Foreign governments are acting against Australians right here on our soil—and that’s why One Nation support the Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025. This bill finally allows foreign states and their agents to be listed as terrorist organisations when they plan, assist, or advocate attacks against Australia. It’s about protecting Australians from intimidation, bullying, and terrorism.
The bill also creates new offences to stop anyone helping these entities, while allowing legitimate engagement where required. Yes, the reversal of the onus of proof is serious, and we’ll keep scrutinising it—but in this case, it’s justified to prevent deadly acts of terrorism. Australians of all backgrounds deserve protection.
One Nation backs this bill because every Australian deserves protection from terrorism and foreign coercion.
Transcript
One Nation has called out foreign governments and their agents who act against Australian citizens and even against our country right here in Australia. These include China, some Islamic nations and some members of the former Soviet Union. The Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025 would amend the Criminal Code to enable listing of certain foreign states or foreign state entities as terrorist organisations. Currently, this is not possible with the law, because foreign states or foreign state entities are not able to be listed as terrorist organisations. Two lawyers, including a barrister, and their staff have scrutinised this bill for One Nation, and our senators have considered and discussed the bill. The bill would authorise the Governor-General to list in a regulation foreign state entities as state sponsors of terrorism. That’s wonderful. The precondition to this occurring is that the minister for the Australian Federal Police, who is the home affairs minister, must believe on reasonable grounds that the foreign state or entity has engaged in, prepared or planned, assisted or fostered the doing of a terrorist act targeted against Australia or, in addition, if the entity has advocated doing a terrorist act that was targeted at Australia. The minister can only act with the agreement of the foreign affairs minister.
Secondly, the bill creates new offences which would criminalise conduct in which these entities engage and criminalise the conduct of persons who would seek to assist or support these activities. Additionally, it provides for appropriate defences for people who the law requires, for example, to engage with a listed entity or engage with an entity for a legitimate purpose. One aspect that has raised some concerns, though, is the reversal of the onus of proof that will apply when some defendants raise certain defences, where the defendant must establish the defence on the balance of probabilities. For example, a defendant may have the onus of establishing that they took all reasonable steps to disassociate themselves from a particular terrorist entity. The reversal of the onus of proof is a major event in legislation and should not be done lightly. Nonetheless, it appears justified here because of the nature of the offending behaviour.
We in One Nation have noticed this increasing trend in Labor-sponsored legislation over the last few years, and that sounds alarm bells to those who are responsible for scrutinising good policy. We’re very concerned about this trend. At times, this is a precursor to control and may reflect today’s Labor’s propensity to control. This reversal of the onus of proof must be carefully scrutinised on each occasion on which it’s raised. On this occasion, the government has justified this approach because of the preventive nature of measures that are being enabled to protect the Australian community from targeted acts of terrorism and the high risks of death or injury associated with such acts of terrorism. This bill’s additional protections are reasonable in the overall circumstances, given that radicalised Islamic extremists perpetrate relatively frequent terror attacks and Chinese Communist Party agents intimidate and bully law-abiding Australian citizens of Chinese dissent here in Australia. One Nation believes that Australian citizens of all backgrounds must be protected. We support this bill.
At Senate Estimates, I raised my ongoing concerns with the Department regarding Mr Robert Pether, an Australian engineer who was unfairly jailed in Iraq and is now being held under a travel ban that prevents him from returning home to Australia. His situation is dire — he is severely unwell, homeless, unable to work, and has very limited resources.
I asked what assistance the Australian Government is providing and was told he is receiving consular support. I was also informed that the Government is actively engaged with Iraqi authorities, and that his plight has been raised by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and the Australian Ambassador — most recently in September this year.
Let’s hope the Iraqi authorities are listening.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
CHAIR: Welcome back. It’s good to see you, Minister Farrell. I know you’re just here briefly. The call is with Senator ROBERTS till two o’clock.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. I’ve got four topics I’d like to discuss. I’ll go through them one at a time, of course. The first topic is Mr Robert Pether, who was jailed in 2021 on fraud charges in Iraq, which the UN described as an arbitrary detention. I have two very short questions but a long preamble to set the scene and make sure I’m on the right track. Mr Pether is a mechanical engineer. He went to Iraq to rebuild its central bank headquarters in Baghdad. A contract dispute between the bank and his employer, CME Consulting, landed Mr Pether and his Egyptian colleague, Khalid Radwan, in prison after the bank accused the men of stealing money from the project. After being held without charge for almost six months and then subjected to a speedy trial, the two were each given five-year jail sentences and slapped with a joint fine of $17½ million. A 2022 UN report determined that the case contravened international law and that Mr Pether and Mr Radwan had been subjected to ‘abusive and coercive interrogations’. The International Chamber of Commerce’s Court of Arbitration ruled that Iraq’s central bank was at fault in the dispute with CME and ordered it to pay $13 million to the company. Mr Pether was finally released from jail late at night in June. He is fragile, in very poor health and not receiving proper medical treatment. He has limited means and has been homeless in a foreign country. I have two simple questions. Robert Pether is in poor health, is homeless and is being prevented from leaving the country. When will the Australian government bring him home?
Ms McGregor: Firstly, I want to acknowledge the immense toll that Mr Pether’s detention and travel ban have had on him and his family. We are working tirelessly to secure the lifting of that travel ban that is on him. We very much welcome the release of Mr Pether on bail earlier this year. We will continue to provide consular support to him and his family, including continuing that advocacy for him to be able to leave Iraq.
Senator ROBERTS: What specific action has the Australian government taken to have Mr Pether returned to Australia and his family, given that his health is now severely compromised?
Ms McGregor: We remain engaged with Iraqi authorities, as I said, to advocate for Mr Pether to depart Iraq and be reunited with his family. We continue to provide consular assistance. Any ongoing legal matters in relation to that particular travel ban are, of course, a matter for Mr Pether, but I would say that we have consistently advocated for Mr Pether at all levels since his detention in Iraq in 2021. More than 240 representations have been made by Australia, including by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Most recently, on September, the foreign affairs minister raised his case with her Iraqi counterpart in the margins of the UN General Assembly. The Australian ambassador in Iraq has also raised Mr Pether’s case with the appropriate officials in Iraq, including the Prime Minister and the President.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. It’s a disturbing case. What about his health and his welfare?
Ms McGregor: We continue to provide support for his health and his welfare. I don’t want to go into details of that, out of respect for his privacy, but we are continuing to engage with him regularly to receive updates on his situation
https://img.youtube.com/vi/N3z3fH3tyD8/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-10-20 12:32:032025-10-20 12:32:11Robert Pether’s Fight to Come Home
Last week, I once again raised the issue of Australian children being abducted by a parent and held in Japan, contrary to international law. I was informed that the Department is currently providing support to 17 parents of 24 abducted children.
Since 2004, there have been 90 cases of children abducted to Japan. I was advised that Japanese legislation is planned for 2026, which may allow for joint custody — but only if both parents agree.
Senator Penny Wong could not answer why an Australian parent would be required to pay child support to the abducting parent in Japan. She did say, however, that she had raised the issue of the abducted children with the Japanese government again on September 25 this year.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I now move to the fact that many Australian children are currently being held by a parent in Japan—not one parent, but several cases, by one of the parents—contrary to Australian and international law, without a remedy for the Australian parent to have their child returned. These are truly stolen children. I’ve brought this up before in Senate estimates. My first question is: how many of these abducted children are in Japan, as reported to the department? Previously it was 89. Some children returned—I think it was 18—and are no longer listed as abducted children. How many are now in Japan, abducted?
Ms McGregor: Thank you for your question, Senator. I can confirm that DFAT currently provides consular assistance to 17 parents—and that’s in respect of 24 children—on parental abduction and child custody issues in Japan. Since 2004, we have provided assistance to the parents of 90 children in similar cases. Those are the numbers.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s a big improvement. What progress has been made to return these children since the last time I raised this in Senate estimates? Numbers, and also action you’ve taken.
Ms McGregor: There has been some progress recently with the passage of Japan’s legislative reforms, through their legislature, that will allow joint custody from the middle of 2026. We continue to engage with Japan to encourage them to implement that legislation in a way that will allow children to have relationships with both parents where it’s in the best interest of the child to do so. We will continue to advocate with Japan for those reforms. Minister Wong raised child custody with the foreign minister of Japan at a bilateral meeting in the margins of the 2+2 meeting in early September 2025. Minister Wong also raised the issue with then foreign minister Kamikawa in July 2024 in Tokyo, and before that in 2023 in September, and on multiple occasions with Foreign Minister Hayashi as well. We continue to make those representations. There has been other assistance. The Hon. Justice Victoria Bennett of the Federal Circuit and Family Court visited Japan in April last year to share experiences of family law reform with parliamentarians, and her visit helped strengthen Australia’s advocacy. We also supported a six-month visit to Australia by a Japanese Ministry of Justice judicial official to learn about Australia’s family law system. That was from October 2024 to March 2025. Other than that our ambassador to Japan and other officials consistently raise this matter with Japanese ministers and authorities, and we coordinate advocacy with like-minded countries.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Minister, my next question is to you. Thank you for your advocacy on this matter. It’s been successful so far. The upcoming laws in Japan in 2026, though, do not solve the problem because visitation rights with the non-custodial parent are not addressed and joint custody is only made possible if both parents agree. What’s your view on that, and what prospects have we got for resolving it?
Senator Wong: We have advocated to Japan in the way that officials have outlined. We have encouraged Japan to implement this legislation in a way that allows children to have relationships with both parents where it is in the best interests of the child and it is safe to do so. That has been the position that we, the officials and I, have articulated. Obviously, these are matters for domestic processes in Japan, but I have engaged, as Ms McGregor talked about, with a number of foreign ministers in relation to this. We have had engagement through a judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Justice Bennett, which Ms McGregor referred to. We’re trying to put our views and share some of our experiences, but ultimately these are matters that the Japanese system is determining. We are pleased that there has been progress. I understand it’s been very distressing for a number of parents.
Senator ROBERTS: I assume you’re still working on the visitation rights issue?
Ms McGregor: That is correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, this may not be possible for you to answer, but is it possible that a parent without access to their abducted child can be forced to pay Australian child support to the abducting parent while the child is being held in Japan? Senator Wong: I’m not in a position to answer that.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. If so—and I’m not trying to be cheeky; I’m trying to understand—by paying child support is the government not becoming complicit in supporting the process and the abduction? Now, I understand; I’ve had dealing with Japanese people. They’re very wonderful and respectful. I just wonder if that’s possibly the case.
Senator Wong: This is a question: if child support is required, what are the consequences of that?
Senator ROBERTS: Basically, yes, and does it encourage abduction?
Senator Wong: We don’t ever want children to be abducted. This portfolio doesn’t deal with child support, and I don’t know what the parameters are around the child support legislation—
Senator ROBERTS: That’s why I prefaced my question.
Senator Wong: so I can’t comment any further.
Senator ROBERTS: What is Japan, which is our supposed ally, saying to support its position of not assisting to resolve this matter with regard to returning abducted children? Do they understand our system? I know you’ve tried to educate them on our system.
Ms Adams: Perhaps I can offer some comment. I think the reality is that Japan has quite a different, you could say, family law approach overall than our country has. I think we—not just this department but other parts of our system—through our sustained advocacy have had some success in encouraging Japan to nudge their quite culturally specific, as they would see it, system towards one where access to both parents is more normal. But it’s fundamentally a different set—
Senator ROBERTS: A different culture.
Ms Adams: of legal and family-oriented decisions that they make.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve negotiated with the Japanese. They’re wonderful people, but it is difficult to get across to a different culture at times. Is the Australian government minister prepared to bring this matter to the United Nations for resolution, in the same way that Australia achieved success globally in halting whaling by raising it at an international level?
Senator Wong: I don’t think you were in the room, but I responded to Senator McKim by making the point that grandstanding is not necessarily being effective. In fact, it usually is not effective. We have worked in the way that we have, bilaterally and respectfully, recognising that this is a matter for their domestic political processes in Japan, but we have sought to put our view, to express the sensitivity of this issue, the distress of a range of non-custodial parents whom we are aware of and deal with and what effect this has, and respectfully to encourage progress on this matter. I appreciate that there are people who will want more to have been done, but I think we have seen progress and we have seen the willingness of our counterparts to engage on this issue. I think that is a more effective way. The approach we have been taking has been, I think, a more effective way to progress this issue.
Senator ROBERTS: Out of respect, I would agree with you, because that is the way the Japanese do it, and I think you would be more effective that way anyway.
Senator Wong: Thank you.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. I will have more questions, if I can come back
https://img.youtube.com/vi/yIPRa2rl8qw/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-10-20 12:24:192025-10-20 12:24:28Children Held in Japan Against International Law
I took the opportunity to set the record straight and clarify what Senator Penny Wong did to avoid answering a question I put to her on government misinformation. Having done so, I spoke in full support Senator Wong’s motion on Hamas attacks on Israel and ongoing conflict in her speech on the yesterday. Her speech was balanced, reasoned and befitting of an Australian Foreign Minister.
It’s true that the actions of radicals have caused untold death and suffering on both sides of the conflict. The Minister said what needs to be said and I refer everyone to her speech. The content, clarity and quality of her speech means I only have one point to add. There’s a chance this conflict could escalate to a catastrophic war and the need to avoid that happening must be paramount in the minds of all involved.
We have seen many such conflicts over the years and there’s one truth from them all: the sooner a ceasefire is declared, hostages are released and both sides sit down and talk to each other, the faster the suffering can be brought to an end.
May peace be with us all soon.
Transcript
As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I speak to the motion that Senator Wong moved yesterday on Hamas attacks on Israel and the ongoing conflict. Firstly, though, I briefly mention the minister’s answer to my first supplementary question in question time yesterday. I asked about remarks the minister had made to the media in a press conference where the minister restated and amplified remarks that were made earlier in the day to the children of Cheng Lei, an Australian and Chinese citizen who is back in Australia following a period of incarceration in China, having concluded her sentence in prison. I am, of course, very pleased to see Cheng Lei free and reunited with her family, yet the minister chose to spin my question in a way that contradicted the events of the press conference, apparently to avoid actually answering my question. The minister’s comments were widely reported after her press conference. Responding to me yesterday, as the minister did, by invoking a motion was an inappropriate and false reflection.
Turning to this motion on Hamas, I fully support Senator Wong’s motion and her speech on the matter yesterday. Her speech was balanced, reasoned and befitting of an Australian foreign minister. It’s true that the actions of radicals have caused untold death and suffering on both sides of the conflict. The minister said what needs to be said, and I refer everyone to her speech. The content, clarity and quality of her speech means I only have one point to add. There’s a chance this conflict could escalate to a catastrophic war, and the need to avoid that happening must be paramount in the minds of all involved. We have seen many such conflicts over the years, and there’s one truth from them all: the sooner a ceasefire is declared, hostages are released and both sides sit down and talk to each other, the faster the suffering can be brought to an end. May peace be with us all soon.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/WKaSHTtCMXg/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-10-23 20:19:162023-10-23 20:19:21The Need to Avoid Catastrophic War is Paramount
Lib/Labs refuse to investigate our relationship with China – AGAIN. I would like to congratulate Liberal Concetta Fierravanti-Wells who crossed the floor to support the motion.
Transcript
[President]
Senator Roberts.
[Roberts]
Thank you, Mr. Acting Deputy President. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I would like to say that One Nation is very supportive of the motion that Australia’s relations with the People’s Republic of China, be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and preparation of a report.
We wish to commend Senator Rex Patrick, for his seventh attempt to have this or a similar motion, sixth, I’m corrected, to have this motion progress. Mr. Acting Deputy President, Senator Patrick, I can only guess must feel like he’s on the set of Groundhog Day.
And on each of those occasions, Liberal and Labour Parties have joined to defeat all five of his previous attempts. I wonder because, if it’s because Liberal Andrew Robb, when he retired received an $880,000 salary after selling a lease to the Port of Darwin or after Sam Dastyari’s bills were paid by the Chinese or after Liberal Gladys Liu’s contradictions of fact about her associations with China that were never resolved or about Labor’s ICAC revelations in New South Wales.
We keep seeing Liberal and Labor come together to defeat even looking at this very vital, important relationship. It is imperative that Australia and China maintain a mutually respectful and beneficial bilateral relationship.
China is Australia’s largest two-way trading partner in exports and imports representing 24% of total trade with a value of $183 billion. That alone shows significant influence on Australia. Australia is China’s sixth largest trading partner and fifth biggest supplier of imports.
25% of Australia’s manufactured imports come from China. Thermal coal represents 13% of all Australian exports to China, and recently they tried to blackmail us about that. In more recent times, China has embarked on the One Belt One Road Initiative.
This is the Chinese government economic and strategic agenda where Eurasia, Africa and Oceania are more closely tied along two routes, one land, and one maritime. It is intended to facilitate Chinese economic and strategic domination of smaller countries along the routes, indeed Chinese control.
For Australia, we see the growing Chinese involvement in projects from Northern Australia, right through to Tassie, all providing little benefit to Australia, yet substantial benefits to China. We need to understand this relationship. We don’t just let them have an open door.
Other examples of Chinese involvement have been in the funding and support of local academic conferences and seminars. The negative aspects of the Confucius Institute are only just being realised as some universities remove them from their offerings.
Australia has been a destination of choice for many Chinese students to further their education in an Australian academic institution. It’s important to our economy. In 2018, there were more than 166,000 enrollments of Chinese students in Australia representing 43.3% of the total international student cohort heading for half.
A concern noted in some Australian universities is the potential dependence generated by full-fee paying international students on the overall money pool available to university budgets. Should those numbers suddenly diminish, it may leave some of our universities destitute and many university staff unpaid.
Since the COVID-19 pandemic, these concerns have come to fruition and Australian universities are bleeding financially. To make matters worse, the Chinese government has just warned Chinese students not to study or return to study in Australia suggesting they would face discriminatory attacks.
Australia has been a favourite destination for Chinese tourists and this is shown again by recent numbers. More than 1.3 million Chinese tourists visited Australia last year, representing 15% of our total visitors. One seventh, this is a clear positive for Australia.
At the same time, there has been a growing boom of Australian tourists around 700,000 heading for China. This may also change rapidly as the Chinese government has recently warned off Chinese tourists from visiting our country through recent directives to their people.
One of the ongoing issues of concern relates to regional and global security. The growing tensions between the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China in terms of imposition of trade tariffs is placing Australia in a challenging position, given the importance of Australia’s relationships with both countries.
More recently, the Chinese government has imposed an 80% tariff on Australian barley without explanation, and refused to accept meat from four of Australia’s major meat abattoirs, again, causing concern to Australian producers.
These actions by the Chinese government appear to be in retaliation for being called on by Australia to allow an independent investigation into the cause of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan China, what I’ve referred to as the Chinese Communist Party and the UN virus.
How dare we want an independent investigation? The Chinese still denying being the source of the outbreak of the worldwide pandemic remain uncooperative in dealing with this just as Liberal and Labour remain uncooperative in dealing with any, any inquisition or any inquiry into our relationship with China.
The Chinese actions and or inactions likely indeed certainly made the pandemic far worse than it could’ve been. And their behaviour in China is responsible for the loss of tens of thousands of lives. Indeed, hundreds of thousands of lives.
The views taken of China’s growing military influence in the South China Sea remain of concern to our most important ally, United States of America and therefore, necessarily of concern to our country as an established ally of the US.
Regionally, China is having a growing influence by funding infrastructure projects for some of the Pacific Island countries, and our and very near neighbour, Papua and New Guinea, just over the horizon from Australia. This runs the risk of changing the whole dynamic between Australia and our near neighbours.
Given the potential for military and strategic use of these bases by China and the potential for resource extraction at some future time, there is need to consider this factor when examining our relationship with China.
We already feel this is at home with the outrageous decision to lease the Port of Darwin a strategic Northern gateway to China for 99 years. This is the home of our local naval presence. What on earth was the government thinking?
I point to Dutton, Mr. Dutton, Mr. Hastie, Senator Kitching who have raised valid concerns, both Liberal and Labor MPs and senators just as Senator Patrick mentioned.
Indeed it was reported, Mr. Dutton was reportedly stated as in 12th of October, 2019, one of the Morrison Government’s most senior figures has taken a direct swipe at Beijing accusing the Chinese Communist Party of behaving in ways that are inconsistent with Australian values.
The key points emerged, Mr. Dutton said that federal government would call out state actors if it was in the national interest. Well, let’s see an inquiry, Mr. Dutton said he wanted universities to be free from foreign interference. So let’s see an inquiry into that foreign interference that he acknowledges.
The Home Affairs minister, a very powerful minister, senior minister also criticised China’s Belt and Road Initiative and defended the ban on using Huawei to help build Australia’s 5G network. So it goes on to say in a newspaper article, “Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton warned Australia “would call out” quote “foreign and interference “in universities, as well as cyber hacks “and theft of intellectual property, “insisting it was the right thing to do.
“It represents,” the newspaper said, “some of the strongest language “yet from a federal government minister “on threat posed to China.” But we need more than language, we need more than inferences, we need an inquiry into the relationship.
The Chinese Communist Party behaves in ways that are inconsistent with Australian values and Western civilization. Recently in Queensland, my home state, a university student was suspended for daring to make pro-democracy statements about the suppression of students and demonstrators in Hong Kong by the Chinese government.
The University of Queensland appears now to be an agent of the Chinese government, which seems to have bought out an Australian university and is enabled by the university to oppress an Australian student for standing up for democracy.
And when I get to the point of quoting Clive Hamilton, then we know things are serious because Clive Hamilton to his credit has written a book calling out the issues that we have with China, raising serious threats and concerns to our country and our country’s security.
My issue, I must make clear is not with the marvellous Chinese people, including the amazing Chinese community we have here in Australia. We have the Chinese influence from North Queensland through the gold rushes in the 19th century, right through to the Southern parts and Western parts of our country.
And they made a marvellous contribution. My issue is with the Chinese Communist Party. The Communist Party of China and the policies that are inconsistent with our own values. And they have undue influence in Australian politics, values communities, and way of life.
Human rights is an area where China and Australia have vastly different views. Australia is the democracy and a signatory to many international agreements that preserve basic human rights. China is a Republic following a communist regime that is very rigid.
It is a controlling machine with little room to question the state and having limited rights for the individual. Watch the demonstrations for freedom happening in Hong Kong to see how that goes down? Many Australians remember the appalling and tragic events at Tiananmen Square where many people’s lives were sacrificed in the name of democracy.
A prime minister cried over that. And understandably so yet we can’t even have an inquiry into that relationship with China. Tiananmen Square was not merely an incident as recently reported in the media. It was one of the earliest signs in the West of this serial breaching of human rights and suppression of their own people in China.
The detention of those whose views differ from the regimes is a continuing disgrace and worthy of further review. The government and Labor have sold out Australia’s inheritance. No wonder they don’t want us to have a review of this catastrophic relationship, potentially catastrophic relationship.
Will the Liberal Party and the Labor Party will a Lib-Lab duopoly look beyond their Chinese donations to their parties and do the right thing by our country? These actions by China would appear to threaten the relationship of mutual respect between the two countries and are worthy of inquiry.
Actions of Lib-Lab MPs in governments handing control of essential services like electricity for goodness sake, our ports, our food producers to the Chinese Communist Party is insane. Why are we doing it? And why aren’t we bothering to look into it?
These deals threaten our honesty, fairness, and humanity, and our national security. One Nation supports the call for such an inquiry into a nation exerting powerful influences over our nation with potentially far more powerful influences on our nation’s future and on our people’s security. Thank you, Mr. Acting Deputy President.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/China.png?fit=550%2C306&ssl=1306550Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2020-06-11 11:58:002020-07-09 12:24:23Lib/Lab refuse to investigate relationship with China