Last Friday (6 February 2026), the UN’s Senior Adviser on Information Integrity, Charlotte Scaddan, appeared via teleconference as a witness at the public hearing on “Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy.”
The UN wants to categorise any statement that “undermines” their consensus as misinformation. Yet, when I asked for the logical proof behind their climate claims, she couldn’t provide a specific page number or a shred of empirical data.
It’s alarming that those in charge of “information integrity” at a global level can’t cite the very science they claim exists to silence others.
To claim someone is spreading “misinformation” requires producing objective hard evidence that justifies the claim.
We cannot allow “consensus” or UN-dictated “integrity” to replace real, verifiable science.
I’m still waiting for the specific proof. And have been since 2007.
— Public Hearing | February 2026
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Scaddan, for appearing. It must be about 5.50 pm in New York.
Ms Scaddan: It is, exactly.
Senator ROBERTS: On what basis do you categorise a statement or an action on climate or a climate system as misinformation or disinformation, or lacking in information integrity?
Ms Scaddan: We have very clear scientific consensus around climate change. Anything that is undermining the scientific consensus as laid out by the IPCC and the legal frameworks we have for taking climate action would be considered to be false information. I couldn’t say if it was misinformation or disinformation—that depends.
Senator ROBERTS: To make claims that climate is changing owing to human carbon dioxide, or carbon dioxide from human activity, would you agree that one needs scientific proof?
Ms Scaddan: As I just said, yes; we have the scientific consensus around climate.
Senator ROBERTS: What constitutes scientific proof?
Ms Scaddan: That is not a question I’m going to answer here. As I’ve said several times now, we have very clear scientific consensus around climate change, its causes and its impacts.
Senator ROBERTS: Consensus is a political aspect; scientific proof is the scientific aspect. Isn’t scientific proof simply empirical scientific data within logical scientific points proving cause and effect? Yes or no?
Ms Scaddan: I can’t answer questions about science; it’s not something I’ve studied. But scientific consensus is not political; it refers to 99 out of 100 scientists agreeing on scientific evidence and the interpretation of that. That is my understanding of it, but you’d have to ask the scientists to explain it to you. I’m not one.
Senator ROBERTS: We have amassed 24,000 data sets on energy and climate from around the world— legally. There is no data at all that shows there’s a changing climate, only inherent natural variation in cycles. One what specific basis do you claim climate change? Consensus?
Ms Scaddan: I can point you to the work of the IPCC, which is the UN body, as I’m sure you know, that delivers our scientific evidence and consensus around climate.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m well aware of the IPCC. I’ve read the first five reports. One of my staffers read the sixth and final report. Nowhere in any of those reports is there specific, empirical, scientific data proving logical scientific points and cause and effect. On notice, could you point me to a specific location, chapter number and page number, and the authors, within a report where we have empirical scientific data and logical scientific points proving cause and effect? Just give me one.
CHAIR: I’ll stop proceedings at this point in time. Senator Roberts, we are asking about climate disinformation and misinformation—
Senator ROBERTS: Exactly.
CHAIR: No, we’ve asked Ms Scaddan to come on to talk about a global initiative and a multilateral approach. You’re now going to use your line of questioning around whether climate change is real or not. Please be relevant to the terms of reference, otherwise I’ll rotate the call.
Senator ROBERTS: But this is fundamental to the misinformation.
Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: One nation are a bunch of climate deniers. That’s what this is demonstrating: climate deniers and delayers. Have you not learned your lesson from multiple elections?
CHAIR: Can we all just be respectful—
Senator CANAVAN: I wanted to make a point of order. I think accusations and imputations about other senators are certainly not in order. The inquiry is about climate misinformation, so in terms of your point about the terms of reference, I think a question about whether or not climate change is something to take action on is clearly a threshold issue about whether to take action on misinformation. It’s clearly within the terms of reference.
CHAIR: That’s a substantive issue. You’re not making a point of order.
Senator ROBERTS: Ms Scaddan, have you heard of a man called Maurice Strong? Yes or no?
Ms Scaddan: I don’t believe so. I can’t tell you for sure because I meet a lot of people. CHAIR: Is this relevant to the terms of reference?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it is. He used misinformation and disinformation techniques while working within the UN. But you’re not aware of him, so I won’t ask any more questions about it. If someone gets scientific proof then the next thing is to establish a policy basis—correct?
Ms Scaddan: That would be the logical step.
Senator ROBERTS: To set a policy to cut carbon dioxide from human activity, we need to first quantify the specific impact on climate, such as temperature, rainfall, natural weather events, storm frequency, duration and severity per unit of human carbon dioxide. Do you agree?
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, what’s this got to do with misinformation and disinformation? Could you reframe the question like, for example, Senator Canavan did—’Would that be an example of misinformation or disinformation?’ Ms Scaddan’s not here to answer your questions on what is scientifically verifiable or not. She’s here to talk about misinformation.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking her to verify it. I’m just asking her to verify the logic, and she’s done half of it already.
CHAIR: No, this is way outside the terms of reference.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got to understand the basis of misinformation and disinformation, Chair.
CHAIR: Why don’t you frame that question that way, then?
Senator ROBERTS: As a basis for understanding comments about climate action, whether or not climate change is real or what aspects of it are, we use scientific proof. We’ve agreed on that. To address climate action and to assess misinformation and disinformation, we need to understand the policy basis. We’ve semi-agreed on that. What is the policy basis? What is the specific impact? I don’t expect you to know it, but point me to a specific location, page number or report that shows the policy basis for climate action.
Ms Scaddan: I’m happy to answer this. If you don’t expect me to know it, it’s a little surprising that you’re asking. However—and I’m sorry to disappoint—I don’t know the specific page, paragraph number or point. But I am happy to follow up and send you the relevant IPCC reports and pages that would give you the scientific consensus on climate.
Senator ROBERTS: Wonderful. Can we just—
CHAIR: This is your last question, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s great. When you’re replying, Ms Scaddan, please give me the specific page number of the scientific proof which is the empirical scientific data within logical scientific points proving cause and effect and then please give me the specific impact of human carbon dioxide on any climate factor as policy basis. I want specific locations.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/climate-change-misinformation-cover-photo.png?fit=2240%2C1260&ssl=112602240Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-11-13 12:47:232025-11-19 16:55:44Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy
This is not a balanced report – it’s one-sided propaganda!
I want to share something very important with you – my response to the Islamophobia report which was commissioned by the Albanese government and produced by the Special Envoy to ‘Combat Islamophobia’ over a three-year period.
The author, Mr Malik Aftab, is a United Nations Alliance of Civilisations ‘Global Expert’ on Muslim Affairs.
For many reasons, the report is a frustrating body of work that fundamentally fails to explain why Australians may hold views critical of Islam.
The report does not acknowledge the failings of Islam to integrate with Western society. In particular, there is no discussion on Sharia Law cited by Australia’s allies as being of significant concern for the continuation of civil and human rights for women and members of the LGBTQ+ community.
Australians are naturally protective of their legal progress toward making the country a world leader in rights and first-world ideals.
When a culture arrives on our shores whose core religious beliefs, or even cultural interpretation, threaten these advancements – there will be pushback to ensure that society is protected from a regression of rights.
Politicians owe minority groups and vulnerable people protection from imported ideas. After all, even the United Nations acknowledges the large gap between the human rights of the Islamic world compared to that of Australia.
We will not go backwards and undo our civil rights movements to accommodate the feelings of newly arrived migrants who made a choice to enter this beautiful country.
This, as they say, is not a negotiation.
Australia will not be commanded to re-write its moral core based upon hastily defined ‘phobias’ because of cultural disagreement.
The report also complains about the negative impact on Muslim communities due to counter terrorism laws following September 11. This is handwaving. Islam is the largest perpetrator of terror across the world. The ever-present threat of such attacks has resulted in the degradation of our freedoms and innocence of Australia. Remember a time when Christmas markets didn’t need the protection of bollards to stop cars driving into people?
It is not the fault of Australian citizens that violence is being conducted in the name of Islam by both lone wolves and well-funded groups attached to state entities such as Iran. Australians do not have a ‘phobia’ toward Sikhs, Jews, or Buddhists as would be the case if the phobia was rooted in racism. Islam is responsible for its reputation.
Look to Europe, where children are butchered and religious figures beheaded in broad daylight.
In July 2005, four Islamic terrorists attacked London resulting in the murder of 52 people. In 2017, two Islamic terrorists bombed Manchester Arena killing 22 and injuring 1,017 people – mostly teenagers. Despite being alerted to suspicious behaviour, the terrorists were not approached by security for fear of being called … racist.
Global statistics state that between 2013-24, 56,413 Islamic terror attacks have taken place – or 84.4% of all recorded terror attacks in the world. These are not insignificant facts. Yes, it matters that the latest wave of mass migration coming into Australia is originating from locations where this sort of religious violence is normalised.
We don’t want religious violence ‘normalised’ or excused as ‘resistance’ inside Australia.
Being worried about terrorism is not ‘racist’. A map of the world showing which nations are most worried about Islamic terror reveals Asia and the Middle East as hotpots. These are not ‘white majority’ areas.
The report on Islamophobia says in its forward:
‘The feeling I got from others was that Christianity was this white, wholesome religion, while Islam was something so foreign it was hard to understand. Although I knew deep down inside that was wrong.’
How bizarre. Christianity is not a white-based religion and to say so demonstrates the setting of ignorance that pervades the rest of the report.
Christianity is, however, a peaceful and reformed religion that has adapted to the modern world – driven Western Enlightenment – and led directly to the end of the global slave trade. Islam has been the most powerful slaver since before the West’s first slave ship, and there are still Islamic groups carrying out human slavery in parts of Africa and the Middle East.
Australia’s government deals with state-funded Islamic terror on the geopolitical stage and its existence is naturally of concern to citizens. This isn’t helped by groups declaring themselves to be ‘humanitarian’ protesting for a cause deeply rooted in Palestinian terrorist organisations such as Hamas and the PLO. The report fails to point out the self-inflicted harm the Muslim community does to itself by calling for a ‘Global Intifada’.
Yes, people may feel a sense of concern and even fear when large groups of people call for an Intifada or hold signs supporting violent regimes.
Instead of allowing an open discussion – free from the fear of legal retribution – Western leaders are seeking to codify ‘Islamophobia’ to protect themselves from electoral backlash.
A leading British KC, who is an advisor to the Attorney General, issued a dramatic warning last week about the dangers of defining Islamophobia in law.
He was not concerned about so-called ‘discrimination’ against the Islamic community – rather, he wanted to alert the government about the inherent danger of creating a ‘fear of being called Islamophobic’ and that might interact with the legal system.
‘The conflation of the two categories of “Islam” and “Muslims” could have dangerous outcomes…’ he posed, asserting it might be used to re-write various pieces of harassment and hate crime laws.
‘Suppose that such a definition would, in practice, be relied on in objecting to the use of powers by the police and security services to investigate persons who happen to be Muslim for criminal offences, including of the most violent or sexual nature…’
We have seen this work in practice already, with a fear of being called ‘racist’ allowing the UK’s horrific network of Pakistani Muslim Grooming Gangs to operate for more than a decade with the knowledge of police and politicians.
Too many were cowered by their fear of being called ‘racist’ to save young poor white girls. Over 1,400 victims. During the investigation, council staff admitted that they had been told ‘not to mention the ethnic origins of the perpetrators’ while another report said that Rotherham police effectively ignored their duties out of fear they might ‘increase racial tensions’.
The saga demonstrates how the fear of being attached to a slur overrode the basic moral principles of law enforcement, the courts, and government leaving citizens with no protection. It also revealed the role free speech played in shaming politicians into action.
This ecosystem only works if government allows the digital realm to remain an active participant in democracy.
When a hundred thousand people march across the Sydney Harbour Bridge calling for a Global Intifada, the ethnic cleansing of Jews, and comparing Australian ‘settlers’ with illegal occupations – ordinary Australians of a mostly Christian or secular heritage have every right to feel frightened and concerned about what has happened to the fabric of society.
These days, local government doesn’t have the nerve to repair a statue of Captain Cook because they’re frightened of pro-Palestine activists. Even the Prime Minister was chased out of his office of 30 years in Marrickville.
This is frightening.
Australians are being painted as the ‘aggressor’ in this scenario, instead of the victim of the government’s ‘Big Australia’ policy which was never voted upon or consented to.
It is not Islamophobic for Australians to be concerned about child brides, forced marriage, genital mutilation, honour killings, polygamy, and acid attacks. Once unheard of in Australia, these things have appeared on our streets.
Australia’s legal system isn’t prepared for these imported crimes, nor can the media accurately report these events for fear of being pulled up with complaints. Who suffers? The next generation of Australians, often the children of migrants, who were promised safety.
Our fear is that these ‘reports on Islamophobia’ and even the report on ‘Antisemitism’ will create a sectarian framework to silence Australians and override their legitimate concerns about the future of the country they were born to and whose ancestors sacrificed everything to create.
The protection of Australia must always triumph.
My Response in Full
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. Mathew 7:5
About the Author
Aftab Malik, a British-born migrant to Australia of Pakistani origin, was named as the Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia for a period of three years, commencing on 14 October 2024. In this role, he produced a report on Islamophobia in Australia.
Mr Aftab Malik is a United Nations Alliance of Civilisations “Global Expert” on Muslim Affairs. He served for nearly a decade in the NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet, as well as the Premier’s Department, advising on community engagement, social cohesion, and countering violent extremism.
Mr Malik is a Guest Lecturer in the Department of Law at the University of Sydney, where he co-teaches an Introduction to Shariah.
Short Summary
The report praises Islam, yet fails to acknowledge any reasons why people have anti-Islamic opinions. The report fails to mention “Shariah”, despite the fact that it’s simply not possible to consider Islam’s role in Australia without talking about Shariah – especially given that the author lectured on Shariah.
This omission is secondary to the report’s primary omission, which is the absence of a definition of Islamophobia. In effect, the report is, in essence, saying “on this thing I can’t define, here are all the things I want done to prevent it”.
The report does not mention Hamas, although it defends Palestine at length and often. How can you defend Palestine without acknowledging the actions of Hamas?
In dismissing anti-Islam sentiment as Islamophobia, the report fails to take any responsibility for the horrors committed in the name of Islam.
This is not a balanced report – it’s one-sided propaganda.
I could just as easily to the same and fill this response with data on Islam’s war against Christianity. From there, I could make the case for the appointment of a Christian Envoy to root out ‘Christianophobia’.
It raises the question: why do we have envoys for antisemitism and Islamophobia, yet none for Christianity — especially considering that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the three major Semitic religions? Surely, one set of rules would work for all three, unless the intention is to elevate one above the others.
This report appears to support such an outcome by conflating Islam with racial discrimination—similar to that of Aboriginal and Asian communities—rather than religious discrimination. In its recommendations and where it suits the report’s purpose, Islam is framed as a race rather than a religion. This framing allows all other religions to be excluded to the sole advancement of Islam.
Mr Malik has constructed his recommendations to exclude all other religions. The opportunity to counter religious discrimination against all Australians, against all religions was not taken. Surely one set of rules could have been written to assist all religions counter discrimination. This report chose instead to elevate Islam above all others.
Let Islam Be Judged on Its Actions
Debating Islam from a cultural standpoint is counter-productive because it first requires agreement on the meaning of Australian culture. This has been a minefield for a generation as it provides an opportunity for the sneering “left” to display their contempt for Australia in a way that avoids the debate.
Instead, I ask the Envoy why he failed to mention the actions taken in recent years in the name of Islam – violent, unlawful actions which cannot be defended. This is an indefensible decision because it’s these actions which give rise to legitimate anti-Islamic sentiment.
Surely the correct approach would have been to consider what version of Islam could exist comfortably with the other religions that make up the wider Australian community. Instead, the report whitewashes Islamic atrocities and suggests all of Islam must be defended, even Hamas.
Below are examples of ongoing atrocities committed in the name of Islam, included to highlight issues that SHOULD have been addressed in the report, along with proposed solutions.
Islamists’ violence against Christians rose 60% since 2023, with 380 million Christians facing high/extreme persecution globally in 2025, many in Africa. Sub-Saharan Africa saw Jihadists displace 16.2 million Christian.
Militants often demand faith renunciation (e.g., reciting Islamic prayers) before killing; women and children are disproportionately affected, with abductions leading to forced conversions (e.g. Leah Sharibu case, ongoing since 2018).
In this period Islamists have murdered between 40,000 and 55,000 Christians in sub-Saharan Africa. Many of these Christians have sought safe harbour in Australia. (Is it Mr Malik’s position these people should not be able to talk about their lived experience of religious persecution, rape and murder of family members at the hands of Islamic fighters?)
According to the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe (OIDAC), anti-Christian hate crimes reached 2,444 in 2023, corresponding with the increase in Islamic immigration.
I could refer to the 3,647 proven cases of rape in the UK involving Islamic grooming gangs, with victims as young as 11. As with the Australian Skaif rape gangs, there is a clear use of rape as a weapon of Hijrah, albeit this being an interpretation scholars contest. If so many Islamists choose the violent interpretation of Islam, how can it be simply glossed over by the report?[i]
And of course, nobody mention October 7th [ii]or the Yazidi Genocide[iii] (survivors lived experience on this link) and this link[iv] from the UN Human Rights Council.
I might suggest the missing definition of Islamophobia could simply be ‘anyone who refuses to ignore the violence, hatred and conquest wrought in the name of Islam’
Report Preface
The preface includes this quote:
It is strange that we should not realise that no enemy could be more dangerous to us than the hatred with which we hate him, and that by our efforts against him we do less damage to our enemy than is wrought in our own heart. ST. AUGUSTINE
This passage is used to warn Christians of the damage they do themselves in hating Islam. It is misattributed – this quote does not appear in the works of St Augustine.
Instead, it encapsulates an ancient wisdom that hate begets hate, which is contained in the meaning of Mathew 26:52. The actual author is Rev Martin Luther King Jr.
The other quote, stated first in the preface does come from the Hadiths:
The Muslim is the one from whose tongue and hand people are safe, and the believer is the one people trust with their lives and wealth. [Sunan an-Nasa’i, Hadith 4995]
The juxtaposition of these two quotes sets the tone for the report. Put simply, Muslims are to be trusted and Christians should stop hating them.
I think it is necessary to talk about our options as Christians when confronted with evil, in response to the aggressive Islamic agenda and whitewashing of Islamic terror evident in this report.
What the Bible Says on Defence from Evil
During the Sermon on the Mount, at Mathew 5:39 Jesus says:
But I say to you, do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
In Mathew 26:52 a disciple, identified as Peter in the Gospel of John, draws a sword to defend Jesus from being arrested and struck a guard, and Jesus tells him to put away his weapon. The lesson is that violent behaviour can lead to more violent behaviour.[v] Debate on this lesson goes to the plan Jesus had to martyr himself, which Peter’s actions threatened, rather than a blanket instruction to never defend oneself.
The debate on self-defence more commonly turns on the meaning of Luke 22:36:
Then he said to them, but now he that hath a bag, let him take it, and likewise a scrip: and he that hath none, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword.[vi]
Is this passage allegory, or is this a command to take up a literal sword? The footnote to the 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV) says:
All this talk is by way of an allegory, as if he said, O my friends and fellow soldiers, you have lived hitherto as it were in peace: but now there is a most sharp battle at hand to be fought, and therefore you must lay all other things aside, and think upon furnishing yourselves in armour. And what this armour is, he showeth by his own example, when he prayed afterward in the garden, and reproved Peter for striking with the sword.
Ephesians 6:10-18, which is too long to reproduce here, supports this viewpoint. And yet Romans 12: 17-19 says:
Repay no evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honourable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceablywith all. Beloved, never avenge yourself, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.
The Bible does not make an explicit statement that violence in defence of oneself or of another is a sin. It does make the point that revenge is a sin and defending oneself out of hate for the other is a sin.
John 15:13 instructs:
Greater love than this hath no man, when any man bestoweth his life for his friends.
This can be interpreted as self-defence of others. If one gave one’s life out of non-violence, simply kneeled and let them take your head, then your friends would be next. This verse only works when read in the context of dying in defence of one’s kin.
The Book of Esther describes the Purim, where Jews defended themselves using weapons as an organised resistance to King Xerxes 1, who had caused an order to be made that they be slaughtered. This use of self-defence of their kin decimated the King’s forces. Significantly Jesus celebrated Purim (John 5:1).
For mine, the last word in this debate is contained in Section 132:26-27 of the Doctrine and Covenants. A sacred text for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints makes it clear that the sin of killing another relates to the spilling of “innocent blood”.
This verse is also found in Proverbs 6:17 where God condemned “The haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and the hands that shed innocent blood,”
Those who come into your community with the stated intent of “convert or die” are not innocent, once their actions turn violent. Self-defence is then permitted.
This accords with my long-held belief that free speech, including religious speech, stops where calls for violence begin.
There can be no religious exemption to speech calling for violence against another.
Aboriginal – Indian Admixture
The report appears to be providing ‘air cover’ for a growing argument that Western settlers are migrants, no different from Indian and Muslim migrants today, and therefore have no more of a claim to Australia than they do.
This relies on the report’s mis-dating of Javanese contact with Australia (see next section), and secondly on the juxtaposition of Aboriginals and Islamic traders in the report’s Acknowledgement of Country.
This relates to the level of Indian genes found in Aboriginal DNA, especially those in Western and Northern Australia. [vii]
It’s true the race we know as Aboriginal came ‘out of Africa’ like the rest of us around 70,000 years ago. So, we are all one people in that respect. Evolution of Aboriginal DNA mostly stopped around 10,000 years ago with the loss of the land bridge between Australian and Asia/PNG.
There was migration from North Indian/Bengal settlers who came to the west coast around 4000 years ago. They make up between 4% and 11% of Aboriginal DNA, called an admixture event. This is hardly a claim to country.
Islam Predates Western Settlement in Australia
The report does accurately mention the Javanese contact with Australia, coming from Islamic traders from Makassar (modern day Java). This coastal trade extended from Darwin to the Pilbara, which Mr Malik dates to the 15th Century.[i] There is confirmation of this in the earliest known map of Indonesia from 1601, which clearly shows this part of Australia.
Conveniently, this corresponds with the spread of Islam in Indonesia, which started with Persian traders in the 1400s and came to end with a caliphate in the 1500s.
A glaring error in Mr Malik’s report is the start date for Javanese exploration of Australia. It was not the 1500s. It dates back to at least 931 AD. This was the first known mention of a southern land contained in the historical records, etched into a copper plaque called Sri Mpu Sindok Inscription of Waharu IV (931)[viii] which the Indonesian Government now holds.
With a sailing distance of 12 days and the Javanese in possession of ocean-going sailing boats, it stands to reason this exploration and subsequent trade did in fact happen.[ix] This is confirmed in the a sharing of language and customs between Northern Aboriginals and Makassar people.
Mr Malik describes in glowing terms the Makassar contact, and in keeping with the rest of the report, he fails to tell the other side of the story.[vii]
Mr Malik’s report, like so much government communication, is riddled with misinformation or disinformation.
Anthropologist Ian McIntosh has speculated that the initial effects of contact with the Makassan fishermen resulted in “turmoil” with the extent of Islamic influence being noteworthy. In another paper McIntosh says – “strife, poverty and domination … is a previously unrecorded legacy of contact between Aborigines and Indonesians“. He claims that the Makassan appear to have been welcomed initially; although, relations deteriorated when, “aborigines began to feel they were being exploited … leading to violence on both sides“.
The argument that Australia should be Islamic because they were here first is a rewriting of history. Javanese visited Australia, they did not colonise it. Islam came 500 years after that contact and they did not colonise it either- we did.
It is interesting to note that the Javanese had steel, advanced ship construction, weaponry, cannons, gunpowder, advanced tools and of course the wheel at the time their presence was documented in the early 1700s. None of these were shared with the Aboriginal people, as would be the case if the intention was exploitation not assimilation.
This does suggest the exchange was one sided and limited to economic exploitation of marine resources and not the rosy love-in that the report portrays.
Palestine
Palestine gets quite a run – four pages plus multiple other mentions (49 total). Hamas is NOT mentioned and October 7th is used as an example of people hating on Muslims. This suggests Mr Malik supports Hamas and is using this report to cover for them.[ii]
The section concludes with this call-out:
The destruction of Gaza”, writes Peter Beinart, has become “a symbol of our age” signifying “unchecked cruelty and unbearable pain.
This really sums up the report. Hamas do unspeakable things and people understandably respond with suspicion and hostility to anyone defending Hamas’ actions. Along comes Mr Malik who defines this reaction as Islamophobia and calls for a massive government apparatus to silence those reacting in that manner.
The attempt to define Gaza in terms of Israel’s demolition of Gaza after the event, in part to get their hostages back, fails to acknowledge the horror that led up to that action. This is disgraceful behaviour from a government official.
Islam and Terror
Quote from the report:
Assertions regarding the inherent violence of Islam are not confined to far-right extremist echo chambers; such claims have also been propagated within scholarly and popular literature. In the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks, there was an overwhelming proliferation of publications that contributed to narratives depicting Islam as intrinsically associated with violence, extremism and terrorism. Despite more than 2 decades of grassroots initiatives by community organisations and efforts by Muslim scholars, imams and academics to distinguish between terrorism and mainstream Islam, the continued rise in global terror incidents post the 11 September terror attacks perpetuated the obscuring of extremist acts within the broader, diverse spectrum of Muslim beliefs and practices.
This passage, central to Malik’s refutation regarding Islam and terror, makes no sense. To me it reads as follows. Since September 11 we have tried really hard to distinguish between Islam and terror, and yet Muslims keep committing atrocities so nobody believes us.
As a result of this failure Australians have “Islam anxiety…Muslims feel isolated, marginalised and disenfranchised, as they are perceived to be framed as the threat from within, and divided along the lines as “good Muslim, bad Muslim”
On one hand Mr Malik is acknowledging Islamists’ ongoing extreme acts, then on the other hand complaining about the “good Muslim/bad Muslim” dichotomy. The report combines all shades of Islam into a single entity, in effect using peaceful Muslims as human shields for Islamic terrorists.
This was the time to defend the good and excise the evil within – however this is not the path that the report takes.
Christianity and Judaism have their issues, yet it is Islam the report is trying to whitewash – so let’s stay with that. The report concludes the section with this statement:
Conversely, the combination of local and global terrorist attacks, the promotion of a constant fear of, and threat from, local Muslim extremists, confusion, distortion, and misrepresentation of Islam, has generated significant anxiety and fear toward Muslim Australians. This has resulted in them being perceived more negatively than members of any other religious group for an extended period.
If there were not “local Muslim extremists”, local and global terrorist acts (nice self-own) then there would be nothing to fuel ‘Islamic Anxiety’!
The absence of a single Christian terrorist attack in Australia stands in contrast to the behaviour of the Islamic community and explains the absence of ‘Christian Anxiety’ – except amongst “left” wing social media commentators concerned about their chances of sudden immolation when passing a Church. [see references below]
Freedom of Speech
Report P21 quotes:
Freedom of speech is a critical pillar of a free society. It is imperative to affirm that these recommendations are not aimed at censoring legitimate, lawful discourse or even the dislike or critique of Muslims or Islam. Instead, they are intended to address the serious issue of prejudice, racism and hate that incite discrimination, hostility or violence. Criticism of Islam or Muslims, when grounded in respectful and lawful debate, must remain protected as a fundamental exercise of free speech.
I am pleased to see this included, yet the conflict with the recommendations calls the intent of the statement into question. As an example, this is the next point in the report:
I am confident that we can foster a society where anti-Muslim hate and prejudice are acknowledged, challenged and rectified.
Rectified? I can’t ask someone who criticises Christianity to rectify their comment! On one hand Mr Malik talks about freedom of speech and on the other he talks about forcing people to rectify their behaviour and comment.
The Recommedations
There are 54 headline recommendations, many of which contain multiple parts, extending across 12 government departments (I won’t go over all of these in detail as many repeat).
Recommendation 5: Commission of Inquiry into Islamophobia
Establish a commission of inquiry into Islamophobia, with Terms of Reference to examine all aspects of Islamophobia.
This recommendation takes the anecdotal evidence of anti-Islamic sentiment that the report advances and turns it into a root and branch inquiry into every limitation on the expansion of Islam in Australia.
In this, we see the report laying the groundwork for a British-style police state, where criticism of Islam is prosecuted, while similar actions against Christianity or Judaism are not.
Additionally, this inquiry is to look at whether a definition of Islamophobia is needed. When taken together with the absence of a definition in this report, one could suggest the intention is to allow Islam to decide what is Islamophobic.
Recommendation 6: Whitewash Palestine
Establish a commission of inquiry into anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab racism.
This continues the approach to ignore anything the Palestinians and/or Hamas have done and to characterise the motive for everything else as solely racism, instead of outrage at the slaughter of innocents.
Recommendation 7: Home Affairs to Lead Islamic Propaganda
Strengthen funding to enable research teams to gather evidence on effective interventions that combat Islamophobia in Australia, and to develop, evaluate and disseminate anti-Islamophobia programs.
Home Affairs is not the only Department being tasked with propaganda duties.
Recommendation 8 – Home Affairs to physically defend mosques
This recommendation sums up the report. Home Affairs is to lead programs to guarantee the security of Islamic schools, Islamic community centres and mosques. Shouldn’t this be written without the Islamic descriptor? Isn’t it the Government’s job NOW to protect the safety of schools, community centres and places of worship? And why not use the laws we already have which apply equally to all religions?
Recommendation 15: Mandatory Sensitivity Training
Mandate compulsory religious sensitivity training for all Australian Federal Police officers.
This same initiative has turned the United Kingdom into a police state. Recent incidents include arresting a citizen for saying he doesn’t like to see Palestinian flags flying in his street,[xi]
The Coskun case this year is relevant here. A man burnt pages from the Quran while criticising Islam for defending Islamic terrorism. He was convicted for hatred against Muslims, even though his comments were a discussion of the contents of the book, not personally against Muslims themselves. This is the problem with the report’s attempt to restore blasphemy laws for Islam – and not Christianity and Judaism. No matter how this is implemented, the laws will prevent any criticism of Islam in any situation. Even terrorism.[xii]
In case there is any doubt of the purpose of this section to implement the UK policing model in Australia, the report includes:
20b.hate crime scrutiny panels, similar to the United Kingdom model, at district levels, to improve communication, operational policing of hate crime and community trust over time.
22. Implement religious discrimination training for all legal professionals within the Attorney General’s Department. Just to make sure nobody trusted with judicial fairness stops to consider should people be prosecuted for criticising the Palestinian flag.
23. Establish workshops to assist staff in all divisions to recognise and address unconscious biases that may affect their work and decision-making process. Struggle sessions for Islam-hesitancy.
Recommendation 21: Counter-terrorism Laws
Establish an advisory panel consisting of representatives from diverse Muslim communities to provide insights into the potential impacts and unintended consequences of new counter-terrorism legislation on Muslim communities.
The report did not establish that our current laws were unfairly affecting Islam, so why is this needed?
Recommendation 28-31: Brainwash Our Children
Review the national curriculum pertaining to Islam, Muslims, and Muslim history, in both primary and secondary education, to ensure content is accurate and to make inclusions of and acknowledge Muslim contributions to Australia, Western civilisation and the development of universal values.
(Provide) clear, actionable guidelines specifically aimed at combating Islamophobia, alongside broader anti-racism, diversity and social cohesion measures. It should ensure a whole-sector approach to fostering diversity and equity in the Education Sector.
There are three pages on how to use education to advance Islam. The report conflagrates Islamophobia with Aboriginal discrimination and ethnic racism. In this construction, Islamophobia is a product of racial discrimination rather than religious discrimination. The effect is to exclude religious discrimination against other religions from the debate entirely.
The report reveals government will continue its role as the chief purveyor of misinformation and disinformation.
Recommendation 41: Islam in Sport
Invest more in funding community-level sporting initiatives and organisations. These community grants must be evaluated, leveraging the research capacity this report advocates (such as) a. support the organisation of interfaith sports tournaments, with mixed-faith teams participating.
Sounds reasonable, until the reason for this is explained:
b.provide funding for training programs that educate coaches and volunteers about cultural sensitivity and religious practices. Which Iassume includes segregation of the sexes, not shaking hands with unbelievers after the match, etc.
e. fund the development or renovation of community sports facilities, including spaces for prayer, reflection and meditation.
Prayer rooms at the footie, cricket, swimming etc, using taxpayers’ money to pay the cost. Add up the cost of that idea.
g.encourage partnerships between sporting organisations and local Muslim community groups to co-host events, workshops and discussions that focus on building relationships and understanding.
Send your children to footie training and they end up in a Mosque, or getting Islamic instruction in the changing sheds.
Establish an educational not-for-profit centre that affirms the presence, contributions and achievements of Muslim Australians and that promotes initiatives in arts, culture and media…foster active collaboration between media outlets, journalists, community organisations and educators to promote narratives that foster understanding, respect and social cohesion. This includes:
i.supporting media campaigns that challenge stereotypes and misinformation about Muslim Australians and Islam
ii.creating platforms for Muslim voices and stories to be heard authentically and positively
In other words, Government-funded propaganda. This isn’t an isolated recommendation; it is one of the recurring themes.
Recommendation 54: Subvert Parliament
Develop codes of conduct for all Australian Parliamentarians and staff on what constitutes Islamophobia, and implement mandatory …annual…training programs on Islamophobia for all parliamentarians and their advisors.
This recommendation continues the intention that these measures should not be written generally to protect all religions, rather they should be written only for Islam. The Jenkins report established the dangerous precedent that Members of Parliament can be forced to undergo re-education. This recommendation is therefore NOT unprecedented. It is, nonetheless, an unacceptable interference in the exercise of the duties of a Member of Parliament, as is Jenkins.
The report seeks to impose penalties on Members of Parliament for “wrongthink”:
Introduce clear contingencies for responses to parliamentarians who engage in hate speech or behaviour. These contingencies may include…formal reprimands and temporary suspension from the party room or various party-granted roles…establish an independent oversight for conduct complaints.There is already a formal complaint process in the Parliament, the report seeks to overturn that tested procedure and replace it with a Kangaroo Court of his own construction.
Conclusion
There is talk on social media of a Voice-style body to monitor legislation, yet this is not what the report says. It calls for a co-ordinating committee to oversee the implementation and operation of these measures. That is not unprecedented in social change initiatives. The Government may choose to make this an ’Islamic Voice’, and that would be a significant and risky policy.
Instead, the report targets the Australian Government and seeks to root out any impediment to the expansion of Islam in Australia. Additionally, the report calls for taxpayers’ money to be spent indoctrinating and compromising our entire society – education, judiciary, legislature, policing, media, communications and even sport.
The report fails to define Islamophobia and instead chooses a “we know it when we see it” approach. That is, Islamophobia is defined from lived experience – with those experiences no different to many others in our multi-ethnic and multi-religious community.
No cost/benefit analysis is attempted; there is no debate on the practicality of the measures proposed. This is nothing other than a shopping list born of ambition for Islam in Australia, with zero consideration of what the wider community wants or needs.
Mr Malik clearly does not want Islam to take an equal place amongst all of Australia’s religions. Rather he seeks to elevate Islam above all others. It seems that he wants the government to give Islam an opening, and support from social, legislated and financial means.
I will be researching whether the report and some of the recommendations contravene the Commonwealth Constitution.
One Nation opposes all the recommendations, as well as any others from any source that seek to divide Australia—particularly those that promote racial or religious division.
We are one community, we are ONE nation and our laws must protect all of us equally.
[x] The Hilton Hotel Bombing is still blamed on the Ananda Marga, and Wieambilla shooting was in no way related to Christian teachings, the cause there was perceived government oppression combined with some radical sovereign citizen beliefs.
Joel Jammal: Ladies and gentlemen welcome to episode 25 of the Ark podcast. I have missed you guys. Just come back from the US watching exactly what happened at CPAC USA in Washington DC, my first time being to America – my first time seeing snow. It was amazing. It was actually really cool. I’ll get into a bit of that later in other videos where I’ll go into a bit more depth, but today I’m joined by a very special guest – The Honorable Senator Malcolm Roberts. Malcolm, welcome to the Ark Podcast.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much Joel. Good to be here at last now.
Joel Jammal: Malcolm, I mentioned to a few people that you were coming on and I was obviously very keen to have our chat and people know we’re friends. People know we like to have chats every now and then on your Friday Q&A’s, which are very popular, but the big elephant in the room that I’ve addressed previously about the the hate speech bill. I wanted to give you first the opportunity before we get into it. Mate, what happened to that because a lot of people I’m coming up to in the Freedom Movement they’re like – why did Malcolm and Pauline not show up for that vote, for that hate speech Bill vote. Mate, what happened with that?
Senator ROBERTS: Well it was difficult. We had a discussion as to whether we oppose or abstain and I’ll explain why we abstained. But before doing so, the pile on that resulted from Senator Rennick’s lie when he said that we joined with the Liberal and Labor parties in supporting the hate crimes bill was a complete lie. Then the pile on from the Libertarians and the pile on from other parties was just disgraceful, but I want to compliment five people, yourself included, because you took a neutral stance and there are others – Topher Field, John Ruddick, Ralph Babet and Jim Wilmott – for their civility and their honesty. They didn’t pile on. They showed some character in abstaining from criticising us. So normally Joel, what happens is that if, as in happened in this case, the Labor party or the Liberal Party bring something in, rush it in, don’t have proper committee scrutiny of it, don’t have proper time for us to scrutinise it then guillotine the vote, then we just straight oppose it. It’s got to be very very outstanding to support a bill that goes through that mess. So, we were inclined to oppose it and then Ralph and a couple of others came up to me and said what are you doing. I said we’re abstaining. What? You’ve got to support it – got to oppose it and I said no mate, there’s a logic to what we’re doing. Because as you know, Pauline’s pretty strong on this kind of stuff as am I and it’s important to understand that it’s the Hate Crimes Bill – not the hate speech bill. It’s the Hate Crimes Bill and we said we cannot support it – this is just a discussion between Pauline and myself – we just cannot support this because of the language, because some of the assumption, some of the context of the bill, we just could not support it. It was a dog of a bill, plus it was bulldozed through the Senate and then Pauline said – you know, we got to be careful, because we were clearly going to stand on our own. That didn’t bother us. It doesn’t bother Pauline and me to be the only two in the Senate. So, we had – it was a stitch up. The Liberal and Labor had about 60 and the Greens all combined, and the Nationals combined to have about 66 of the 76 votes, so there’s no way we could win, no way we could influence the vote at all, so without having said anything, we wanted to send some signals because we believe, and I think most Australians would believe, that the use of physical force or the threat of violence or the threat of physical force is abhorrent and Australians don’t put up with that, so we couldn’t let that go just by opposing it, but we couldn’t support the bill so we had to oppose the way it was done and the way it was introduced. So we said okay let’s send a signal to Australians because we know there are people, the groups, and I haven’t got my notes with me, but there are many groups including people who are disabled, here they are. There’s sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, disability, disease, religion – many groups in Australia who are currently under threat, physical violence and physical threats. We’re not going to accept that. Hate crimes are real and they are being exercised on people, and so we wanted to send a signal saying we do absolutely support the protection of those people. Every Australian has a right to live in security and safety. So we wanted to say that, but we couldn’t support the bill because of the reasons I just mentioned – the language, the looseness – so we said well bugger, everyone’s going to expect us to oppose it, but we have to send a signal to those people that are looking for support, right?
Joel Jammal: So you do actually believe that there needs to be, there was a lot of good things about the bill now, but there’s a lot of bad about the bill as well. So you were sort of in an awkward position where it was like look, we don’t support the worst kinds of excesses on this bill on free speech but at the same time, you actually needed some work and the government wasn’t really working with you – they just sort of guillotining through. Is that right?
Senator ROBERTS: Correct. So normally what would happen is sometimes I’ll get up in the Senate and talk about some of the positive aspects of a bill – not this bill – but positive aspects of a bill and then say however, we’re going to oppose it for this reason.
Joel Jammal: Right.
Senator ROBERTS: Or I might say there’s some merit in this bill, there’s some dogs in this bill, we’re going to abstain.
Joel Jammal: Right.
Senator ROBERTS: We didn’t get a chance to speak.
Joel Jammal: No speeches.
Senator ROBERTS: No speeches at all.
Joel Jammal: No speeches, right.
Senator ROBERTS: And the core part of the bill is – a person commits an offense, if the person threatens to use force or violence against a group. The targeted group is distinguished by race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, disability including disease, nationality, national or ethnic origin, or political opinion, so it also applies to political opinion, and a reasonable member of the targeted group would fear that the threat will be carried out and the threat if carried out would threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth. Well that makes sense to me, but then the language was so sloppy and so loose.
Joel Jammal: Yeah.
Senator ROBERTS: And we couldn’t support it. It was too vague.
Joel Jammal: Like you didn’t have to prove intent of the actual person that’s saying something as well, you just had to prove that the person felt hurt that received that comment.
Senator ROBERTS: Well no, that the person would genuinely feel fear that the threat will be carried out. So it can’t be just a reckless –
Joel Jammal: Right. That’s insane. That’s insane! So Pauline’s comments, when you guys were at that press conference, because from an outsider –
Senator ROBERTS: I was there.
Joel Jammal: You were there. From an outsider’s perspective, from me just sort of following what was going on, we’re about to kick off a campaign, we’re about to kick off a campaign for a big election, and it kind of has already started. Albanese and Dutton –
Senator ROBERTS: They’re copying our policies already. Both the two tired old parties are copying four of our policies. Pretending to.
Joel Jammal: Yeah exactly, like the alcohol excise.
Senator ROBERTS: Immigration, student caps.
Joel Jammal: So and they’re already campaigning on the public dime. What it seemed to me on that day – you guys, as part of your campaigning, had a press conference. You had, in my view, more pressing things actually going on that day and that’s what I remarked to people in the last episode before I left. I said look, Malcolm wasn’t sipping pina coladas in his office, it’s not like he was not doing anything else. He just knew that this vote was going to go 41 to 6, which is I think what it ended up being, which is not possible guys, it’s not possible to win that. It’s just not. And guillotining debate, guillotining –
Senator ROBERTS: And opposed all the guillotining which sends a very strong signal. Sometimes guillotine is necessary because people don’t understand why it’s done, but the Senate is the controller of what happens in the Senate and so sometimes a guillotine is necessary when it’s been debated plenty and it’s just one party trying to talk it out and stop the vote, so we will, everyone will sometimes support a guillotine but it’s very very rare. So, when you do something like this with a serious bill with …. to it, then you just, we opposed all the bills, so basically we were sending a signal. We opposed the guillotines. We basically opposed the bill. We were sending that signal right the way through.
Joel Jammal: Right. So when Pauline, who was doing a press conference for something completely unrelated, was asked an off-the-cuff question which, you won’t say this but I will say this, she doesn’t do off the cuff very well. She tends to get her back up a little bit about it. She’s not, she’s not a Rhode Scholar. I’ll put it that way.
Senator ROBERTS: She’s very bright. I’ll take exception to that. She is extremely intelligent.
Joel Jammal: I totally agree, but in terms of debating techniques and like I’m just saying, she’s no Rhode Scholar in that sense, she’s actually more a street smart sort of person. It’s a compliment in a way, but I can see how that answer she gave was misunderstood by people and I’m just watching this slow motion train crash knowing Pauline’s intent on that and I can see she wanted to deliver some actual results for some of those groups you were talking about and I can see how this bill with a few amendments could actually be quite a good bill.
Senator ROBERTS: It needed a lot of work on it.
Joel Jammal: It needed a lot of work.
Senator ROBERTS: Basic thrust is fine because it’s a Hate Crimes Bill not a hate speech bill, which is what Clive Palmer misleadingly reported it as and others in the debate.
Joel Jammal: No absolutely and so I look at this whole situation and I’m just like okay so this is what happened, this is the miscommunication between people and I feel very, this is going to come out very strange coming from a 27 yr old but I do feel very fatherly and protective of this sort of Freedom Movement including all of the freedom senators. And you know the different organisations and groups and podcasters and so when I see everyone fighting, it hurts, it actually feels like your family’s fighting, your mom and dad are having a fight. It’s terrible to see and so, then I see the opportunism from these other parties and these senators and these potential senators and candidates running and I’m just like this is a disaster. I mean we are not looking like a winning side. We’re going into an election, we need to be consolidating our efforts, consolidating our energies so that we can be one force just like the Greens are on the left. We need to become one force.
Senator ROBERTS: Exactly.
Joel Jammal: And that’s why I didn’t appreciate that whole saga with everyone and that’s where I’m coming from when I’m looking at all this because like I’ve just come back from America. I’ve seen the sense of coming together. They had Trump build an amazing coalition between RFK and Tulsi Gabbard and Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswarmy.
Senator ROBERTS: They all want the truth and they all want to fix America. That’s why RFK came in.
Joel Jammal: Absolutely and I’m looking at that spirit of camaraderie and coming together against this Goliath of a foe and I’m like okay great, so that’s the winning attitude we need to have, where are we at, and then this is what we’re doing and I’m like –
Senator ROBERTS: I could tell you’re concerned and I appreciate the way you spoke. It was very well done. So I don’t look at you as a 27 yr old, I look at you as a human, a mature human, very understanding of politics but you raised two points that I’d like to cover. One was the mandatory sentences. I can read out something from Pauline but I was there standing next to her – we actually posted about this – and by the way, I’ll get to that other point in a minute, but Pauline, our policies were introduced into the News Corp papers in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and maybe Adelaide I think and they were phenomenally well received and the comments below the articles from everyday Australians were amazing, just stunning and that caused a lot of turmoil amongst some other minor parties who were quite frankly jealous. We worked that out. They were like, what the hell do we do now they? They were thinking that, but Pauline she’s never one to back away from something and the policies were so well received that it was a funny conference, media conference, because no one was asking a question about the policies. Pauline gave a little speech, I said a couple of words and then she said “where are your questions” and there are only two journalists and they arrived late. The rest were all cameramen and so one of the cameraman, Pauline looked at the cameraman and when you have Pauline’s eyes on you, you do something you know. He asked a couple of sensible questions because they’re no journalists and we worked out later why the journalists weren’t there and that was because how could you possibly tear holes in these policies. So anyway, the cameraman asked a couple of questions and then the two journalists arrived Probin and somebody else from Sky I think, and they asked questions about Gaza and about, what was the other one? Oh, mandatory sentencing. Not the Hate Crimes Bill, just the mandatory sentencing and Pauline has long thought that mandatory sentencing is not good except for terrorism, where it’s necessary because some judges are just weak and so she explained that and she said yes I support it under certain circumstances but she basically said that she would – the bill had just been thrust upon her, been rushed through, and she had no time to look at it which is the absolute truth. Our office was still dissecting it and so she left it open because that was the only thing she could do. So that was one thing. The second thing that I want to talk about is we agreed exactly with you, so even though there were lies being told by the Libertarian party and by Senator Rennick and Clive Palmer later that day, we said we’re not going to get into a dust up because this is just a, come on it’s just a shit fight – everyone loses in a shit fight, so we zipped our lip and said just let it all subside a little bit but it didn’t stop me talking about it on Saturday night 2 days later at a function, nor the following week. We just waited for the heat to come out of it because no matter what we said the people who are incensed by Senator Rennick’s lie and some of the comments that the Libertarians were making, there’s no way you could pacify them. It’s just stupid. You don’t argue with it, with people who are crazed and then bit by bit we started realising and people started realising and they’re waking up and they’re saying hang on a minute, you guys have been lied about here and then we saw the people waking themselves. But then we came out and explained it in full. So, I’m happy to do that.
Joel Jammal: It’s astonishing to me –
Senator ROBERTS: I mean we did not want want to cause a fight in the Freedom Party. So we abstained. Because we also knew that it would be like talking to a madman.
Joel Jammal: It’s astonishing because I look at this and I’m just like Malcolm and Pauline between them, I don’t know how long – how many years have you guys both been serving in the parliament?
Senator ROBERTS: Pauline served three in the House of Reps, then she served six and one that’s seven, that’s 10 years for her. I’ve served one and 7 and a half.
Joel Jammal: So you know we’re we’re looking at you know almost 20 years of service and voting records and this one vote, this one vote, you know people were just so willing to just throw it out. I’m just like guys if this is how we treat our veterans for God’s sake, for God’s sake. And it’s just, cause –
Senator ROBERTS: Well, the other thing –
Joel Jammal: And again, it wasn’t the politicians that, I kind of expect from MPS and Senators that are trying and candidates that are trying to get votes out of one nation being the biggest fish out of the minor parties I get that but some of the podcasters, me being one, I was like guys why are you just spurring this on, why are you going hard.
Senator ROBERTS: There are a lot of trollss in there working for the, we believe, the Libertarian Party and a couple of bots as well, just spurring it on. So a lot of it was was orchestrated. It was orchestrated and it was coordinated across several different parties.
Joel Jammal: Mmm. And again, guys for those people thinking this is a One Nation love fest, you know Malcolm knows –
Senator ROBERTS: You can be pretty blunt with me at times.
Joel Jammal: Yeah exactly and you know and everyone knows that you know that Turning Point Australia we don’t support you know just One Nation blindly across the board. It certainly has not been the case with the elections and all of, Craig Kelly, Gerard Rennick, a lot of these candidates that were alluding to they’re actually coming on to this podcast at some point as well before the election, because I’m trying to help the movement and that’s kind of the whole point about this thing but you asked this question and so –
Senator ROBERTS: And we’re happy to answer it.
Joel Jammal: So, I’m being honest you know.
Senator ROBERTS: We’re happy to answer it and would we do it again? Well Pauline will always be true to herself and I will always be true to myself. Now as I said, I was conflicted. On the one hand we had a couple of people saying you should oppose it. Yes, but that’s leaving people vulnerable people alone and isolated. We need to send them a signal so that’s why. So would we do it again? We probably would do it again because it was a right thing to do and one of Pauline’s staff came up to me, he’s a very sensible politically astute person and he said I am so proud to be in One Nation because you did stand by principle and that was wonderful. And the other thing is that not only was One Nation a short-term casualty, but the English language was a casualty because the dictionary meaning of abstain was completely thrown out the window. The word abstain suddenly meant support which is completely wrong. The dictionary meaning of abstain is to “hold oneself back voluntarily especially from something regarded as improper.” Hello!
Joel Jammal: Well they made it sound like you proposed the bill yourself Malcolm, that’s what they made it sound like.
Senator ROBERTS: And it was improper because I’ve voted due to the rushed vote and a guillotined debate and the second definition is to “refrain from casting one’s vote” and that’s what we did. We couldn’t support it. No way we could support it but we want to send a signal but the other thing that’s really important for us is that within about 2 weeks, we got the highest polling numbers we’ve ever got right. Within two weeks we got more volunteers signing up than we’ve ever had before. Within two weeks we got an increase in membership with the party and we got a lot of people starting to change and say oh we can see who the villains are here and it’s just so sad that people who I e had a lot of time for and I wouldn’t have thought would tell a lie, told a blatant lie and when I pointed it out to Gerard, he acknowledged it and then I said you need to retract it and he acknowledged that and left it up there. You know that’s inexcusable in my opinion.
Joel Jammal: Yeah well look, I think people that, generally people that are listening to this right now and getting you know this end to end answer will appreciate it and I think they’ll see it in the perspective of – you know I want to see these parties work together a lot more. I don’t want to see my mom and dad fighting per se in the parliament. You know, I want to see them getting on.
Senator ROBERTS: Yeah.
Joel Jammal: And that’s the truth. I think that is the truth of the punters that are out there that are watching politics and that are voting and that are volunteering for these different parties. They want to see more collaboration.
Senator ROBERTS: One of the things that’s left a bit of taste in my mouth, not about this, back three years ago was that I was one of the most vocal in the country and so was Topher Field. He was a bloody good but we said, let’s work together, Libertarians, United Australia Party, One Nation and other freedom parties – let’s work together. We had joint candidate forums in an electorate and in the Senate. We would have a candidate from each of those people conducting a forum together and it was on the basis that we would support each other. We would recommend the other minor parties, we’re going to recommend One Nation 1 and then UAP, Katter, Libertarians, 2 3 4 etc.
Joel Jammal: There was 10 of them I think in the last federal
Senator ROBERTS: So that’s what we said we would do and Clive Palmer came out and said put the majors last and we then started saying put the majors last, and so we were wondering what happened to Clive Palmer’s party up in Queensland, why their ‘how to vote’ cards weren’t out. And then the day of the prepoll, not – it didn’t come out the couple of days beforehand, it came out on the day of the prepoll – we found out why. Because it was 1 United Australia Party, 2 LNP.
Joel Jammal: Yeah.
Senator ROBERTS: So he completely sold us out.
Joel Jammal: Yeah that’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: So we can’t trust someone like that.
Joel Jammal: Yeah. Look I God, I was in America when I, I haven’t said a thing on the Trumpet of Patriots thing but I was in America when it came out, just landed, and I went and gave a speech at the America for Tax Reform. It was huge. Amazing, it was amazing. It was, like they had 50 different groups, each person was the head of a group and you go to this thing if you’re trying to pitch yourself or just introduce yourself and I’m like hi everyone, I’m Joel Jammal, head of Turning Point Australia. You know, I teach people who’s punching them, why they’re punching them and how they can punch back and I just gave my two minute speech and whatever. I get out after –
Senator ROBERTS: It would have gone down well. It would have gone down very well.
Joel Jammal: You know how I am Malcolm. You know how I am. I’m a very shy person.
Senator ROBERTS: They love, the Americans love that when someone stands up and they love it when someone stands up in a country like Australia that was perceived during COVID to be the worst country in the world.
Joel Jammal: Yeah. No, you’re absolutely right and you know they did ask about that. But I got off stage and you know, I said don’t be shy, come up to me and give me your business cards or whatever. A few of them came up to me and said what’s this about the Trumpet of Patriots. I mean why would they pick such a stupid name and I’m I just, and I think it was because they were trying to back like you know, be like have Trump in it or something. I think that’s what Clive Palmer remarked in the press conference you know. Trumpets of Patriots! And I don’t mean any offense to that new party or Suella who’s obviously the head of it with Clive but it’s silly, the whole thing is silly and the idea that you know, in the news it came out that they were going around basically offering different parties to buy the parties and apparently they offered One Nation $10 million but Pauline wasn’t for selling.
Senator ROBERTS: We are not for sale. That was made very very clear to Clive.
Joel Jammal: Yeah and that’s what’s bizarre and maybe I should ask you about this you know back in December and most people missed this story, but I saw that Clive registered and trademarked the name The Clive and Pauline Party, as well as The Teal Party and a few other things. How –
Senator ROBERTS: I think that was before he approached Pauline and James.
Joel Jammal: That was before.
Senator ROBERTS: I think so, but I don’t know.
Joel Jammal: Look the story came out on the 26th of December so I think it was, this story came out after but maybe they had the –
Senator ROBERTS: Someone’s been reading the patents, not the patents the registrations.
Joel Jammal: The registrations right and it was just bizarre that he would like The Clive and Pauline Party? I mean how can he trademark the Clive and Pauline Party without her permission. It just struck me as odd.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, it’s a crazy name. You know, could you imagine the Pauline and Clive Party? It just does not make sense.
Joel Jammal: No.
Senator ROBERTS: I mean, I’m not saying that they shouldn’t get together. I’m not saying that at all but having that as a as a party name?
Joel Jammal: Yeah well it’s like what do you stand for?
Senator ROBERTS: Exactly.
Joel Jammal: Clive and Pauline?
Senator ROBERTS: Exactly. So you know, One Nation is Pauline Hanson because she’s got the name and then one nation. Let’s face it Joel and you know this. She’s been around since 1996. Everyone has tried to have a go at her. The Liberals and Labor have tried to jail her. She has stood firm. She has stood in truth the whole time and she survived and they’ve done everything they can to her. They’ve called her a racist which is the worst thing you can call an Australian woman and that was done deliberately to shut down people talking about her and that worked for a while until people started to wake up in the last couple of years and she’s not at at all a racist. Asian people who’ve come here for the Australian culture and Aboriginals love our work so they think very highly of us. So she’s not at all a racist but what I’m saying is they’ve thrown everything at her and she’s still standing. She’s still got two senators.
Joel Jammal: Yeah.
Senator ROBERTS: Her candidates are the seventh, next in line, the seventh senator in every state except for Queensland where I came fourth, so we’re primed – with just a very small increase in votes to get another senator in every state and so I guess, and I don’t know what’s in their mind but if I was Libertarians, if I was another Freedom Party, I’d be trying to take votes off the Liberal Party because if you get 2% off the Liberal Party, that’s a lot more votes than getting 2% of us and and I’d be trying to work with One Nation because we are so close to getting you know five or so senators in the parliament which will give us the balance of power and the conservatives in Australia the balance of power. There’s no one else capable of doing that, no one. No one at all, not even close.
Joel Jammal: Yeah, everywhere you run you get 5% in your back pocket. That is just a matter of fact.
Senator ROBERTS: And look look at the quality of the people. Warwick in New South Wales, Warren Pickering in Victoria. Warren’s amazing, a veteran, really switched on, energetic. We’ve got Jennifer Game – don’t argue with her mate, she’ll clean you up even you.
Joel Jammal: Oh, I believe it.
Senator ROBERTS: She’s highly intelligent, and in Western Australia we’ve got Tyron and you know they’re really solid people.
Joel Jammal: Yeah, yeah.
Senator ROBERTS: So it just doesn’t make any sense. If you would want to destroy the party with the best chances of actually getting conservatives into the Senate, go ahead and destroy One Nation.
Joel Jammal: Yeah look I remember making this argument to the Victorians in their state election in 2022 – it’s hard to believe we’re coming up on another state election for them next year but I made the point to them I said guys there are nine Freedom parties for your state election and your freedom vote is about 11.6% so you need 14% to become a senator, that’s a full quota.
Senator ROBERTS: Yeah.
Joel Jammal: Maybe you need about 9 or 10% you know, kick it over a bit with preferences. There’s nine parties splitting that 11.6%
Senator ROBERTS: And as you pointed out, One Nation’s got a very solid bedrock of 5 to 8 and sometimes, probably in South Australia it’s around about 13% so nationally we got up to 9% so we’re at about 9% I think.
Joel Jammal: Yeah.
Senator ROBERTS: Which is a pretty damn solid base, foundation. No one can come close to that.
Joel Jammal: No, I totally agree.
Senator ROBERTS: So no wonder Clive wanted to try and buy us but Pauline has never been for sale, she never will be for sale. She’s that kind of woman. You know when she asked me to to stand beside her, she got wind in 2016 of me doing some work on opposing the climate fraud and she she said to me one day at a forum when I finished speaking she said will you come on the Senate ticket with me and I said well I’ll think about it, I’ll talk with my wife first. So I talked with my wife and she said yes and, it’s always good to have her onside, and then I said to Pauline – right my wife’s fine with it, she’s comfortable with it and Pauline said sign up and I said no no no no, now I talk with you. We went out there and she was thinking maybe a couple of hours. 11 and 1/2 hours later I left and I came away so thoroughly impressed and I’ve done a lot of recruiting, I’m not a not a sloppy recruiter, very impressed with her. There’s no way anyone could have pulled that thing together but the fact that here she was 20 years later in 2016 leading this party and putting her own money, I’m talking hundreds of thousands of dollars in bank loans into that and putting it all on the line, she’s just phenomenal. She has never ever told me a lie and neither has James Ashby, never, both of them together. If James was not honest Pauline would have got rid of him straight away but she’s had you know colorful people around her, some people who haven’t been worthy of the trust but she gets rid of them very quickly.
Joel Jammal: So Queensland, you know it’s alluded it’s a very hotly contested election in terms of the parties that are running and you know it’s a hot contest between yourself and Senator Gerard Rennick and I’m excited to see how the campaign unfolds with that, both being great incumbents that have both had a great voting record.
Senator ROBERTS: And there’s a chance that both of us can get in.
Joel Jammal: That’s right, that’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: Depending upon the liberal vote.
Joel Jammal: Absolutely and I pray that you do kick off that third Liberal that’s on the candidate, the candidate there. I pray that you guys do knock him off.
Senator ROBERTS: So I’m going to be parochial but I think also factual in saying putting me 1 and Gerard 2 is the best way to get us both in because I’ve got the solid base of One Nation behind me, Gerard and I have got a similar level of personal support, social media as well as just in general in the public, both recognised, so I think that so long as I get in first then our leftover votes, our preferences can, not our preferences but our voter’s preferences can go to Gerard and get him in, so that would be phenomenal, get us both back in.
Joel Jammal: So a few people have mentioned to me they’ve said all right, because whenever I, I ask a lot of people every time I come across a Queenslander I say okay, I’m putting a gun to your head figuratively you have to answer this question. I say this to every one of them and you can’t say no and they’re like okay just give me the question Joel, what is it? Gerard or Malcolm? And they’re like oh no and it’s a compliment I mean they love both of you, they love both of you, you know and that’s really good to see because you you both, as I said you both had a phenomenal voting record over the years that you’ve had respectively but you got to pick one and it’s pretty much dead even with the vote, with the two of you.
Senator ROBERTS: So the personal level is there for both of us, it’s similar and I’ve got the One Nation run underneath me.
Joel Jammal: Yeah, so now one of the big concerns though with some of the people that have said to me that they would prefer Rennick and I’ve asked the question, some of them have said to me I like Malcolm but I’m not sure that he wants to serve the full six-year term and I guess that’s my question to you. Is that something you know, are you going to serve the full 6 years or do you see yourself just serving half of it and passing it off to someone else in One Nation because this is a concern some people have. They want to know. Alright you know Malcolm is committing to this. I know Gerard’s going to do you know another term after this and he’s trying, he’s going you know, he’s saying a lot of things, he’s saying “I’m going to build the party, I’m going to democratize a party” and this and that, and again I’ll believe it when I see it because only the Libertarians –
Senator ROBERTS: No runs on the board. Libertarians haven’t done too much of that either.
Joel Jammal: Well they’re democratized.
Senator ROBERTS: Yeah they’re democratized.
Joel Jammal: And they’re setting up branches and the branches of voting rights and that that’s good to see, but I guess going back to the point is –
Senator ROBERTS: But some of their branches Joel are more akin to One Nation policies.
Joel Jammal: Yeah.
Senator ROBERTS: Immigration and so on, so they’re not a united party.
Joel Jammal: Yeah, but let’s go back to it, do you see yourself running –
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Joel Jammal: Full six years -100%
Senator ROBERTS: Yep
Joel Jammal: Right.
Senator ROBERTS: And the other thing is that I’ve come into politics in the Senate based upon my opposition to climate fraud and I’ve done a better job of researching that and the connections I’ve made. I knew, I won’t go into the details, but I knew three different topics about climate fraud before I got into the Senate and because I’ve been dealing with other MPS and Senators, I had a fair idea of what I’d find in the Senate. Well what I’ve done is I’ve confirmed those but I’ve also identified more of the climate fraud animal through the CSIRO, through the Bureau of Meteorology, through the way the agencies work and I’ve also become very very solid on COVID. okay the first three months we were everyone was saying just give the government a go because we all the videos and we had to look after the people of Australia first then we realized it was it was a con uh serious problems with it but what I’m what I’m about to say is that in the next term I don’t have any niceties about me. I don’t- I’ll still be treating people with respect I’ll still tell the truth but they can go to hell because we are after them in a big way I’ve said to my staff we’ve chased a lot of different um topics as part of our agenda supported a lot of people we will continue to do that but we are going to go Rogue on climate and COVID. We are going to tell the truth but we are going to go really really hard on that, we’re going to.
Joel Jammal: You alluded earlier that um you know some of these parties are adopting- the major parties specific adopting your policies
Senator ROBERTS: Sort of.
Joel Jammal: Sort of, alcohol for example.
Senator ROBERTS: Yeah, we’ve been given the pat on the back immigration, foreign ownership, but they’ve been committing to it in weasel words they’re not really committing to it but they know that our issues are top of the tree.
Joel Jammal: Right, so when um- so I saw Pauline came out with a video I think yesterday she was on her farm and she mentioned that uh Albanese has announced a freeze to the uh –
Senator ROBERTS: Yeah –
Joel Jammal: The alcohol excise?
Senator ROBERTS: After just raising it. It currently raises every 6 months.
Joel Jammal: Right, it’s insane. I think it’s like half of your drink uh alcoholic drink is like Government taxes or something crazy it’s insane. um so on um immigration I was listening to Pauline on a podcast uh where she was very- you know- I know I didn’t describe her as a- and we’ll wrap this up in a sec I know I didn’t describe –
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got another podcast straight after this.
Joel Jammal: That’s right, I’ve got Steve Tripp, Steve’s a friend of the show he sent me the the link and yeah –
Senator ROBERTS: I need to be early for that as you know
Joel Jammal: No worries. um I guess my last question is you know I described Pauline earlier as no Rhodes um Scholar um but I listened to her on a podcast um previously um about immigration and her analysis of the statistics and the facts, which is brilliant, I mean the numbers and recalling the percentages of okay but how many are actually tradies that are coming in for example was blown away by and and if the fact that no one’s clipped that yet is beyond me I should I should probably clip it
Senator ROBERTS: 0.6% are tradies 99.4% are not tradies and they’re going to have 0.6% of the people building houses for the other 99.4%, absolutely lies.
Joel Jammal: Right, and how do we get that out more? because people still are saying “ah well Aussies they don’t want to do the jobs so we need immigrants to do the jobs”, but that’s not who’s coming in.
Senator ROBERTS: No, they’re unskilled people, you know One Nation- Pauline talked about immigration from the the start. um she talked about two things she talked about numbers and she talked about because- John Howard is the first person to- first Prime Minister to have brought in massive immigration he doubled it in his term and every prime minister since, pretty much, has increased it. Pauline talked not just about numbers Joel she talked about the quality of the people and that’s something we’ve been talking about, I’ve been talking about the numbers and the quality ‘cos’ both need to be spot on. We need to bring in people who will contribute not take away, contribute through hard work and be productive immediately uh not go welfare not come soak up our pensions, we need to put time limits on people so they need to be here 8-15 years before they can qualify for a pension for example. So these are the kinds of things because our country has been fooled by the Liberal and Labor Prime Ministers making it so easy to come in here get our benefits get our welfare; Medicare fraud PBS fraud people getting cheap Pharmaceuticals based upon taxpayer through the PBS shipping them overseas and selling them overseas. Medicare Medicare cards without photo ID so that- not digital ID photo ID- um so that so that we can protect against fraud we’re just getting extorted. We’ve got to be very very much stricter on who we let in the country, I mean letting people into the country after one- from Gaza, a known terrorist Hotspot with HAMAS, after 1 hour of vetting?! come on. Letting 750,000 people into the country in one year?! come on. Letting uh students come in here, bring their Partners in here, bring their families in here, working well above the hours uh and then exporting $11.1 billion per year back exporting it out of the country which is money gone from our country then we’ve got 75,000 illegals at least in here what the hell have Liberal and Labor been doing? only one nation talks about this! only one nation, it’s the quality and the quantity of people that we we need to challenge.
Joel Jammal: That’s completely mad. Malcolm, um I’m glad that we- this- we’re about to cut this short now um because um I’m still feeling a bit under the weather since I got back but I want to thank you for making the time to come on here and um I appreciate that we’ve gone through that question at the with regards to the –
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not going to abstain from the question
Joel Jammal: no, not at all not at all, and that’s what I love about politics um and podcasts um I’m glad we addressed that hate um not hate speech bill but the hate the hate –
Senator ROBERTS: “Hate Crimes” Bill
Joel Jammal: Hate Crimes Bill thank you, I got to fix it myself that’s right um because I think a lot of people did have the concerns around that and it means that we don’t have to deal with that again people can watch it and it’s done
Senator ROBERTS: Well you know if I’d seen the lies that were told about us blatantly I would have had very big concerns about us but having been in the discussion with Pauline about what signals sent I am completely happy with we did
Joel Jammal: Sure, and that’s why we got to- we have to not leave it to um Liberal and Labor we need to work together to get these parties to combine their efforts combine their votes everyone that left a like even now a comment saying “Malcolm’s full of crap!” no worries, no worries, or you know maybe you don’t like what Rennick did it’s like “yeah that Renick’s he shouldn’t have gone after Malcolm in this way!” great go to both of their websites whoever, whichever one you like go volunteer get off your asses and hand out some ‘how-to-vote cards’ at the election and build the pie, build the freedom vote, do what the Yanks did, if you want- if you like what you’re seeing every day in your TV where Trump’s going after Zelensky you want that sort of thing in Australia, get off your asses and make it happen because no one’s coming to save you all right and that’s what I have to say to people that’s the truth of it and that’s why I don’t have time for um you know these sort of childish- I’m meant to be the child of the movement –
Senator ROBERTS: You’re the mature one, the sage.
Joel Jammal: It’s like ever since I left school I’ve just been like okay I’m excited to join the world of the adults and I’m still looking or the adults, I haven’t yet found them –
Senator ROBERTS: Well don’t go to Canberra
Joel Jammal: No, and don’t go to America ‘cos’ you know they’re great but they’re still not- they’re still kids. um but anyway Malcolm, thank you so much I’m looking forward to having you back on very soon so we can get a bit more into the policy because I know that is actually where your strength is and I’m itching to you know go even more into the migration data –
Senator ROBERTS: I would love- look I’ll come down especially for that it would be love to do that long as we can have a really good Go at ’em because there’s nothing like the policies in this country, my team did most of the work for it and the analysis, every one of them costed uh properly uh Pauline came in and some of her stuff added to it, it’s a real solid team effort. I am extremely proud of one policies for this election campaign there’s no nowhere that I’ve seen any party anywhere and I’ve been around a few years now that’s come even close to what we’re doing.
Joel Jammal: yeah, no absolutely –
Senator ROBERTS: And I they came from listening to you.
Joel Jammal: Yeah, and it was brilliant that podcast she did with those with those gentlemen where they put it into an app and an AI and the AI generated a podcast of the entire One Nation policy I thought that was just brilliant.
Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t even know about that
Joel Jammal: Yeah, this is what was amazing about that podcast and uh- she rocks up they’re like “yep, if you want to go to the website we’ve designed this whole website it’s got all of One nation’s policies on there. We even went and made a podcast, it generated a podcast, where two people they literally go through the entire One Nation policies it was talk about value rocking up- I’m sorry Malcolm like you’ve rocked up here, all I’ve got this is this bubble ahead for one of your staffers
Senator ROBERTS: That’s not even for me –
Joel Jammal: It’s not even for you like, here I am trying to give you value and that’s what they’ve gone and done
Senator ROBERTS: You just keep speaking up mate that’s the best way you can give value to to me, to the country, that’s it just keep going
Joel Jammal: No look my pleasure, and so look thank you for showing up and uh ladies and gentlemen there is a debate in Queensland uh virtually online uh between Malcolm, uh Gerard Rennick, uh a Greens candidate, and one other candidate
Senator ROBERTS: Legalise Cannabis –
Joel Jammal: Legalise Cannabis, and uh that’s that’s certainly one to watch.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it Greens or Libertarians? I think it’s Libertarians –
Joel Jammal: It’s Libertarians, ok maybe it’s Libertarians –
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t think a Green would be in front of a debate with me –
Joel Jammal: No –
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t think a Labor party (candidate) would either.
Joel Jammal: I think they’re shy, I mean in Victoria uh Warren Pickering he’s got a debate the Socialist, I mean the Socialist uh Alliance guy is debating so that’s going to be interesting –
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve challenged Larissa Waters, the head of the Greens party in Queensland, to debate three times and repeated the third time constantly in the Senate, no show. She’s even said publicly to me in front of an audience she will not debate me. Anyway.
Joel Jammal: So look 6News is doing that we we’re going to be streaming that so that it gets out to everyone so I want to thank Leo from 6News but Malcolm, without further Ado, thank you very much ladies and gentlemen if you enjoyed this podcast please go to uh subscribe in the description on uh on ‘Buy me a coffee’ to support the show thank you so much for listening uh Malcolm did you have any any other final –
Senator ROBERTS: No, just thank you for what you’re doing keep speaking up freely and independently, we need the truth.
Joel Jammal: Very good thank you guys, I’ll see you guys later, have a good one.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/The-Ark.jpg?fit=1389%2C781&ssl=17811389Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-04-10 11:49:542025-04-10 20:11:25Podcast: The Ark with Joel Jammal
The Albanese Labor Government caved into to public pressure and scrapped the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 (MAD). This was a huge win for ‘We The People,’ who rejected the level of government tyranny the bill would have legislated.
One Nation has opposed the Bill since the Morrison-Liberal government first proposed it four years ago. We have campaigned tirelessly for years to raise public awareness of the human rights failures in this Bill, successfully influencing public opinion. The Bill should never have progressed to a point where democracy itself stood on a precipice. If that sounds dramatic, then you haven’t read the submission to the Senate inquiry into the MAD bill from human rights and civil rights lawyers.
I hope this marks the beginning of an awakening to the realisation that our country faces a bleak future of totalitarian government and economic decline unless everyday Australians reclaim the government from the self-interest that stained this Bill.
One Nation will continue to defend the human rights of every Australian. I can’t say the same for the other parties. I have no doubt this Bill will return in the next Parliament unless One Nation gains the balance of power in the upcoming federal election.
Transcript
Removing the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 from the Notice Paper was a humanitarian act. It’s said that success has many fathers and failure is an orphan. If that’s the case, I would like a paternity test on this vote, because many who are taking credit for voting down this bill only decided their vote last week. One Nation has opposed the bill since the Morrison-Liberal government first proposed this bill four years ago. One Nation has campaigned for years to raise public awareness of the human rights failures in this bill, to inspire public opinion, and we were successful. It should never have progressed to a point where democracy itself stood on a precipice. If that sounds dramatic, then you haven’t read the submission to the Senate inquiry into the mad bill from the human rights and civil rights lawyers. They were scathing. How did committee members listen to three days of testimony with almost every witness calling for the bill to be scrapped yet still produce a report that said, ‘Everything’s fine; pass the bill.’ The original decision of the committee to do just that flies in the face of the expert witnesses who the committee asked to testify. Such an action will make it harder to attract the high quality of witnesses this inquiry attracted. It’s disrespectful to all concerned, and it’s disrespectful to the Australian people, who expect better of this Senate.
I understand why the Prime Minister wants censorship—he has been community noted on X 10 times and certainly needs help with the truth. For One Nation and Australia, the Christmas present in this debacle was the way everyday Australians got involved. This was an extraordinary response and one of which Australia can be proud. I hope this is the start of an awakening to the realisation that our country, this country, is facing a bleak future of totalitarian government and economic decline unless everyday Australians take the government back from the self interests which stained this bill. One Nation will defend the human rights of every Australian—every Australian.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/om0w1PWzhKQ/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-12-29 08:32:022024-12-29 08:32:05Public Pressure Forces Albanese Government to Scrap Misinformation Bill
It’s often said that success has many parents and failure is an orphan. In that case, I’d like a paternity test on the vote that removed the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill from the Senate Notice Paper. Some Senators now being credited with this move only solidified their opposition last week. Meanwhile, One Nation has stood firmly against this bill since its first iteration was released under the Morrison Liberal Government in 2019.
One Nation has been the only party consistently campaigning against this bill since 2019. A vote for One Nation is a vote for freedom of speech. In my remarks, I’ll outline the reasons why One Nation opposed this bill.
Transcript
To the people of Australia, congratulations—you’ve won. You put so much pressure on the ‘uniparty’ that you won; they folded. Four years ago I came out against the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, and it’s been a slog ever since. That’s when the Morrison-Joyce Liberal-National government introduced it. I’ll just make some comments there. This is a part of five components—the mis- and disinformation bill; the Digital ID Act; identity verification bill; under-16s banned from social media; Reserve Bank of Australia working on a digital currency that’ll be connected to a global digital currency—of a package towards social credit. The second point is that that package is being put by the major parties—Liberals, Nationals and Labor. The third point is that it’s connected to implementation of a similar package around the world in many other nations right now. It’s led to the arrest of 150 people in the United Kingdom, with jail for some, simply for making comments dissenting against the British government.
This misinformation and disinformation bill had some worthy sections on regulating the tech giants, but it was primarily about censorship and censoring the Australian people. One Nation supports a referendum to enshrine freedom of speech in our Constitution. One Nation supports legislation to mandate and enable free speech and to make free speech sacrosanct so that no state can trump it. One Nation wants to appeal 18C. This has come out of 18C, which is scandalous. They’re some of the basics. I will read part of my dissenting report on the Senate’s inquiry into this bill. It began:
1.1 I thank the witnesses for their submissions and for attending the hearings.
There were many, many witnesses. Thank you, Australia.
1.2 The committee report—
as it was originally drafted—
into the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 flies in the face of the expert evidence the committee has received across three days of hearings into the bill.
That evidence just completely smashed it and reversed it. But, with the tidal wave of views from across Australia, the committee changed its view—wonderful.
1.3 A committee inquiry should not perform the function of gift wrapping a decision which has already been taken. A committee inquiry should have the role of deciding if the decisions taken in the bill are correct.
The first report did not do that fundamental thing.
1.4 For three days, the committee heard from human rights advocates and stakeholders who all criticised this bill on human rights grounds, and added warnings the bill would backfire.
That’s what the committee heard almost unanimously.
1.5 It is extraordinary the committee would choose to ignore the recommendations of the very people who they invited to attend to advise them on this matter.
Only when the public turned savagely against the government was the committee report changed at the last minute to reflect today’s motion. The action of the committee to that point would have made it harder:
… for any Senate inquiry in the future to attract the quality of witnesses this inquiry attracted.
Censorship was the purpose of this bill. Censorship was the purpose of the committee report. The criticism of the bill was well placed. My comments continued:
1.7 The Australian Human Rights Commission questioned a basic foundation of the bill—the definition of ‘information’. In the Explanatory Memorandum the term ‘is intended to include opinions, claims, commentary and invective’.
1.8 The Australian Human Rights Commission stated ‘considerable caution should be exercised before including opinions and commentary within the scope of “information” as this significantly broadens the potential reach of this legislation and increases the risk of it being used to censor legitimate debate about matters of public importance.
That is profound. That is the bedrock of a democracy.
1.9 One Nation agrees with this concern. The bill misconstrues human rights as relative, indeed as subordinate to the need of government to suppress opinions they don’t like.
That’s what you tried to do.
1.10 The Human Rights Law Centre recommended Clause 11(e) should be amended to reflect a broader commitment to human rights in the bill’s objectives. It also recommended the Australian Human Rights Commission should be consulted on the development of codes.
‘Consultation’—that’d be nice.
1.11 Several submissions related to the specific areas of misinformation. The Australian Medical Professional Society submitted:
By centralising control over what constitutes medical ‘truth’ in the hands of government regulators, we risk creating an even more Orwellian twist in a system that is already subject to manipulation by powerful interests, to further suppress inconvenient facts and legitimate debate. This would be disastrous not only for free speech and democracy, but for public health as well.
People’s lives depend on this. And you wanted to stop it.
1.12 The report failed to address a critical failing in the debate around COVID. Namely that information presented as medical truth at the time has been proven to be wrong—
not only wrong but completely contradicting the truth—
and information banned as misinformation has now been proven to be true.
Repeatedly, repeatedly and repeatedly.
1.13 On the issue of COVID messaging, One Nation has maintained a contrary position to the Government of the day since 2020. This followed expert testimony from multiple specialists, research doctors and whistle blowers which contradicted the official narrative.
1.14 The implication is simple—what is misinformation one day is truth the next. This is the danger in the Government deciding what is and is not misinformation. The bias will always be in favour of the government’s ‘truth’.
I asked every witness a fundamental question on the last day of the hearing: who is the arbiter of truth? No-one could say who is specified as the arbiter of truth in the bill. They all said that it would default to ACMA. Other provisions in my additional comments included: religious freedom, inauthentic behaviour and media literacy. But the fundamental thing is this was an attempt by the Labor Party to build on the Liberal Party’s previous attempts at censorship by corralling misinformation under their definition, and then driving the social media organisations, the big tech companies, to ram it down people’s throats. That was what you were doing. I’m pleased to see that the people of Australia have put the brake on you. Now I appeal to the people of Australia to keep a foot on their throat because we must stop the banning of under-16-year-old people from social media.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator O’Sullivan): Senator McKenzie, you have 10 seconds.
The eSafety Commissioner has the power to issue takedown notices on various types of material, with exploitation material being the most common. One Nation supports these powers being used for this purpose. A small portion of their work involves removing material that is deemed “violent or distressing.” This was the power used in the case of the Bishop Mari Mari Emmanuel video. One Nation is concerned that these powers could be misused, as they are subject to political interpretation regarding what is and is not “violent or distressing.”
I asked the eSafety Commissioner if her department had a transparency portal where Senators and the public could see the material being taken down. The Commissioner responded by including exploitation material in her count, to show why such a portal was not feasible, yet I did not ask about exploitation material; my question specifically concerned material categorised as “violent or distressing.”
It is my belief that social media platforms primarily use AI to remove most of this material and that the department has only had to issue a small number of notices. I want to know what those notices were issued for and I will continue this inquiry during the next estimates session.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending. My first question is about your newsroom statement from 4 October about the social media platform X and a transparency notice on the measures it’s taking to combat child sexual exploitation material. Is this the only transparency notice that has not been complied with?
Ms Inman Grant: Thus far, yes. Where we issued an infringement notice, we issued something called a service provider notification to Google for the same set of child sexual abuse material.
Senator ROBERTS: The only other platform is Google, and that hasn’t been issued with a transparency notice. Are there any others like Telegram or Facebook? Telegram does a lot of work in that area.
Ms Inman Grant: We are in the midst of a process around a series of very complex transparency notices in relation to terrorist and violent extremist material. Telegram is amongst them, and we’re engaging with them.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This thread asks about a subset of your work—material that is violent or distressing. Do you have a transparency portal where your instructions to social media platforms to take down such material are registered in as close to real time as possible so we can see what you’re censoring?
Ms Inman Grant: We weren’t set up as a censor, Senator. We have frameworks provided through complaint schemes. Members of the public report content to us, particularly when the social media platform or messaging platform hasn’t responded. With respect to illegal and harmful online content, we also have very well legally defined requirements. We have both notice powers under the Criminal Code and then removal notices under the Online Safety Act and formal removal notices, which we exercised against both X and Meta during the Wakeley terrorist incident.
Mr Dagg: Can I just explain how we achieve the objective of transparency in terms of our actions. You may know that the Online Safety Act requires us to publish, under section 183, actions that we’ve taken in relation to a variety of harms. Our annual report has been published. You can find all of the information—
Senator ROBERTS: Your report has been published?
Mr Dagg: The annual report has been published, and we are required to report all of that information in the annual report. You can find that from page 223 in the appendices that relate to the eSafety Commissioner. That will show you all of the actions that we took for the financial year 2023-24.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you give us a bit of background on each one?
Mr Dagg: No—these are aggregated figures, so there’s no specific breakdown of each individual matter.
Senator ROBERTS: So there’s no breakdown and no opportunity for people to see how you’re doing it?
Mr Dagg: It would not be operationally feasible for us to report in real time the actions that we’re taking. Parliament expected us to report on an aggregated basis about the actions that we’ve taken, including requests, but we haven’t broken them down—
Senator ROBERTS: It’s just the aggregate numbers—
Mr Dagg: The aggregate numbers for a range of operational purposes, including security and operational feasibility.
Senator ROBERTS: So the platforms have to be transparent, and you don’t?
Mr Dagg: Well, the platforms report on things in an aggregated way, too, Senator. They’re not reporting on each individual specific matter that they deal with. They deal with millions of matters on a yearly basis. So, again, that just wouldn’t be feasible for them to do.
Senator ROBERTS: But the platforms have to be transparent to you.
Mr Dagg: Through the exercise of our compulsory transparency powers under the basic online safety expectations. But it’s important to note, Senator, that those transparency powers are around how the platforms are meeting the expectations. We’re not extracting from them specific information about how they’re dealing with this matter or that matter that might be reported to them. We’re interested in understanding how they take user reports, for example—if they’ve got reporting schemes in place, how their terms, services and policies are developed to meet the objects of the basic online safety expectations. The most recent determination includes some measures in relation to generative AI and how the companies are ensuring that these technologies aren’t being used, for example, to produce child sexual abuse material on a synthetic basis. That’s the kind of information that we’re drawing from the companies. We’re not drawing information about how they’re dealing with individual complaints.
Senator ROBERTS: The police force has long had transparency to the public through the court system. Whether you agree that the court system is perfect or not, that’s not the point. Who do you go through to provide transparency? How can we assess what you’re doing, rather than just in the aggregate?
Mr Dagg: When it comes to the principles of open justice, as a former police officer myself, the matters that make their way to court represent a tiny fraction of all matters that are reported to police. The matters that are reported to police are not reported on an individual basis. There are strict privacy concerns, for example, that ensure the protection of complainants’ identities and the specific matters that are reported to police forces. The Wakeley matter—the section 109 notice that we issued to Twitter X—is a good example of how that principle of transparency plays out in the Federal Court. The online file, for example, includes all of the evidence that the eSafety Commissioner relied on to make the case that the interlocutory measures ought to be accepted by the court.
Senator ROBERTS: The Senate is the house of review. What facility exists for the Senate to review your take-down notices of material? Where’s the supervision of your activity? Who oversees you?
Ms Inman Grant: There are a few different ways. One is through FOI, which you’ve exercised yourself, Senator. We’ve had a 2,288 per cent increase in FOIs over the past year. We are held accountable. We have reporting requirements that include any informal actions we take. Of course, we can be challenged in the Federal Court. We can be challenged at the AAT, or now the ART. We can be challenged by the Ombudsman, and a complainant can ask for an internal review to be done. So there are a number of different ways that we can provide transparency when it is asked for or required. But, as Mr Dagg said, with 41,000 reports this year—and I think Mr Downey, who is now running the investigations branch, is expecting at least 60,000 reports next year—it would operationally be infeasible, and it would violate the privacy of the complainants. As I said before, that confidentiality is important. Even young people understand that one of the reasons children don’t report cyberbullying is they don’t want to be the dobber or the snitch, and they fear retribution. If we were to not treat some of these complaints as personal information—and the Information Commissioner agrees with us—I think it would undermine trust in us as an organisation.
Senator ROBERTS: I get that. Did you say that there was a 2,000 per cent increase in FOIs?
Ms Inman Grant: Yes, 2,288 per cent.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s a huge increase. It tells me that people are hungry to learn more.
Ms Inman Grant: Yes, and there have been some campaigns that have also encouraged people to put in FOIs, which we respond to.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve used the defence of having so many infringements to take care of. That’s a big workload. What I’m interested in is not so much that but how you’re being held accountable. How can we see transparently what you’re doing?
Senator McAllister: Here we all are, Senator. What is the question that you seek to ask?
CHAIR: We call it estimates.
Senator McAllister: We are at estimates. The commissioner is here to answer your questions. If there are particular things that you’re interested in, you really should ask her.
Senator ROBERTS: What about the public? They need to know.
Senator McAllister: You are their representative, as you so often remind us.
CHAIR: You can send them the video of this.
Senator McAllister: You are a humble servant of the people of Queensland.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to go to freedom of information 24118, which asked for any guidelines you have with regard to the implied right to political communication to make sure you aren’t infringing on it as you issue take-down notices. I note that your freedom of information decision says: ‘There are no dedicated guides or policies with respect to the interaction of the implied right of political communication in use by the eSafety Commissioner or personnel who implement the various schemes under the OSA.’ There are no dedicated guides or policies?
Mr Dagg: We would need to assess each and every action we take through the lens of whether or not the implied constitutional right to political communication is infringed. That’s just operationally infeasible.
Senator ROBERTS: So are you saying, ‘To hell with the Constitution’?
Mr Dagg: No, not at all. The concern that a particular person’s interests may have been infringed in such a way as to raise a claim that the operation of the Online Safety Act is invalid is absolutely a matter that can be pursued through merits review or judicial review. But, to the commissioner’s point, we are going to be dealing with 60,000 complained URLs this year, which produces a significant percentage of actions we take. I’m sure you can understand that rigorously assessing whether or not they raise any specific issues in relation to the implied constitutional right makes it very difficult for us to make rapid decisions in line with the threshold set by the act. I think it’s important to note that the act contains very clear thresholds and very clear parameters for us to apply in terms of operational decision-making. The act itself, as you would have seen, is supported by a bill which was subject to exhaustive human rights review in its construction. We believe that, by properly administering the act on behalf of the commissioner, we’re taking actions which are in line with parliament’s expectations. If a person believes that their constitutional right—the implied right—has been infringed, there are avenues for review of that decision.
Senator ROBERTS: I can’t see how bypassing the Constitution or not including it as a consideration is in any way okay. The eSafety Commissioner and the delegates ordinarily—this is the quote: ‘The eSafety Commissioner and the delegates ordinarily proceed on the basis that the powers given to them under the OSA by the Australian Parliament are reasonably appropriate and adapted’. So you don’t turn your mind to whether you’re acting constitutionally at all; you just assume you are. How can this Senate be convinced that you are able to act within the Constitution when you don’t even have a document outlining the fundamental right of Australians to communicate in political matters? If you infringe on someone’s constitutional rights, then they complain? That’s it?
Senator McAllister: As you know, the constitutionality of any piece of legislation that comes before the parliament—
Senator ROBERTS: Not the legislation—
Senator McAllister: is quite frequently a matter of some discussion. Unless you seek to challenge it, we can assume that the legislative framework within which the commissioner and her staff operates is constitutional.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s a misrepresentation of what I said, Minister. I’m not saying that the act is unconstitutional; I’m saying that the consideration to take someone down needs to maintain constitutional rights—particularly political.
Senator McAllister: I think the two things are interconnected, Senator, because the powers that are exercised by the commissioner and the staff that work with her are enabled by the parliament and by the legislation.
Senator ROBERTS: I get that.
Senator McAllister: As I have indicated to you already, that is quite often subject to a discussion among senators about constitutional arrangements.
Senator ROBERTS: That still doesn’t answer the question—the right to political communication.
The government is trying to rush through the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill at all costs. It seems they’ve seen this week what happens to their side of politics when voters are presented with the facts and are allowed to make their own decisions.
Despite the government’s claims, it’s not out of the ordinary to talk about Bills at Senate Estimates. I’ll be at the hearing on Monday with my questions.
(And Heston Russell hasn’t received an apology from the ABC for their misinformation).
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: ACMA is appearing in the committee hearing on Monday?
Ms O’Loughlin: With my colleagues on Monday, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: We’ll do it then. That’s fine. I want to look at a particular case study. It is the case of special forces veteran Heston Russell. The ABC said it was inadvertent and that it wasn’t a calculated, deliberate manipulation. They deny manipulating a video to make it look like multiple gunshots were fired at a person. Heston Russell was a victim of disinformation from the ABC. Under the proposed misinformation and disinformation laws, the ABC would be exempt from punishment by spreading disinformation. Correct?
Ms O’Loughlin: I don’t think I can form a view on that, Senator.
Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, I think this goes to the point Senator Grogan was making. You are really asking how the bill will operate in practice. This is a question that has been referred to this committee. You have scheduled hearings to deal with it on Monday.
Senator ROBERTS: I think that is drawing a long bow, Minister, but I’m happy to leave it until Monday.
Senator McAllister: It is an unusual Senate rule, but it is a very longstanding one, Senator. It has been like this the whole time we’ve been here together.
Senator ROBERTS: I accept that. As I’ve said, I will comply with it for the other questions. I didn’t think that one was about—
Ms O’Loughlin: The only thing I would add to that is that obviously the ABC needs to comply with its own code of practice around things like factual accuracy.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. And we’ve seen how that goes. This is my final question. It is about the digital restack. I looked through your annual work program report and found this comment regarding the digital television channel restack. I quote:
Exploring possible parameters and solutions for channel planning relevant to possible new shared multiplex arrangements. This work will provide evidence to inform any future restack—
The restack was to be a closing up of digital TV channels. This sounds like you have something else in mind for the sixth channel, the gap between each station. What is the plan for the restack now?
Ms O’Loughlin: The Minister for Communications gave a speech a couple of weeks ago at our RadComms conference. They were talking about a program of work that needed to be done around the future of television. Her emphasis in that was that free-to-air television is incredibly important in Australia because it reaches 99 per cent of the population. It is free to air. How is that going to evolve over the next 10 years? Will it be terrestrially driven or will some of it go online? The minister was talking about a managed and staged process of thinking about the future of broadcasting, including the broadcasters, ourselves, the department and the audiences for those programs. It is looking at how that future state of broadcasting can be managed. A small part of that is what happens to the spectrum that may be freed up over that process. Part of our job is what that might be and when that might occur. The annual report says that requires channel planning. A whole lot of spectrum planning would have to be done to facilitate any movement of the broadcasters and the freeing up of that spectrum over time.
Senator ROBERTS: What does that mean in English, so that people can understand? What is the reality? You have said managed and staged, which indicates to me that it is more than just a premonition of an idea that something might happen. Something is happening.
Ms O’Loughlin: The minister’s announcement was about some things that have happened recently. For example, in Mildura, the Channel 10 services were turned off because the local providers who provided that service didn’t think it was financially feasible to continue it. It has an impact on consumers. WIN has made some changes to its arrangements in other parts of the country, where it is sharing its own infrastructure. That has an implication. That has actually not affected those audiences very well. I think what the minister is saying is that if there is going to be an end state where broadcasting wants to go, we need to think about all the steps that have to take place for that to get there effectively. That is what is alluded to. There is what is called a future broadcasting working group, which the minister has asked to be reinvigorated, to start thinking about these issues for the next 10 or 15 years, not the next two or three.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/LJdwtiCtx98/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-11-07 15:35:002024-12-20 11:45:39Government Ducks for Cover on Misinformation and Disinformation Bill
After saying they’ll oppose the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, Liberals and Nationals say they’ll just introduce their own version!
One Nation will not support any form of a Censorship Bill. The best defence of truth is open debate.
Transcript
Chris Smith: There are some good signs among cross-benchers, Malcolm, that Labor’s misinformation and disinformation bill will struggle. That’s a sign of good news.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s a very good sign of good news. We put a motion out, a matter of urgency last Monday of the sitting in the Senate and there were quite a few signals coming across to us that people wouldn’t support it. So that’s why we did that matter of urgency and forced a vote on it. But just remember, it’s not Labor’s misinformation-disinformation bill. The Morrison Liberal National’s with Morrison/Littleproud in charge introduced it into the parliament. Labor brought it back and he’s now putting it into the voting regime process. And now the Liberals are saying they will come up with their own before the next election. The Liberals just don’t get it. No one wants this bloody censorship bill.
And One Nation makes a promise, it will never introduce such a bill. The best, best defense of truth is to let debate happen. And then we’ve got the largest perpetrators of misinformation and disinformation is the government and this Albanese government takes the cake. It’s all about control and censorship and they haven’t got the guts to do it themselves. They’re trying to intimidate the search engines and platforms into doing it for them and putting them in a position where, as someone said recently, they’ll be fined if they if they don’t exercise enough control, enough censorship, but they will not be fined if they exercise excessive censorship. This is just about getting government control over the over the debate in this country and suppressing free speech. That’s all it is. And One Nation will never, ever introduce such a bill.
Chris Smith: I couldn’t agree more. As a matter of fact, if an opposition or a government wants to do anything about what we say freely, I think they should wind back the restrictions that exist right now, because the eSafety Czar is out of control.
Senator ROBERTS: I agree with you. And this this compounds the problem. As I said, the best defense of truth is to let open free debate continue. That’s the best way of finding out the truth. And you can never take responsibility for someone’s opinions. That’s their responsibility. They formed it. This will just make more victims in society and suppress free speech. It’s just a road to tyranny. That’s all it is.
