROBERTS: I meant educating parents about the controls already available to keep the control over their children in parents’ hands, not usurping it and putting it in the government’s hands.
Mr Chisholm: I think it comes back to the point that we’ve made that the very strong view here is that platforms should bear the responsibility for imposing or following an age limit, not parents, who don’t have as much information about how these platforms operate as the platforms themselves.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/mJ4q_K6yMU0/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-11-25 14:36:092024-12-19 08:54:43U16’s Censorship Bill Fails to Protect Kids from Harm
We all know the real intent of the Digital ID agenda. The United Kingdom, with laws similar to ours, has shown alarming developments. In the last two weeks, British police have visited and advised hundreds of journalists and commentators to stop criticising the Starmer government’s policies. Some have even been arrested and imprisoned merely for expressing their opinions.
The Digital ID, misinformation laws and facial verification systems are all part of the control mechanism that facilitates government surveillance and tyranny. The mask has come off quickly. Only recently, Minister Gallagher reassured Australians that digital IDs would not be compulsory. Yet, without one, life will become impossible.
Now, there is a proposal to introduce age verification for social media. This would require every user—not just adults, as initially told to us, but also children—to have a digital ID.
Age verification has never been successfully implemented anywhere in the world. The only way it can function is through a Digital ID with facial recognition, which would require constant re-scanning of the user’s face, potentially every minute, to confirm identity. This setup would necessitate keeping the computer camera permanently on, exposing children to significant privacy risks, including hacking.
One Nation firmly believes that the best person to oversee internet use is the one present in the room with the children: their parents. We oppose intrusive government and support the primacy of the family in raising and protecting their children.
Transcript: Question Time
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Senator McAllister. During Senate estimates on 5 November, the age assurance verification trial and social media age verification proposals were examined. For those who missed it, let me see if I have this correct. The system the government is considering will require two things: firstly, a digital ID to access social media for all users and, then, to make sure nobody is using a dodgy digital ID, age verification assurance technology, which will scan the user’s face, monitor their key strokes for content and technique and calculate their age. If it finds the person might be underage, it will compare it back to the biometric data in the person’s digital ID and check their identity and date of birth. Is that an accurate, concise explanation of the system being examined?
Senator McALLISTER: No. I suppose I could sit down, but, no, that is not accurate. We are obviously engaged in an important policy reform process to protect children from some of the harms that they are exposed to on social media. I would be really surprised, Senator Roberts, if you hadn’t heard about this amongst the people that you talk to in your constituency. I think every senator in this place has had a conversation with a parent or perhaps with a teacher who was concerned about the kind of information that children are seeing online and accessing online and the inability of parents to actually engage and protect their children from some of those harms.
We want Australian parents to actually know that we’ve got their backs. That is the underlying motivation for embarking on the reform. It’s, of course, about protecting kids. We still want them to be connected. We don’t want to punish children. We don’t want to isolate them. But we do want them to operate in an environment that is safe, and that’s the reason that we have committed to bringing forward legislation for a minimum age limit for social media this fortnight. We have worked with a pretty wide range of stakeholders, and we’re very grateful for the support that we’ve received in doing this work. Obviously, the National Cabinet has taken a very strong interest in this, and first ministers in that forum have agreed that the Commonwealth will legislate a minimum age of 16.
I think one of the implications of your question and the way that you framed it was a concern around privacy, and that’s a legitimate question to ask. We will not put at risk the personal information of Australians, and the regulations will include robust privacy protections for personal information with significant penalties for platforms that breach— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
I predicted during the digital ID debate that one person could sign a younger person into social media, and the only solution is keeping the device camera on permanently, which is an outrageous breach of trust and privacy. While you’re peeping into the camera feed of all social media users, hackers will have an easy hack to spy on families in their bedrooms, to learn daily routines and to work out when the home can be safely burgled. Minister, in the name of supposedly keeping children safe, are you building a surveillance apparatus for perverts and thieves?
Senator McALLISTER: No.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
The government’s solution still requires a camera to be permanently on. There will be continuous surveillance of the computer user in their own home by the government. If a parent has a child on their knee watching a children’s video or a cooking video on social media, will the system lock them out because the child is under 16? Minister, in your brave new world of internet regulation, do parents have any rights over their children’s lives or is the Albanese government cancelling parents?
Senator McALLISTER: Almost nothing in the set of propositions put forward by Senator Roberts in his question to me were accurate, true or based on anything that has been said publicly by the minister or anyone in the government, and I want to make that very, very clear. Our focus is, in fact, on protecting children from an environment that has not been designed to secure their safety, and the reason that we know that is we hear that all the time from the parents that speak to us.
Our interest, in fact, is in creating an environment that is supportive of parents who are trying to engage in a constructive way to deal with the information that their children are exposed to. Our interest is in supporting those parents who say, ‘We wish to do better in terms of the harms our kids are experiencing, but we don’t have the tools.’ That is the focus of our legislative— (Time expired)
Transcript: Take Note of Answers to Question Time
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Emergency Management and Minister for Cities (Senator McAllister) to a question without notice I asked today relating to age verification on social media:
We all know the real intent of the digital ID agenda. The United Kingdom has almost the same laws that we have here, and in the last two weeks the British police have visited and advised hundreds of journalists and commentators that they should stop criticising the Starmer government’s policies. Some were arrested and imprisoned for nothing more than an opinion. The digital ID, misinformation laws and facial verification laws are all part of the control mechanism that facilitates government surveillance and tyranny. The mask has come off quickly. Only recently, Minister Gallagher reassured Australians that the digital ID was not compulsory, yet, without it, life will be impossible.
The digital ID started life under the Morrison Liberal government. As recently as April, the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, championed the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, and the Liberals support social media age verification. Age verification means the government forcing the digital ID on everyone, paired with frequent facial scans from the camera on your device. That means the camera on your internet enabled device will be on permanently. One Nation opposes a world where children become hackers and subversives before they’re old enough to drive, just so they can keep in contact with their friends and relatives on social media. Children will be forced into the dark corners of the web like peer-to-peer messaging, where no protections exist against illegal material, hate, phishing, hacking and sextortion. Adults will no longer express their opinions for fear of that 4 am United Kingdom-style raid from the thought police. Australians should have the option of a regulated private verification service if they see fit, because mandating digital ID is an unacceptable infringement of personal sovereignty. The government running the scheme and having all your data in real time is absolutely terrifying.
Senator Hanson and I tried to move a Senate inquiry into the referendum to enshrine freedom of speech in our Constitution—it was opposed. One Nation will repeal the digital ID and related bills. We will protect free speech, protect the rights of parents and defend the human rights of all Australians.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/AgRLQbnShXY/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-11-21 10:09:262024-11-21 10:09:43Social Media Ban for Under 16’s: A Gateway to Government Surveillance and Control
