It’s wrong that Australian parents are forced to pay child support to a parent holding their child in Japan contrary to Australian court orders.
During this session, the department couldn’t tell me how many Aussie parents are trapped in this nightmare, nor how they ensure these funds actually benefit the children.
While I welcome news of updates to Japanese domestic law, we must stop enabling parental abduction.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here again today. My questions should be fairly brief, I think. For those not familiar with this scenario, many Australian children have been taken by one parent to Japan, with that parent refusing to return the Australian child to Australia, contrary to both the wishes of the other custodial parent and an Australian court order. In Japan, the non-Japanese parent is often denied access to their child or to even have contact with that child. Sometimes contact is limited to a small number of written letters or emails per year. This is because of Japanese domestic law. Senator Chisholm, I’ve just heard good news from Senator Wong that Japanese domestic law has been changed. So this may be eased somewhat. This organised child stealing is still happening, to some extent with the financial support of our welfare system here in Australia. Why should an Australian parent be forced to pay child support to a Japanese parent where the child is being held in Japan contrary to the wishes of the Australian parent and other family members and contrary to court orders? Why should that happen?
Mr Flavel: On child support, there are a number of different agreements that exist between countries in relation to child support, and I don’t really want to get into providing a commentary on their adequacy or the way that they apply in individual cases.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice?
Mr Flavel: I am very happy to take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. How does Social Services know that the money being paid to the parent in Japan is used for the benefit of the child?
Mr Flavel: That, of course, goes to any payment made, if what you’re referring to is child support payments, because you mentioned welfare. Child support isn’t welfare. Child support is a payment from one parent to another. There aren’t requirements for the receiving parent to acquit the payments. Obviously, there would be an expectation, though, that they are being applied for the wellbeing of the children.
Senator ROBERTS: Does this system of paying child support to an overseas parent encourage the child stealing parent to basically hold the child at ransom by taking the child to Japan?
Mr Flavel: I think that’s veering dangerously into giving an opinion, so I’m not going to do that.
Senator ROBERTS: How many Australian based parents are being forced to pay child support to a parent holding a child in Japan?
Mr Flavel: If you are after numbers of international child support arrangements, we can take that on notice and provide that to you, and, if it’s specifically in relation to Japan, we can come back on that.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Is the situation as it is really in the best interests of the child?
ACTING CHAIR: Again, Senator Roberts, I think you’re going to an opinion. Could you frame your question in the sense of a fact that the officials can respond to.
Mr Lye: The child support scheme is about making sure that children in separated families are not left in poverty and receive the benefits of the resources of both parents where possible. It’s to address high rates of child poverty. I know the issue that you’re pursuing is a particular one in relation to that, but the reason why the scheme itself is there is to protect the interests of children. There has been a lot of conflict in the scheme over the years because separated parents, almost by definition, don’t agree on things, but very few people would contend that a child shouldn’t benefit from the economic resources of their parents, even where they’re separated.
Senator ROBERTS: I agree with you on that score, Mr Lye, but I’m wondering how we can make sure it’s being effective.
Mr Lye: We can come back to you on the questions you’ve asked.
I questioned Minister Wong (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade) and officials regarding the devastating issue of Australian children being abducted to Japan by one parent and entirely cut off from their Australian families due to Japanese domestic law.
While I understand the need for diplomatic language, my priority is getting these kids back to their families.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Chair, can I just use the rest of my time to get into the second bracket? I’ve only done five minutes.
CHAIR: Well, you’ve been very efficient, so, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Minister Wong, this goes to something we’ve discussed before and that I think you’re quite supportive of, but I won’t pre-empt it.
Senator Wong: That worries me!
Senator ROBERTS: When you’re worried, I’m worried! For those not familiar with this scenario, many Australian children have been taken by one parent to Japan, who’ve refused to return the Australian child to Australia, contrary to the wishes of the other custodial parent or an Australian court order In Japan, the non Japanese parent is often denied access to their child or even contact with that child—a terrible situation. Sometimes contact is limited to a small number of written letters or emails per year. This is because of Japanese domestic law. Minister, what is the current state of negotiations between Australia and Japan to set this situation right?
Senator Wong: Sorry, I’m just trying to find my brief on this. I’m hoping someone from my office is going to text me on this fairly shortly. I don’t have anything in front of me, and I’m hoping that someone who can talk about Japan, not just consular, might come to the table, please. Ms Adams: I can, but I just want to hear the—
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll repeat the question. What is the current state of negotiations between Australia and Japan to set this situation right?
Senator Wong: I want to respond to the word ‘negotiations’. You might recall—I think we had this discussion previously, and I assume Ms McGregor can go to this—that this is a domestic legislation for Japan and that we have been advocating or supporting the changes to their domestic framework and working with them, including through, from memory, the chief justice of the family court, who went to Tokyo to share our experience on joint custody arrangements et cetera. I can’t recall what the legal term is. My recollection is that the legislation has passed. Am I right?
Ms McGregor: It’s come into effect.
Senator Wong: That is the legal system changing, which we are supportive of. Then there has also been representations we make on a consular basis for the non-custodial parents. And you should know that I have raised this issue, including the sensitivity and distress of these issues and the distress that many parents feel, with my counterparts over a number of years, because I’m sure they’re in contact with you. There are obviously parents who are very distressed, but Ms McGregor can probably more directly go to the consular issues.
Ms McGregor: I can confirm that Japan’s joint custody reforms came into effect on 1 April 2026, and we very much welcomed that step. We’re doing a range of things to assist Australian parents who are facing child abduction and custody issues in Japan. We continue to provide consular assistance to affected Australians and—
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, this is wonderful news, but how many Australian children are being held in Japan, contrary to international law, and how many Australian parents have raised this as an issue, if you could include that in your statement?
Senator Wong: Can we just reframe that for us? I don’t mind you saying that, but, rather than making the assertion ‘contrary to international law’, why don’t we give you whatever we can about how we deal with the people we have dealt with without us being drawn into having to make a legal—
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, I’ll rephrase it.
Senator Wong: No, it’s only because obviously we have to make representations, so we use language carefully.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not a diplomat.
Senator Wong: No, you can say what you want, Senator, but I’m just saying—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m happy for you to rephrase it. I just want these kids back.
Senator Wong: If you don’t mind, Ms McGregor can assist.
Ms McGregor: I think we can speak about this in terms of numbers of consular cases involved. DFAT is currently providing consular assistance to 16 parents with respect to 23 children on these issues of parental abduction and child custody. Since 2004, we’ve provided assistance to the parents of 90 children in similar cases. Obviously, we can’t comment on individual cases, but we do a lot of work, particularly to keep parents updated with periodic updates on our advocacy and on developments in Japan. Most recently, we sent out one of those updates in May. Alongside that, we continue to engage Japan to explain the sensitivity of this issue to ensure that they’re aware of the distress of parents and also to encourage progress in this matter. A lot of our work has been focused on supporting the effective implementation of those reforms, and we do that by sharing family law expertise and maintaining regular engagement with Japanese stakeholders, as well as like-minded governments. And the minister mentioned in particular the visit of the Hon. Justice Victoria Bennett of the Federal Circuit and Family Court. She visited Japan. She shared experiences of family law and reform with parliamentarians, judges, bar associations and academics. We’ve had other visits such as that over a number of years.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that comprehensive answer. Minister, the Japanese Prime Minister recently came to Australia on an official visit. Was this issue raised with the Japanese Prime Minister or did you see no need to because the legislation in Japan is pending?
Senator Wong: I will check what I can share with you on that. Obviously it’s the Prime Minister’s bilateral, not mine—so, meetings between the leaders—but generally the track for raising this and keeping it—
Senator ROBERTS: Bubbling?
Senator Wong: Actually, demonstrating to Japan that this is an important bilateral issue we have interests in and want to keep trying to progress, that has been me to my counterpart. I’ve had a number of Japanese counterparts and it’s one of the issues we make sure we continue—at my level and through our diplomatic track— to make clear to them that this matters to us. I’ll check about Prime Minister Takaichi, but just to be clear with you, it would be me to Minister Motegi—and, previously, Minister Kamikawa et cetera—rather than leader to leader, in general.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are you aware that some law firms in Australia have run seminars to show Japanese parents how to take their Australian children permanently out of the care of the other parent? It’s not in the best interests of the child.
Senator Wong: No, I wasn’t aware of that.
Senator ROBERTS: This organised child stealing—use whatever diplomatic language you want—is still happening, to some extent, with the financial support of our welfare system. Should a non-custodial Australian parent be forced to pay child support to a Japanese parent where the child is being held in Japan, contrary to the wishes of the Australian parent, other family members and a court order? Are you aware of that? I’ll be asking questions in another committee—
Senator Wong: This is on a law firm site, is that what we’re—
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry?
Senator Wong: Where is this information that you’re quoting?
Senator ROBERTS: My staffers advised me.
Senator Wong: I’m not trying to—I’m saying, is this something a law firm in Australia is—
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Senator Wong: Right.
Ms Lawson: We’d be interested to have that information so we can have a look at it.
Senator ROBERTS: Last question—two questions: What can you offer to devastated parents in Australia to end this situation of standing by while child stealers thumb their noses at the other parent? Are you expecting any changes now that the legislation in Japan has changed? Can you do more?
Ms Adams: We haven’t been standing by. This issue has been—
Senator ROBERTS: No, I’m not saying you have been.
Ms Adams: Well, you did. Excuse me, but I thought that’s what you just said in your question just then. But we know we’re not standing by; we’re continuing to advocate on the particular cases and on the systemic issue. It’s been a high priority for the embassy as well as the foreign minister for many years now. We’re continuing to work on effective implementation of the—quite historic, in a Japanese context—legislation that recently passed.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Last question: how keen do you think the Japanese administration is to resolve this? Will they implement the law fully?
Ms Adams: The change in the law was carefully debated and very intensely worked through in the Japanese system over many years. It is actually a historic change to introduce shared custody as a new concept in Japanese family law. We have every expectation that it will be fully implemented.
One Nation fully supports the heart of the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya’s) Bill 2025. Losing a child to stillbirth is a crushing, heartbreaking tragedy and parents deserve the full support of our paid parental leave system during such a dark time. We agree that no employer should be able to unilaterally cancel leave when a family is grieving.
However, I introduced an amendment to fix a serious flaw in the current drafting. As it stands, the definition of “stillbirth” would allow a woman who undergoes a voluntary late-term abortion to claim 26 weeks of taxpayer-funded parental leave.
Our position is clear: ✔️ YES to supporting parents through the tragedy of stillbirth or infant loss. ✔️ YES to protecting mothers who need emergency medical terminations for health reasons. ❌ NO to using taxpayer dollars to provide “parental leave” for elective abortions.
Paid parental leave is a benefit designed to support families and the bond between parent and child. It should not be extended to those who voluntarily choose to terminate a pregnancy.
I called on the Senate to support our common-sense amendment to ensure this bill serves its true purpose: supporting grieving families.
Transcript
The Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya’s) Bill 2025 amends the Fair Work Act 2009 to extend entitlements to paid parental leave in the case of stillbirth or death of a child. Stillbirths or deaths of a child are crushing—heartbreaking to parents. My wife, Christine, and I have two children and one grandchild. Nothing else comes close, as I’m sure every parent feels. Nothing else comes close to having a child, except possibly losing a child. One Nation supports the bill’s core intent for the very reason I’ve just mentioned.
The bill only deals with paid parental leave; it does not alter the existing provisions around unpaid parental leave. The bill will prevent employers from unilaterally cancelling periods of paid parental leave in cases of stillbirth or the death of a child during the paid parental leave period. The bill will not prevent employers and employees from agreeing between themselves to cancel such periods of leave, usually so the employee can return to work early for sound reasons. And the bill does not change arrangements for payment of allowances to parents who are not employed. The bill does not impose any requirement on employers to provide employer-funded paid parental leave, because the employer does not pay parental leave; the government does, at a cost of $2.9 billion a year. Some companies pay parental leave at a higher rate. Often, they pay the employee’s regular pay and top up the government payment themselves. In this case, the bill will make those employers pay this higher rate to an employee who voluntarily terminated their pregnancy when their child was delivered stillborn. I will say that again: in this case, the bill will make those employers pay this higher rate to an employee who voluntarily terminated their pregnancy when the child was delivered stillborn.
Why has One Nation submitted an amendment to the Baby Priya bill? Why have I submitted an amendment to the Baby Priya bill? The bill requires employers to provide paid parental leave to employees who have a stillborn baby, or where the baby dies during the parental leave period. One Nation do not oppose this measure in principle; we support it. Our amendment does not change the outcome of the bill for most women, including the situation Baby Priya’s parents, very sadly, found themselves to be in.
The definition of a stillborn baby in the bill relies on section 77A(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009, which defines a stillborn child as one:
(a) who weighs at least 400 grams at delivery …; and
(b) who has not breathed since delivery; and
(c) whose heart has not beaten since delivery.
Yet here’s a key concern of many constituents across Australia and my state of Queensland: nothing in this definition takes account of a voluntary abortion resulting in a stillbirth, which is most late-term abortions. These involve injecting the human baby with a drug that stops their heart and then is delivered as a stillbirth. In the bill as it was introduced, a mother in that situation would qualify for 26 weeks of paid parental leave. This is the very specific issue One Nation’s amendment seeks to correct. We do not believe it is right for a woman who deliberately terminates her pregnancy to then qualify for 26 weeks paid parental leave at taxpayer expense. I must emphasise that neither this bill nor One Nation’s amendment changes anything around emergency terminations in the event of serious health issues affecting the mother. Nothing changes. That’s already protected in legislation; I want to make that very clear. For example, early delivery without killing the baby first is normal obstetric practice for emergency health conditions late in pregnancy such as high blood pressure, liver or kidney disease or cancer that requires chemotherapy.
Here are some more important facts on abortion that have informed One Nation’s amendment. There is no upper gestational limit on abortion in any Australian state jurisdiction—none. In each jurisdiction, abortion is permitted until birth with the approval of two doctors after a certain gestation. In some jurisdictions such as Queensland, the second doctor who approves the late term abortion is not even required to examine the pregnant woman. A late term abortion is an abortion at 20 weeks or more in gestation. This is consistent with the definition provided by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in its practice guideline on late term abortion.
How many late term abortions are performed in Australia every year? We don’t know because only Victoria, Queensland and South Australia publish the figures. The other states are obviously ashamed of how many they perform. The total number of known late term abortions in 2024 was 5,559. Of those, 75 per cent were for non-life-threatening conditions. This makes a complete mockery of the leftist talking point that women don’t abort their babies on a whim. Some do.
There is a strong case for the productivity benefit of paid parental leave though, including in cases of natural death of the child. One Nation quite clearly supports this. It’s only the extension of this benefit to women who deliberately kill their baby, murder their baby, that One Nation objects to. I ask the Senate to support this amendment.
In good conscience, we cannot wave through legislation that forces employers and taxpayers to fund 26 weeks of parental leave for terminated births or neonatal neglect.
While the loss of a child to natural causes is a tragedy, we are currently witnessing a horrifying reality in our hospitals: babies born alive after termination are being left to die alone in cold steel tins. This isn’t just a policy debate; it is a question of fundamental humanity.
Australia must stop and listen. We refuse to let this be treated as a tool for social media points or gender warfare. The Australian people deserve a formal inquiry to review these harrowing circumstances and have their voices heard.
Transcript
One Nation supports Senator Hanson-Young’s amendment. This bill will have far-reaching impacts on Australia. It’s not to be rushed through the parliament. One Nation is the party of the natural environment and the party of the human environment. We want to give Australians a say. Workers, employers and small businesses—the parliament needs to listen to these people and give them a say.
I’d also like to now move my amendment to the Selection of Bills report as circulated in the chamber.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, you can’t. We are dealing with Senator Hanson-Young’s amendment at this point. You can speak to your motion if you wish to, but you can’t move it.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I will speak to it now, and that’ll save us time later. One Nation has moved to send the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya’s) Bill 2025 to committee. The bill, as worded, allows employer paid parental leave for the parents of a baby who has been born still as a result of a termination or of a live birth abortion. Loss of a child due to natural circumstances is crushing, but where a child is terminated and born alive that child is cast away into a cold steel tin and left inhumanly to die from neglect in a bucket of cold steel. This is what’s going on our country. Alone, scared and suffering, the child dies a slow and terrifying death.
This happens every few weeks in a hospital somewhere in Australia. The mother’s employer or the taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for 26 weeks paid leave for an aborted baby or neonatal murder—they should not. This is too important an issue to wave through parliament for social media likes and gender warfare points. A committee inquiry is needed to review this position and allow the public their say. The people of Australia need to have an opportunity to have their say, and we need to listen.
In this session with ACARA, I wanted to get some straight answers on why so many Australian families are walking away from the mainstream school system.
One Nation has always stood for parental choice, so I asked them: is the new “Version 9” curriculum so complicated and full of the wrong priorities that parents are losing faith? To my surprise, ACARA admitted they aren’t even looking into it. They aren’t doing any research into why families are leaving or how the curriculum might be at fault.
ACARA writes the national plan, yet the states have the “sovereign right” to chop it up and change it. When the implementation becomes a burden for parents and teachers, ACARA basically washes their hands of it and says it’s a state problem.
I also wanted to make sure there wasn’t a “crackdown” coming for parents who chose to home-school their children. I got a direct “no” on that. They aren’t pushing for more audits or extra red tape, mainly because they don’t have the power to.
It’s clear to me that while the ideas start in Canberra, the real pressure on our families is coming from the states. You deserve an education system that works for your family, not one that ignores your concerns.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here again today. ACARA is responsible for a national curriculum intended to be taught to all young Australians. How does ACARA account for a growing shift away from mainstream schooling towards homeschooling? Does ACARA accept that implementation burdens and content choices in version 9 of the curriculum are contributing to a loss of faith in the school sector’s ability to teach our children? We know that the COVID mandates—the lockdowns and so on—drove a lot of parents to take their kids out of school. I understand that, but please tell me any impact from version 9.
Mr Gniel: Version 9 is currently being implemented through the jurisdictions, through their own implementation plans. As you know, ACARA doesn’t have any role in terms of monitoring the actual implementation of the curriculum; that’s not part of our remit.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it left to the states?
Mr Gniel: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Do the states have choice as to how much of the national curriculum they implement?
Mr Gniel: All ministers approved the Australian national curriculum, but they approved it with their sovereign right to adopt and adapt for their own communities, where that’s required. It’s important—and this goes to Senator Sharma’s points before—that we have in the Australian Curriculum an agreement about what we see as the most important parts for our children to understand, but there is that flexibility at the jurisdiction level.
Senator ROBERTS: Is ACARA currently conducting or commissioning research on homeschooling trends, motivations and outcomes, especially the relationship between curriculum engagement and school withdrawal?
Mr Gniel: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Why not?
Mr Gniel: We don’t have any jurisdiction over homeschooling. The Australian Curriculum that is signed off is for all children. As I said before, the implementation is at the state and territory level. I would expect they are doing some of that because, as you mentioned—and I’m aware of it too—there have been some increases in homeschooling, so it’s an important area to be considering.
Senator ROBERTS: I thought you might have got some indirect analysis.
Mr Gniel: No, we don’t at this stage. We would expect that to come through the feedback from the jurisdictions, though, as we ask about what we can do to improve the curriculum. All those resources that are provided to homeschooling parents are provided at the state and territory level.
Senator ROBERTS: I know that remote schooling, homeschooling and broadcasting over the air have got very high standards and a fair bit of flexibility.
Mr Gniel: You’re right, and some of that’s been around for a long time.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s good, solid stuff. You used the words ‘at this stage’. One Nation fully supports parental choice. Can ACARA confirm it’s not proposing to crack down on homeschooling?
Mr Gniel: ACARA has no role within homeschooling.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re not going to—
Mr Gniel: The short answer is no.
Senator ROBERTS: Has ACARA provided advice to ministers or jurisdictions advocating increased regulation or compliance audits for homeschooling families?
Mr Gniel: No.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s ACARA’s view on the appropriate balance between parental choice and national standards?
Mr Gniel: We don’t have a view on that. We—
Senator ROBERTS: Left to the states, is it? You just leave it to the states?
Mr Gniel: Sorry, I’ll just finish what I was going to say.
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry.
Mr Gniel: Can you repeat the question?
Senator ROBERTS: Could you state ACARA’s view on the appropriate balance between parental choice and national standards?
Mr Gniel: No; we don’t have a view.
Senator ROBERTS: What steps has ACARA taken to ensure that the Australian Curriculum version 9 is usable by home-educating families. For example, do you provide guidance, exemplars and flexible learning sequences so that families are not driven away by perceived complexity, so they can have full and informed choice?
Mr Gniel: The Australian Curriculum and all the supporting materials are freely available to all Australians.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you have any guides or supporting materials for parents?
Mr Gniel: At that level, that would be something the jurisdictions would—
Senator ROBERTS: The states; okay. Thank you. I appreciate your direct answers.
I strongly support the Senate Urgency Motion in favour of saving the lives of babies born alive after a failed abortion. For the past six years, I have spoken in the Senate while wearing a lapel pin that depicts the tiny feet of a 10-week-old infant, a symbol of the innocent lives at stake. In Queensland, 328 babies were born alive and left to die over the last 10 years. Under the Queensland Criminal Code, this is clearly a crime.
While there are legal protections for medical practitioners who induce stillbirths, those protections end when a child is born alive. Yesterday, during a hearing in the Queensland Parliament, brave maternity nurse Louise Adsett gave heartbreaking details of the tragic fate awaiting many beautiful newborn Australians in Queensland maternity wards. These babies are left to cry until they die.
Louise shared the story of nurses who, with compassion, held these babies as they took their last breaths, surrounding them with love in their final moments rather than leaving them alone in a cold and hard stainless steel environment. There is no legal grey area here—allowing a child born alive to die in Queensland is a crime, and that crime is murder. I thank Senator Babet for introducing this Motion.
To the Queensland Police, my message is simple: “Do your bloody job!”
These babies deserve better; they deserve the same fundamental right to life that all human beings have.
Transcript
I strongly support this motion from Senator Babet in favour of saving the lives of babies born alive. For 6 years I’ve spoken in the Senate while wearing a lapel pin which depicts an infant’s feet at 10 weeks of age.
My opposition to abortion comes from my humanity and my role as a father and grandfather.
Sadly Queensland’s Termination of Pregnancy Act 2018 allows for unrestricted access to abortion up to 22 weeks. After that point two doctors must be convinced the abortion is in the mother’s best interests. Doctors who make their living signing off on abortions.
As Rhodes Scholar and leading researcher Professor Joanna Howe has found, between 2010 and 2020, 4,929 babies were killed after 20 weeks, and until birth. In Queensland, of these babies, 328 were born alive and left to die.
Last week I was pleased to attend a protest on the Federation Lawn that was a memorial to the 5,000 babies born alive when aborted around Australia. The memorial was 5000 pairs of baby’s booties in the shape of a cross. Babies who were thrown aside and left on a cold stainless steel slab to die. Alone. Nearly 50% of these were perfectly healthy. Nothing wrong with them. Why were they induced and delivered stillborn instead of alive and placed for adoption?
Under the QLD Criminal Code the current law is clear. This is a crime. Section 292 provides that a child becomes a human being after being born and proceeds in a living state from the body of its mother, whether it has breathed or not, and whether it has had independent circulation or not.
Section 302 defines murder as by someone who: intends to cause death, which is the case with these 328 babies; or causes death by an act, omission or reckless indifference to human life;
Currently the penalty for murder in Queensland is life. How ironic. There are protections for medical practitioners who induce the still birth of a child. That protection stops when the child is born alive.
Queensland MP Bobbie Katter has introduced a bill to ensure the rights of babies born alive. Under the bill, the duty of a registered health practitioner to provide medical care and treatment to a person born as a result of a termination would be “no different” from their duty to anybody else. This means babies would be given care allowing them to survive where possible, while babies unable to survive would instead be given palliative care.
In yesterday’s hearing into this bill courageous maternity nurse Louise Adsett described in heartbreaking detail the fate that has awaited so many beautiful young Australians in QLD maternity wards. Babies left to cry themselves to death. Alone. Louise described nurses holding babies that have been marked for death until they drew their last breath, a breath surrounded with love, not cold, hard stainless steel.
There’s no legal grey area here, allowing a child born alive to die in Queensland is a crime, and that crime is murder.
To the QLD Police I have this simple message: DO YOUR BLOODY JOB.
Failure to prosecute the first murder has led to 327 more human beings losing their lives and that’s on you.
The preamble of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) explicitly recognizes the unborn’s right to life. This is a matter that can be legislated federally and if the States will not police their own laws then the Federal Government must intervene.
I have yet to hear an abortionist successfully explain at what point in the development of a child it ceases to be a collection of cells and becomes a baby. Until you can show a physiological point before which the child is just a bunch of cells, and after which the child is a living being, I will continue to defend every life and oppose abortion. Except abortion when the mother’s life is in danger. If these practitioners were proud of their actions, they would not be changing the name of their trade from abortion to reproductive care. There’s no reproduction and there’s no care for the child. As least be honest with yourselves, this is notcare. This is designed to dehumanise mothers and fathers, dehumanise society and harden the hearts of our community. Neither can this be described as women’s health, the health of the mother is the same no matter if the baby is put up for adoption or murdered. Woman’s health does not apparently include the health of one-half of these aborted babies who themselves will grow into women.
My office has received over 1000 emails and calls today from Queenslanders who are horrified at this practice. So much so I feel the need to remind everyone that while God loves everyone, God punishes killing.
These human babies deserve better. Babies deserve to have the same rights as have all human beings. And foremost amongst these is the right to life.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/5Rj4sxF3uFo/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-22 14:25:002024-09-06 11:21:44Babies Born Alive Left to Die!
I was unable to conclude my speech on the Green’s Motion regarding the age of criminal responsibility, which is why the video was cut short. You can read the rest of the speech below. I hope my speech sheds some light on the complexities surrounding this issue.
I spoke against Greens’ Senator Shoebridge endorsing the Australian Capital Territory’s increase in the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12 years of age and then in 2025 to the age of 14. It’s perplexing to see the Greens suggesting that a child under the age of 14 is not mature enough to be held accountable for their actions.
Caring for and loving children must encompass instilling in them a senses of responsibility. Failing to hold children accountable for their actions and the consequences does them a disservice.
The Australian Capital Territory is not alone in taking action to increase the age of criminal responsibility. The Northern Territory and Tasmania took similar steps.
For the Greens, age is a problematic concept. In ‘Greens Land’, a child of 13 is deemed incapable of legal responsible for their actions, yet is expected to be mature enough to make significant life decisions regarding gender identity and sexual activity. This disparity underscores a problematic viewpoint which encourages children to engage in activities deemed “mature” by Greens’ standards, yet are shielded from the responsibility that accompanies their actions should they break the law.
Transcript
As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I speak against Senator Shoebridge’s motion endorsing the ACT’s recent increase in the age of criminal responsibility from 10 years of age to 12 and then, in 2025, to 14. Care for children starts with love, and part of love is responsibility. It is not being kind to children to not be responsible. The Australian Capital Territory is not the only jurisdiction taking this action. The Northern Territory recently increased the age of criminal responsibility to 12. Tasmania increased the minimum age for detention to 14. For the Greens, age is a problematic concept. They just don’t seem to understand that care involves responsibility. In a ‘Greens land’, a child of 13 cannot be held legally responsible for their actions. Yet a child that age can choose their gender, change their gender and read instruction manuals in adult sexual practices years before they are legally old enough to engage in that activity. Indeed, in ‘Greens land’, a child of any age can do those things. A 10-year-old can. An eight-year-old can.
It’s perplexing to see the Greens suggesting a child under the age of 14 is not mature enough to be held accountable for their actions. This issue comes down to a simple legal principle: do they know the distinction between right and wrong, and can apply that distinction to their own actions? As long as there is no factor other than age that impacts on their capacity, they are criminally liable. Those factors could include autism, fetal alcohol syndrome or drugs. There’s merit in the idea that a child of that age is better diverted than convicted. I’ll say that again: there is merit in the idea that a child of that age is better diverted than convicted. I agree that diversion programs should be the first option for any child coming to the attention of the police or the courts. I have issue with children being held accountable for the sins of the parents, and so many of the children that come to the attention of law enforcement at this age are there because their parents have failed. There must be a point, though, where the person is responsible for their own actions. A young person can use a bad start as an excuse for the rest of their lives, or they can use a bad start as motivation to succeed. I’ll say that again: a young person can use a bad start as an excuse for the rest of their lives, or they can use a bad start as motivation to succeed. This legislation allows the excuses. One Nation supports helping a child succeed. Karly Warner, the CEO of the Aboriginal Legal Centre (NSW/ACT), made the following comment on the legislation:
“In the extremely rare instances when a child does something seriously wrong, it’s because they’ve been let down and need our help. By failing to raise the age to 14, the Australian Government is failing Aboriginal children, who are over-represented at every stage of the system, from police to court to prison. The ACT imprisons Aboriginal children at 12 times the rate of non-Indigenous children.
I stand in defence of a child’s right to innocence.
Children must be allowed to grow up without being exposed to sexual grooming.
The legal system and courts in this day and age are supposed to defend children’s rights. Yet today sometimes fall short.
What consenting adults choose to do is their own business, yet not in front of children.
Biblical texts serve to demonstrate humanity’s strong & long history of protecting childhood innocence.
The book of Matthew, in strong terms, warns those who would lead children astray.
The message is clear: Leave our kids alone!
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and of Australia and as a grandparent, I stand in defence of a child’s right to innocence. Intentionally misleading children hurts and corrupts children, and exposing children to messages that steal innocence hurts and corrupts children.
We live in a time when the World Health Organization has started a campaign to give our children sex education from birth; to show six-year-olds pornographic material and to give nine-year-olds practical sex education. We live in a world where men dressed as women can perform lewd acts or read lewd stories in front of children and, in so doing, achieve a measure of validation from impressionable children that society rightly withholds. And we live in an age when a boy can’t look at a doll without risking a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and, with it, a lifetime of prescription drugs. A tomboy hasn’t a chance in today’s education system.
There’s something inherently inconsistent with the fundamental construct of gender dysphoria based on there being only two genders and saying, ‘You, young child, were born the wrong one’. Matthew 18:5 to 6 offers this warning:
If anyone causes one of these little ones to stumble … it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
We have, rightly, replaced the age of millstones with the age of courts.
Quoting this passage is not an incitement to violence. Those attending ‘Leave Our Kids Alone’ protests have demonstrated that Christians do not make war, Christians make waves. The voices of all denominations must be as waves on the sand, synchronised and unrelenting. I welcome the attendance of the Muslim community in these protests. Both our holy books stand in strong defence of parental rights and childhood innocence.
Those who seek to destroy the family will certainly respond to my remarks with hostility. As a shield, let me offer Luke 6:26:
Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you!
Leave our kids alone!
The West’s child exploitation scandal: groomers and abusers by Malcolm Roberts | The Spectator Australia
Recent decisions to approve soft-porn and sexually explicit material follows a new social ideology that says children must be exposed to queer adult sexual behaviours – including kink – and those who oppose risk being labelled as hate-fuelled bigots.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/lNh5Kx-ka3Y/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-28 09:37:092023-06-28 09:37:13Let Children be Children!
I asked the Classification Board about giving the graphic novel “Gender Queer’ a rating of M. This rating is only a recommendation, allowing the book to be made available in Libraries and sold in bookstores to children of any age. This publication is a common choice for drag queen story time and similar events.
I do understand the position the Classification Board is in. The rating system for publications is limited and the next step up from M is R, which requires the publication to be sold in a plastic wrapper. If this was a video then an additional classification of MA15+ physically restricts the publication to people 15+.
Now that graphic novels are a thing again, it is time to review the ratings system to give the Classification Board more options, especially for graphic novels like this.
In the case of Gender Queer, the publication does foster debate in a way that will help some kids, however the author chose to add a layer of explicit sex and sexual talk that weakens the use as a serious discussion starter.
The threat of a restrictive rating may encourage publications that are reasoned and responsible rather than cynical and exploitative.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Thank you for being here today. I think these questions will probably go to Mr Sharp. I will leave that to you, Ms Jolly. My questions reference the book entitled Gender Queer: A Memoir. Are you familiar with it?
Ms Jolly: Yes, indeed.
Senator Roberts: Amazon lists this book as suitable for people only 18 years of age and over. The Classification Board has reviewed the book and given it a rating of M, which is a recommendation only. It is not legally binding. According to your website, ‘M’ is, and I quote: Unrestricted classification, meaning any child of any age can access the book with a recommendation that it not be made available to under-15s. Is that correct?
Ms Jolly: That’s correct.
Senator Roberts: The material in Gender Queer: A Memoir is what we would have called a cartoon book; it has a fancy name these days.
Ms Jolly: Graphic novel.
Senator Roberts: Thank you. This is very graphic. It has full oral sex depiction between two people. Is my accurate representation of the classification of Gender Queer: A Memoir correct?
Ms Jolly: It’s what the classification board gave, yes. It is an unrestricted publication with a rating of M and consumer advice that it is not suitable for readers under 15 years of age. Yes, that’s correct.
Senator Roberts: Queensland commonly has a child’s library card for under-12s. It is probable a child under 12 years could view this in a public library but not borrow it. New South Wales has no such children’s card, so a child of any age could borrow this book. If a child even under 10 years, for the sake of argument, were to borrow this book and check it out using the automated checkout, with no adult supervision required, would the library have broken an actual law?
Ms Jolly: I’m not in a position to answer that.
Senator Roberts: This book is commonly read to children as part of a Drag Queen Story Hour event. If a drag queen chose to read this book to an audience of children, would that person have broken any law?
Ms Jolly: I can’t answer that question.
Senator Roberts: Minister, this is a matter of policy. The next step up from ‘M’ in your classification system for written works is ‘R’, which is restricted to sale in a sealed wrapper. I note that you have more options for video material but only limited options for classifications in written work. Is there nothing in between that for kids having exposure to this book and books only able to be sold in a sealed wrapper? Are you coming up with another classification, or will you, to protect children?
Senator Carol Brown: The classifications are as you outlined, Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts: It allows graphic material through that is not suitable for young children. Will you protect those children?
Senator Carol Brown: The book that you referenced, Gender Queer: A Memoir has consumer advice for children. It is not recommended for children under 15 years.
Senator Roberts: But children under 15 years old can still access it.
Senator Carol Brown: I’m not sure what you are saying to me about access in Queensland.
Senator Roberts: I will make it clear, Senator Brown. My intention is not to get this book banned. Adults can have a look at it. Will you introduce a new classification for graphic novels, as for videos, of 15-plus?
Senator Carol Brown: Well, I can say to you that I think the classification system that we have is robust. The Classification Review Board is an independent merits review board. I don’t see any need to introduce another step or another level.
Senator Roberts: How can you say that when I have said that this is a graphic book? It is a well and truly graphic novel. It is available to children under 15. They can get hold of it in libraries just like the previous book.
Senator Carol Brown: The advice is that it’s not recommended for readers under 15 years old.
Senator Roberts: That is probably an enticement for a 10-year-old or a 12-year-old. Can’t something be done about this?
Senator Carol Brown: I have responded, Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts: Thank you.
Chair: Thank you very much.
Ms Jolly: I will go back to your question, Senator, about breaking any laws. The ‘M’ unrestricted classification, as I think you are trying to allude to, is not a legally enforceable classification.
Senator Roberts: Thank you for that follow-up. I appreciate that, Ms Jolly.
When I came into Parliament I swore an oath to serve the people of this country. Now my grandchild is on the way. That gives a new clarity to how we should be running this country with vision for the future.
Transcript
President as we return home to our families this weekend, I’m reminded of the reason many came to this Chamber in the first place.
We’re here for our families, our children.
With my first grandchild on the way, my role as a Senator takes on new meaning, refreshed and clear.
I stand in this place to build a future that will allow my grandchild to become all she or he can be, irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion or skin colour.
Australians should not be born into a world that is divided on the very things that have made Australia such a beautiful tapestry of humanity.
I will not bow to those who are using skin colour to divide us.
I will not allow an ideology advanced in this chamber that every new Australian, including my grandchild must have less so that the ruling elites can have more.
I will not allow my grandchild to be born into an Australia where greed and evil subvert freedom.
I will defend my unborn grandchild’s right to life.
And I will defend every Australian from the evil notion that, having ceased to be healthy, taking one’s own life that God gave us, is somehow noble.
To do anything else would be a betrayal of the oath of office I took with my hand on the bible.
In the last Parliament I was disappointed, deeply disappointed when a group of leading Senators, most of whom took their oath on the bible, voted against my motion on gendered language.
Instead, these Senators chose to defend an agenda that’s meekly described as woke, yet more accurately described as neo-paganism.
It is not inclusive to exclude the fundamental tenets of a civilised, Christian society – mothers, fathers and family.
I will not be told I have lost any battle I came here to rectify, for surely this means the next generation have lost before they are born.
The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) has recommended the Moderna jab for children aged 6 months to 5 years.[1] The vaccine only holds provisional approval. Provisional approval is given to drugs where research is still being conducted, research that might uncover adverse effects not initially apparent.[2]
The risk of death to 5 year olds from the more fatal, early variants of COVID was as low as 0.0024% or roughly 1 in 40,000.[3] This does not reflect the risk of Omicron, the dominant strain across the world right now, which is estimated to be 78% less fatal.[4] This would imply a risk of around 1 in 180,000 to 5 year olds from Omicron. On the other hand, the risk of vaccine caused myocarditis is around 1 in every 10,000 for 12-17 year old boys.[5]
There is simply not enough information on the long-term effects to decide on the risk benefit calculation like ATAGI claims to have. ATAGI has abandoned the precautionary principle in provisionally approving Moderna for use in toddlers and children when it has no longitudinal, years long research.
https://2rdnmg1qbg403gumla1v9i2h-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2020/05/childVaccine-1201311282-770x533-1-650x428.jpg428650Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-08-03 12:57:322022-08-03 13:21:08ATAGI Moderna recommendation for 6 month to 5 year olds disgraceful abandonment of precautionary principle
