Posts

Net Negative Migration: Rebuilding the Lucky Country

,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/by

Digital ID Spreads Across the West

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

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

His excuse?

Digital ID stops illegal migrants from working.

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

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

…sounds like Australia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Digital ID spreads across the West by Senator Malcolm Roberts

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

Read on Substack

/by

What are they Plotting this Time?

,

My latest article in the Spectator Australia.

UK Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, doesn’t know Anthony Albanese particularly well. It was clear from the outset, despite their embraces on stage.

Opening his Renew Britain speech, Starmer confused the room by saying the Australian Labor Party won ‘a landslide victory earlier this Summer’.

The fact-check: Albanese attracted one of the lowest primary votes in recorded history during an Autumn election.

‘A key part is standing up to the divisive politics of the Right…’

Starmer’s complaint about division loosely translates as ‘anything that divides public opinion from government policy’.

Leaders frightened of public opinion are redefining debate as divisive. If the ghost of Churchill so-much as side-eyes Starmer, he wraps himself in the Online Safety Act like an infant dragging its blanket around.

➡️ Read the full article here: Albanese’s socialist love-in with Starmer

/3 Comments/by

The eSafety Commissioner Has Gone Too Far

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

Read on Substack
/4 Comments/by

Parental Rights at Stake: Debate Over Bill is Crucial 

,

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.  

/1 Comment/by

Social Media Ban is an Attack on Parents’ Rights

,

The Labor-Liberal Uniparty has been advancing this bill based on a  case where bullying on social media led to a tragic suicide. In submissions on this bill, it became apparent that banning children from social media would cause as much harm as good. The best response to these tragic cases would be to empower parents to better manage their children’s use of social media.  This can be achieved by enhancing parental lock technology, making it more powerful, easier to use, and free (the best Apps available are commercial).   The Government ignored concerns raised by experts in their submissions and testimony, and pushed ahead with a bill that introduced a blanket ban for under 16.

Let’s be clear – this is a ‘world-first’ because the rest of the world knows such a ban is counterproductive.

Tech-savvy kids will get around the ban, and that’s where the real harm begins. The ban does not cover chat rooms in video games, which lacks the supervision present on social media platforms. Peer-to-peer chat apps are making a comeback, and some children may even turn to TOR, which is not supervised at all and by it’s design, is almost impossible to supervise. This bill will have the outcome of exposing kids to even worse forms of bullying.  

One Nation and the Greens united to stop Labor’s guillotine. We forced the government to remove the bill banning under 16’s on social media and extend scrutiny until February. Then, incredibly, the Liberal Senate leader, Simon Birmingham, moved to get the bill back in the guillotine process.  Barely hours later, Simon Birmingham informed the Senate that he was leaving. It’s clear he knew he was leaving and this was his parting gift.

I want to thank Senators Alex Antic and Matt Canavan for crossing the floor to vote against the Liberal-Nationals-Labor guillotine.  

One Nation will continue to fight against the social media ban, returning power to parents and families.  

Included are comments around Digital ID, which—despite claims to the contrary—will inevitably become part of this outrageous power grab.

Transcript

My remarks are directed to the minister but also to people listening at home to the Senate and to researchers and historians that will look back at this vote today in an attempt to understand what the hell the Senate was thinking. The amendment the government circulated, no doubt with the approval of the Liberal Party, answers that question. The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 can act to force every Australian to be the subject of a digital ID in the name of keeping children safe—and that’s what my question is about.  

The government accepted widespread public concern that the bill was designed to force everyone to get a digital ID and promised to include an amendment to specifically rule that out. In this government amendment that you’ve moved, SY115, new provision 63DB(1) excludes use of government issued identification or use of digital ID. That is great, except 63DB(2) provides that, if social media platforms can come up with an alternative means of assessing age that does not involve digital ID or government documents, they can—wait for it—accept a digital ID identification. In effect, this amendment specifies that a social media platform cannot use digital ID by itself but it can use digital ID as part of a more comprehensive verification. There’s no need to guess what that could be; this bill contains the answer: age-assurance software. The company which has been awarded the tender for the age-assurance trial is a British company called Age Check Certification Scheme. whose main business is provision of digital IDs backed by age-assurance software. 

TikTok has used age-assurance software to remove one million underage accounts from TikTok in Australia. This software can tell if a person is, for instance, under 12. That’s useful. The smaller the gap between the user and target age—16 in this case—the less accurate it is. This software can’t tell age within six months, and there’s no way of knowing a person turned 16 on the day of their application. You just can’t tell that from face scan. Accessing social media on your 16th birthday and, most likely, for months afterwards will require a second identifier containing the child’s facial scan and their date of birth, which is a digital ID, which this company specialises in. You’re setting them up. 

I have criticised this bill as an opportunistic attempt to capitalise on the public desire for better regulation of social media to force all Australians to get a digital ID. I’ll say that again. I have criticised this bill repeatedly, as have others, as an opportunistic attempt to capitalise on the public desire for better regulation of social media to force all Australians to get a digital ID. This amendment requires a change in my language, which is now that this bill is an opportunistic attempt to require every child, once they turn 16, to get a digital ID if they want to access social media. What age does the government’s digital ID start from? Sixteen. What a coincidence! This wasn’t the intention all along? That’s misinformation. 

This amendment exposes the original intention of the bell. Your amendment exposes the original intention of the bill, which was hidden in what looked like a poorly drafted bill. It wasn’t poorly drafted; it was deliberately dishonest, and the short committee referral, which the government fought against, has exposed the deceit. The truth is now out there, and the decision before the Senate is a simple one. A vote for this bill is a vote to require every child to get a digital ID on their 16th birthday. 

Compulsory digital IDs aside, there are many other reasons not to pass this bill. I will now share with the Senate and with posterity the words of Australian Human Rights Commission on the bill. One Nation fully supports the commission’s position, which deserves to be included in the Hansard record of the debate: 

Social media is a vital platform for young people to share their ideas and opinions, engage in dialogue, and participate in social and cultural activities. It can be a valuable educational tool by providing access to diverse perspectives, news and learning opportunities, as well as vital information about health, well-being and safety. A blanket ban risks unjustly curtailing these freedoms. 

Social media is integral to modern communication and socialisation. Excluding young people from these platforms may isolate them from their peers and limit their ability to ability to access much-needed information and support. This is particularly important for young people from marginalised, vulnerable or remote communities. 

These are the words of the Human Rights Commission. 

The social media ban will rely on effective age assurance processes being adopted, which means that all Australians may be required to prove their identity in order to access social media. This may potentially require all Australians to provide social media companies with sensitive identity information, which poses a risk to our privacy rights in light of recent examples of data breaches and personal information being stolen. 

Technological workarounds – such as VPNs and false age declarations – may undermine the effectiveness of the ban. Additionally, a ban will not address the root causes of online risks or make the platforms safer for everyone. 

The workarounds to this measure have not received enough debate. The bill carves out gaming sites, many of which have a chat feature. Children will move over to chatrooms and gaming sites which are not supervised. Tor—or, more accurately, onion routing—will provide another avenue for communication which is designed to make supervision exponentially harder than on mainstream social media platforms. I have advice from a leading internet security company that peer-to-peer social media, which again is harder for parents to supervise than current social media platforms, is making a comeback. As a result of this legislation, children will be exposed to more harm, not less. I had a call from a constituent— 

Senator Hanson-Young: You are right. 

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: It’s not often Senator Hanson-Young tells me I’m right. A moment ago, I had a call from a constituent who had called their local Liberal member of parliament about this bill and was told, ‘Oh, it’s okay; you can just sign up for your children.’ With age-assurance software, that will not work. With Digital ID connected to age-assurance software, the social media platform will know what you’re doing. Don’t be telling people: ‘It’s nothing. You can defeat it. You can still talk to Grandad on Facebook.’ You won’t be able to. Children may be able to use VPNs, virtual private networks, and the new PPNs, personal private networks, to appear to be in another country. That really won’t work either. The keystroke logging that accompanies the age-assurance software will assume someone pretending to be in Canada but interacting with Australian accounts is probably using a VPN. 

Minister, why did you say that this won’t lead to Digital ID when your amendment says exactly that? 

/1 Comment/by

Social Media Age Ban Faces Powerful Testimony in Senate Hearing

,

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.

/5 Comments/by

Social Media Ban or Big Brother Control?

,

The government, with support of the Liberals, is proposing a ban on children under 16 accessing social media, justifying the measure by claiming it’s “popular.”  Oh, really? It’s ironic that the same parties that accuse One Nation of populism are now pushing a measure not because it’s workable, but simply because it’s supposedly popular!   

A true conservative party, Mr Dutton, would support parents to supervise their own children in their own homes. A true conservative, Mr Dutton, would not be promoting big government replacing parents.   

The eGovernment is also trialling age-assurance technology, which uses facial scans of every social media user to confirm they are over 16. If there’s any doubt, the system will cross-check the person’s Digital ID for verification to ensure it matches. In addition to facial scans, the “Assurance AI” will monitor keystrokes, audio patterns and “other measures” to determine the user’s age.   

By now you may conclude, as I did, that enforcing a social media age limit of 16 would require verifying everyone’s age using the device camera and their Digital ID—which everyone would be forced to have. So much for Digital ID being voluntary. Even adults will need one to continue using social media.   

In the unlikely event they can actually make this work, children would move to other platforms that are less regulated, less safe and more prone to child exploitation.   

Even more alarming is the fact that conversations would be monitored for signs of age, yet what happens to the voice prints and keystroke logs this system collects?   

To make this work, cameras on devices would need to run constantly to ensure a new user hasn’t hopped on to an existing computer session. This means cameras would always be on, capturing everything – video and audio – that is happening in the room.   

This creates a perfect scenario for hackers to access the feed. 

One Nation opposes this legislation. The best people to monitor and regulate children’s internet use are parents—not a Big Brother government. 

Transcript

I move: 

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:  

The need to recognise that a blanket ban on social media for children under 16 expropriates parental power, and for the Senate to affirm that parental responsibility rests in the parents, not the Federal Government. 

The government is proposing a ban on children under 16 accessing social media and justifies the measure because it’s supposedly popular. Oh, really? It’s ironic that the same parties who accuse One Nation of populism are now promoting a measure not because it’s workable but, rather, because it’s supposedly popular. 

A true conservative, though, would support parents supervising their own children in their own home. That’s not what Mr Peter Dutton is doing. A true conservative opposition leader would not be promoting big government replacing parents. Instead, he would be making device supervision easier for parents. 

The government, repeatedly, is giving more power to social media giants under the guise, they say, of transparency. They’re not revealing anything. We still don’t see the algorithms of the social media giants—international players who have control over our space. What we’re doing is not making device supervision easier for parents. We’re not making it easier for parents to fulfil their responsibilities as parents.  

It’s time that social media companies—plus Apple, Microsoft and Android—made their parental locks easier and more powerful. So let’s start there. No country in the world has made age limits work, because bureaucrats or social media platforms in far-off countries can’t see who’s using the computer or phone. The only people who can see what the child is doing with their device are the people in their home with them—the parents. It’s a parental duty, a parental responsibility and a parental right to raise their children and to supervise their children. If this proposal from the government goes through, parents allowing their children to watch cartoons and educational shows on free-to-view social media, including YouTube, would be breaking the law. Parents supervising their children would be breaking the law. Watching the same material on Foxtel at $99 a month would be legal. Does that seem right? To me it doesn’t. 

Essential and YouGov polling showed a majority of Australians support higher age restrictions on social media. This is the same Essential poll which found 17-year-olds should be able to buy alcohol and watch pornography and also recommended the age for criminal responsibility be raised to 14. Who did they ask? Are these next in the uniparty’s embrace of populism? My speech earlier today gave information on the unintended consequences of this idea. I will post the speeches together on my website. This problem is as old as the internet, and it’s not going anywhere. Let parents parent. That’s fundamental to raising children. 

We’re seeing the opportunity in education now. States and the federal education department, which doesn’t have a single school, allow indoctrination programs through the national curriculum. Instead of being education, it’s now indoctrination. They’re grooming young children for the globalist agenda. They terrorise children: ‘The climate is changing. The globe is boiling. The world will end. You’ve only got five years to live unless we do something.’ These are the terrorists for young children today—the globalists who are pushing this agenda and this legislation around the world. 

One Nation supports this matter being referred to a Senate inquiry, where technology experts can testify on the harms and unintended consequences of replacing parental supervision with government overreach and government control. We need to let parents parent. Instead of giving more power to the globalist corporations and to the internet behemoths, we need to put the power back with parents and let parents look after their children. As I said before, it is a parental duty, a parental responsibility and a parental right. I am sick and tired, and so are so many parents and grandparents across this country, of the government trying to be a nanny state to protect their kids all while grooming their children for control, whether directly through education or indirectly through social media. What we need to do is actually look at what people need and then act accordingly. One Nation is not in favour of this. We are surprised that the Liberal Party, including their leader, seem to be lining up in support of censoring teens on the internet. 

/13 Comments/by

Social Media Ban for Under 16’s: A Gateway to Government Surveillance and Control

,

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. 

/by

Podcast: You’re The Voice

,

I joined Efrat Fenigson on her podcast where we discussed the anti-human agenda and how it has manifested in Australia over the last several years. We discuss the climate change fraud, COVID injections, economic changes needed, Digital ID, and lots more.

Efrat’s Introduction

My guest today is Senator Malcolm Roberts, an Australian politician from Queensland and a member of the Australian Senate. With a background in engineering, mining, business and economics, Senator Roberts is a climate realist, challenging mainstream climate science and exposing lies in this field. Unlike most politicians these days, Senator Roberts is a Truth teller and does not shy away from any topic: public health, Covid, immigration, finance, economics, sexual education for children and more.

In this episode we talk about the anti-human globalist agenda and how it manifested in Australia over the past few years. We cover the Senator’s fight against climate fraud, his efforts to help Covid-19 jabs injured, to expose excess deaths and more, while holding politicians accountable, encouraging people to reclaim their power. The Senator criticizes the centralization of government and the media by globalists, introducing new levels of censorship on Australians. The conversation concludes with monetary and economic changes in Australia, including the move to a cashless society, CBDC, digital IDs, 15-minute cities and more.

The senator highlights the importance of simplicity and the power of individual responsibility in creating positive change and waking people up to the truth. He concludes with a message of hope, urging individuals to be proud of their humanity and to share information to help others become informed.

Chapters

00:00:00 Coming Up…
00:01:06 Introduction to Senator Roberts
00:03:19 Politicians in Today’s Reality
00:11:06 Ad Break: Trezor, Bitcoin Nashville, BTC Prague
00:13:03 Why Politics?
00:16:56 About Human Progress
00:23:04 Australian Politics & Activism
00:25:02 Political Structure in Australia
00:28:47 Balancing the Exaggerated Power of the State
00:30:38 Truth Telling, Simplicity & Education
00:35:02 Efrat’s Resistance to Green Pass During Covid
00:38:01 Senator’s Climate Fraud Views
00:44:30 How To Break The Narrative?
00:49:21 Admitting Being Fooled About Covid
00:55:40 Excess Death & Vaxx Injuries in Australia
01:03:08 Australia’s During Covid & Bigger Picture
01:12:46 Compensation Plan For Vaxx Injured
01:14:24 Media, Censorship & Fear in Australia
01:22:04 Role of Regulation, Legislation, Censorship
01:26:53 CBDC & Digital IDs in Australia
01:32:29 Globalists Vision For Useless Eaters
01:33:58 Money Agenda, Cashless Society & How To Fight Back
01:44:05 Protecting Your Wealth & Family
01:48:04 Bitcoin & Nation States
01:50:01 Globalists Control & A Message Of Hope

Links

/by