This bill is a licence to arrest dissidents, halt debate, and silence political opposition.
On December 14, 2025 – an Islamic terror attack occurred in Australia.
Two individuals associated with the foreign ISIS group, one of whom ASIO was supposedly ‘watching’, went to an Australian beach and started murdering innocent people.
On Australian soil. A massacre of innocent people.
These individuals and their anti-human murderous intent are presumed to be products of an Islamic theocratic ideology which is part of a network of militant Islamic groups that engage in a combination of regional conflicts, power struggles, and the global act of intifada in which they seek to spread Islam ‘by the Sword’ and subjugate the peoples and religions of the world.
Islamic terror is not a response to the behaviour of the Australian people. Indeed, it has been forming caliphates for over 1,400 years. To make any insinuation that Australians and their speech are somehow to blame is an insult to rational thought.
These statements about Islam and its history of creating violent militancy are factual statements that will no doubt become criminal hate speech if the Prime Minister and his government are allowed to shamelessly exploit the Bondi Islamic terror attack.
As we speak, the Prime Minister and his ministers are busy creating a political firestorm to fabricate the feeling of existential terror – the purpose is to rush people.
To panic people.
To pass the single, most dangerous piece of legislation this nation has ever seen.
An Islamic terror attack took place, and yet this omnibus bill doesn’t have the guts to name the ideological perpetrator. Look at it. Where is the call to identify radical Islam?
Where does it cite the ideology that is the chief cause of fear among Australians?
Australians are smarter than that. Go online – before social media is banned – and listen to what people are saying. They spotted the oversight immediately.
The title of this bill is a real-time rewriting of the narrative. The Prime Minister has repackaged Islamic terror as some sort of vague antisemitism and the impossible-to-define ‘hate speech’.
This matters because Islamic terror is not a reaction to criticism of Islam, criticism of mass migration, support of Australia’s Western heritage, our Christian foundation, our demands for women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, or other Western-centric thought.
Nor do French satirical cartoons or Salman Rushdie’s literary works cause Islamic terror.
Islamic terror exists to oppress, to kill, and to convert.
Enacting ruthless, politically motivated censorship against the Australian people – and specifically conservative Australians – will not stop a single Islamic terror attack.
Let me repeat – this bill will not stop a single Islamic terror attack.
Islamic terror’s hatred – its antisemitism – its desire to ‘behead the infidels’ – which was shouted on the streets of Sydney ten years ago and with no response from authorities, politicians, or this Parliament – stems from its radicalised religious belief that is an ideology for structuring society.
An inhuman, uncivilised society.
Shutting up Australians and interfering with what should be the sacred, unassailable right to free speech and political communication – is not an act of protection. It is an act of aggression.
The Australian people asked you, Prime Minister, to stop Islamic terror. To deport the Islamic hate preachers. To find out why people on an ASIO watchlist had access to firearms. To find out why people on an ASIO watchlist were able to travel to known Islamic terror training areas.
They want to know why your government has not proscribed various known Islamic hate groups despite our allies doing so. They want to know why your government brought back female members of the Islamic State terror group despite the community telling you no.
And why your minister lied to cover up the ISIS brides’ return as it was being planned – and while it was underway.
They want to know why people holding Jewish and Australians flags are routinely arrested while those carrying Hamas, Hezbollah, and ISIS flags are not.
They want to know why current and former members of government marched beneath a portrait of the Ayatollah whose Iranian regime serves as the heart of Islamic terror – exporting it to the world including Australia.
And cruelly treats its own citizens.
Why are you, Prime Minister, presenting to us this omnibus bill which fails – catastrophically – to confine itself to the religious ideology that is murdering Australians, attacking the Jewish community, and spreading hate and violence in our country?
You and your government were given a very specific and narrow request from the people of Australia: get the Islamic terrorists out of this country or put them in jail.
What you have done instead is sloppily and dangerously draft an astonishingly extensive omnibus bill – which must be the work of months, not weeks – to make it nearly impossible for the average Australian to voice their God-given dissent, concern, and disgust at various policies and cultural changes to our country.
It is the codification of blasphemy known under the new name, ‘Islamophobia’.
As the late, great, left-wing figure Christopher Hitchens said: ‘Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons. Resist it, while you still can.’
I look around and think how far the left have fallen.
This bill is, without question, without any doubt, an abuse of Parliament’s power.
It’s a licence to arrest dissidents, halt debate, and silence political opposition the likes of which we have not seen in a hundred years.
The Prime Minister hopes that obstructing the Parliamentary process with grief and fear will be his means for creating a moral panic and that my fellow Senators will act rashly.
This bill extends the victims of the Bondi Islamic terror attack to all the people of our nation.
If this bill is passed, those who voted in favour will be betraying everything our ancestors built, everything they believed in, and slamming the door to democracy.
We make a tragedy worse – we multiply the fear – when government puts into law a document expressly PROTECTING the agents of Islamic terror and jails the Australians who try to warn against it.
This bill is the opposite of what the Australian people asked members of Parliament to do.
I believe my role is as a servant to the people of Australia. I was elected to the Senate to help shape the law and to serve Australians and to serve Australia – not to expand the reach of government into the realms of petty censorship.
After all, was it not the Senate that censured my Party Leader, Pauline Hanson, for wearing a burqa to warn that we were sleep-walking into radical Islamic terror? Two weeks later, her warnings were made real and yet she is denied a place to vote on the very issue for which she was silenced.
This bill must be voted down – in its entirety – and re-written to serve the true purpose for which it was intended: to stop Islamic terror.
It should be renamed the Combatting Islamic Terror and Hate Preachers Bill – or nothing.
As many have pointed out, our existing laws were sufficient to stop the previous terror attacks, to deport hate preachers, to disband terror networks, and arrest those who march in support of terror groups.
And yet we do NOT use those laws.
Why? Are police afraid to arrest Islamic terrorists? Are courts afraid to convict? Is the Labor government afraid of the next election?
We are not at the limit of the law – so why are we sitting here drafting new ones?
If the old ones are not used to combat Islamic terror – what makes anyone think the news ones will be?
It is far more likely – and I put this to the Australian people – that by Australia Day, it will still be acceptable to state and federal governments for demonstrators to break the law and walk under the Hamas-aligned pro-Palestine banner shouting the genocidal ‘from the river to the sea’ – while it will be illegal, or at least dangerous, to fly the Australian flag and call for an end to mass migration.
Come on. Let’s face truth and put Australians’ safety first.
Enacting ruthless, politically motivated censorship against the Australian people – and specifically conservative Australians – will not stop a single Islamic terror attack.
Say its name, Albanese: Islamic terror by Senator Malcolm Roberts
This bill is a licence to arrest dissidents, halt debate, and silence political opposition
Why Pauline Hanson was censured and our Bill – silenced.
They called it ‘a stunt’.
They being the hypocritical globalists in the Senate, the media mouthpieces waiting at the doors, and the predatory activists desperate for something to be outraged about.
The stunt being Senator Pauline Hanson’s decision to wear a burqa in the Chamber, which has brought the suffocation of our democracy to the public’s attention.
Since being delivered a majority – despite the lowest primary vote in history – Labor has made little effort to maintain Parliament’s veneer of debate.
Their deals with the Greens have allowed Bills to be rushed into law. Dissent is silenced by shuffling One Nation speakers to the bottom of the list and then cutting the speeches right before One Nation were about to speak – as happened to us on the controversial Environmental Protection and Reform Bill. Inquisitions are being staged where ‘concern for truth and safety’ are brandished as a way to enforce censorship.
Rapidly, Parliament has devolved into a protection racket for the worst policy imaginable.
When democracy is denied, ‘stunts’ become the best way to signal the alarm.
Big state politics thrives on bureaucracy. Its defenders pretend their air of ‘superiority’ and ‘maturity’ equals sensible policy when – really – they are performing the same role as a million pages of bureaucratic bullshit holding down the truth.
Boredom, bureaucracy, and silence. That is how democracy dies.
Politics was never meant to perform with the mannerisms of a hospital coffee shop or library foyer.
The Senate was not envisioned as a stuffy room.
When we consider political speeches that changed the world, they were not monologues in praise of moderation. They were brave. Indeed, the moment that won Donald Trump the election was when he rose from the stage, fist raised, shouting, ‘Fight! Fight! Fight!’
‘In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.’ – George Orwell
‘Truth’ is exactly what Pauline Hanson was seeking.
When a Muslim woman is forced – either by her family, society, or self-imposed culture – to cover herself in a piece of black a cloth banned in over 20 countries, she is invisible.
When a Western woman with red hair and a knee-length dress does the same, the oppression is instantly visible. It is uncomfortable. We see ourselves – the West – treading the edge of religious oppression.
Wearing the burqa in the Senate was an act of truth-telling.
‘Truth’ that lends weight to the lie that Islam is a purely neutral force in the West.
Like most religions, it has extreme edges. This intense variation of Islam is the largest perpetrator of global terror. It runs slave trades in its conquered provinces where Yazidi women are kept as prisoners. It subverts the political systems of its host country, running parallel Sharia court systems and strong – unwritten – cultural laws that run contrary to the accepted customs of the local population. It marries little girls to old men overseas (who they are often related to). It compels relatives to murder young women who fall in love with the wrong man under the false banner of ‘honour’. And it denies the hard-earned rights of women in the West to autonomy by enforcing a type of garment used to subjugate women.
This is what Australians thought about when black robes concealed one of the most recognisable faces in Australian politics.
The Senate refused the debate and threw Pauline Hanson out with screams of ‘racism’ because no one standing opposite could begin a debate – let alone win one.
Forgotten by the press is that this bill was also about security.
It was about banning a range of face coverings – not just the burqa. It included Antifa rioters concealing their identity, balaclavas which have become a symbol of fear on the streets of Melbourne, and those who hide their face while burning the Australian flag. If the debate had been allowed, the public would have seen that this bill was bigger than burqa.
When Pauline Hanson made a similar point in 2017, politicians controlled the press.
They were perfectly capable of fabricating outrage by reprinting copies of the same header over every broadsheet. There was a consensus within the Establishment. A pact to protect ‘multiculturalism’ over the far more sensible policy of assimilation.
Social media existed, however it was owned wall-to-wall by Democrat-leaning Silicon Valley entities and sometimes part-owned by Saudi figures.
Today, things are different. Elon Musk’s purchase of X might not be perfect, but its alignment with free speech principles has allowed the people of Australia to have a say on the burqa.
To the media’s shock, they agree with Pauline Hanson.
They probably agreed with her the first time too.
Not only did Australians agree, they were furious at the behaviour of the Senate for first stifling debate and then throwing Senator Hanson out.
Even conservative members of the Liberal and National parties – no doubt believing their own press from 2017 – were caught off guard when voters criticised them for censuring Senator Hanson.
A note to the Liberals: you cannot praise Scott Morrison for his coal stunt and then condemn Senator Hanson. Nor is it advisable to follow up the next day with a stunt of your own, waving bits of paper behind Sussan Ley to mock Labor for their power prices.
As usual, it is one rule for the Lib-Lab uniparty and another for One Nation.
It is evident that ‘stunts’ themselves are not a problem – it was the topic of the burqa they feared.
Voters are smart. They know something is wrong.
We fought too hard for our culture and our values to weather this moral descent without complaint.
Young people are coming to One Nation because they see this cultural shift in the streets they walk every day. The Canberra Bubble never truly sees what’s happening to Australia except through the sanitised fantasy of outraged activists.
One Nation will not abandon the women of Australia, the people who fled here for safety, or those whose families built this nation from the ground up.
And we will not sit politely while the safety of Australians is put at risk.
Even if the Senate throws us out a thousand times, we will remain, because you elected us to serve you, not those in the Chamber.
Bigger than the burqa by Senator Malcolm Roberts
Why Pauline Hanson was censured and our bill – silenced.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/b69d5c74-8e91-4b3f-9e45-f7742d71a2bd_1494x1037.jpg?fit=1494%2C1037&ssl=110371494Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-12-03 18:10:072025-12-03 18:17:02Bigger than the Burqa
How ‘child safety’ and ‘mass migration’ is used as cover for control.
Last weekend, UK streets filled with thousands of people opposing Digital ID. The rally was prompted by their Labour Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, declaring that Digital ID would be made mandatory by 2029.
His excuse?
Digital ID stops illegal migrants from working.
It was a claim that no one, not even left-leaning TV broadcasters, believed. Keir Starmer was grilled for days on end and never managed to make a single coherent argument about why Digital ID would ‘solve’ any of the major problems facing the UK.
Digital ID has no ability to stop the zodiacs full of illegal migrants washing up on British beaches. Nor can it resurrect the manufacturing industry and give desperate working-class towns back their industries which have been gutted by Net Zero policy. It also won’t stop their Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, threatening to raise income taxes on the poorest of Brits.
…sounds like Australia.
What Digital ID might do is allow the government to control what people think, write, and say online.
Indeed, many joke that you’re more likely to be jailed in the UK for political speech than serious criminal activity. Currently, the UK is making more than 30 arrests per day for ‘offensive social media posts’ and over 12,000 across the year.
The bulk of these offences relate to politically-contested ideas that ‘offend’ people.
It is much the same in Australia where high-profile takedown notices show no attempt to apply an equal level of ‘safety’. The stabbing of a religious figure in Australia and the murder of a woman in the US were targeted for censorship by the eSafety Commissioner, although not thousands of violent images and video coming out of foreign accounts aimed at radicalising Australian users.
We believe it is undeniable that politics plays a role in digital censorship and that destroying privacy will only make people more afraid to speak their minds.
Just as ‘child safety’ was used to implement wide-spread social media censorship, many rightly fear that Digital ID will give the government excessive visibility and control over the actions of citizens.
Privacy was a valued asset in democracy because it was recognised as necessary to limit the power of government.
Suspicions are raised, for example, when official UK Labour press releases started calling Digital ID ‘a boarding pass to government’.
As the director of civil liberties group Big Brother Watch said:
‘[Digital ID] is fast becoming a digital permit required to live our everyday lives. Starmer has sold his Orwellian Digital ID scheme to the public on the lie that it will only be used to stop illegal working but now the truth, buried in the small print, is becoming clear. We now know that Digital IDs could be the backbone of a surveillance state and used for everything from tax and pensions to banking and education. The prospects of enrolling even children into this sprawling biometric system is sinister, unjustified, and prompts the chilling question of just what he thinks ID will be used for in the future.’
Today, politicians are exploiting public fears – Covid, terrorism, migration, crime, child safety – to coerce citizens into giving up essential privacy protections.
‘If you accept Digital ID now, it may be the last real choice you ever make.’ – UK protest sign
‘The systems involved are profoundly dangerous to the privacy and fundamental freedoms of the British people,’ said Sir David Davis.
Digital ID is the very definition of ‘mission creep’ where earlier calls to online safety and an upgrade to ailing government computer systems has been jumped on by data-hungry entities within the government.
The UK have used mass migration as their excuse – what of Australia? Our Labor-Liberal uniparty has decided to use children.
As we approach the December Under 16 social media ban, the widespread implementation of Digital ID is beginning to take effect.
Already, social media companies are taking steps to verify the identity and age of users – a necessary step if they are to avoid the crippling fines proposed by the Labor government.
Regardless of the specifics for each platform, the escalation of ID verification and near-total collapse of anonymity online has changed the relationship citizens have with the online world and – perhaps – the reach of the law.
Anonymity online has been used as a protection for political speech.
Australians have used their online accounts to add to the digital political conversation without fear that their employer might sack or demote them for something as simple as disagreeing with ‘pronouns’ or ‘Net Zero’.
This is necessary, given the rise of ‘Woke’ puritanical speech obsessions implemented by many employers.
The use of Digital ID and other forms of verification dramatically increases the risk for those Australians who wish to continue engaging politically.
We have seen how frequent data hacks have become and there is now a real possibility that people might be blackmailed for what they say.
Gmail confirmed that 7 million of its email accounts had been compromised. (People often use email to verify their identity for social media.) This was part of the enormous data link that involved 183 million accounts across Google and Apple. Earlier this month, Discord reported its proof-of-age ID data had been breached. These are the very same pieces of sensitive personal information that government wants all social media companies to collect.
Proof-of-age ID data is some of the most sensitive and can include driver’s licence or passport.
Forcing this data into the hands of more organisations is a public safety and privacy issue that has not been properly considered by the government as it rushed into so-called ‘child safety’ protections.
The only reason Discord was holding this proof-of-age data was, as they state, to satisfy UK and Australian age verification laws.
According to Proton, ‘Typically, Discord required a user’s selfie and then used software to scan the photo and estimate their age. Discord would then delete the photo at the end of the process. The system that was allegedly hacked was part of its appeals process.’
Essentially, when the photographs failed to correctly guess an age, users could back up their claim with government ID.
Everyone is talking about the Discord hack because it is a warning – a real-world ramification of rushed age verification laws that, without explicitly stating, require the widespread use of Digital ID.
Discord stresses it was only ‘a limited number of users’ except this reportedly equates to 70,000. That is a lot of people left vulnerable from information that never should have been surrendered.
It’s this under-handed spread of Digital ID via online safety rules that deeply concerns us.
Effectively, adults are being told that if they want to keep engaging online, they have to sign up to some form of Digital ID. We are social creatures. We have friendship groups online. Australian businesses rely on social media to operate and compete. Interfering in this space turns Digital ID from ‘optional’ into a heavily coerced requirement.
It’s like saying the Covid vaccines were ‘optional’.
Optional … but the government will ruin your life if you say no.
Digital ID spreads across the West by Senator Malcolm Roberts
How ‘child safety’ and ‘mass migration’ is used as cover for control
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Digital-ID.jpg?fit=2218%2C1190&ssl=111902218Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-10-30 07:32:202025-10-30 07:32:37Digital ID Spreads Across the West
The assassination of Turning Point CEO Charlie Kirk has shocked the Western world, and in particular, young conservatives who saw his good-faith debates as an escape from a hostile learning environment.
It’s hard to believe that a 31-year-old father of two could be shot in the throat in front of both his family and a crowd while having a conversation.
University campuses are meant to be a cradle of learning – not a slaughterhouse.
We should all be deeply concerned about the normalisation of political violence, and it would be wrong to assume that this dark chapter has closed with his death.
Political leaders have responsibility to promote peace and democracy.
Voters take their lead from elected leaders and so today I call on every member of the Senate and House of Representatives to lead. Make a declaration against violence.
A lack of clear leadership on this topic risks isolating young conservative Australians who are frightened by the celebration of their peers. They need our support. They need to trust that they are safe.
Western politicians are not paying attention to the rising tensions amount young voters. Additional deaths are being called for, and political violence is being discussed as casually as we might chat about the weather.
This behaviour is a natural response to the new paradigm that ‘words are literally violence’. If words are violence, they can be responded to with violence. At first this belief was used to justify censorship. Now, it’s being used to justify violence.
This is wholly unacceptable. If there is one lesson that Charlie Kirk put forward, it’s that conversation is the pathway to peace.
Charlie would want us to have more debates.
Talking is what keeps us away from violence.
Look what happened in Nepal where the communist government used a social media ban to conceal its corruption and silence political opposition. Gen Z rose up in revolution, and then that revolution was taken over by criminal and depraved forces who spread violence, mayhem, destruction, and left the impoverished country in flames.
This is not the future we want for the West.
We do not want to open the door to civil unrest or malicious actors who want nothing more than to destroy our peace.
The answer to this rising normalisation of violence among the young Left is not to push social media censorship demands. Rather, we should insist the education system encourage and facilitate open debate. Australian universities are active participants in the censorship of conservative thought. Universities have allowed disruptive protest groups to hound and intimidate. Sometimes, the administration encourages it. That must end.
Western Civilisation is built on the free and unfearing pursuit of knowledge, not paranoid gatekeeping
Our political class must immediately walk back its undemocratic desire to censor young people on social media and stop pretending that its pursuit of ‘misinformation and disinformation’ is anything other than a cynical attempt to shut people up.
If you have a political idea, it must be won in the fire of debate – not with the match.
Charlie waded into the thick of propagandised university thought and sought to help young minds escape the prison of dogma built for them by their lecturers, politicians, and peers.
He did what the rest of us should aspire to do.
Charlie invited students to a fair debate which usually became a patient attempt to return each person back to first principles. It was here, with the implementation of reason and knowledge, that so many young people found their way back to the truth.
His approach to freedom of speech was to educate, not indoctrinate.
To open minds.
Donald Trump says that Charlie Kirk is: ‘A martyr for truth and freedom.’
For Australia, let him be a warning for us to change our ways and correct our course. While we are still one united people, our children can be brought together in conversation to disagree peacefully and build a civilisation.
Charlie Kirk and the defence of Freedom by Senator Malcolm Roberts
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/953b06fc-64a6-4627-95ad-866379e82b4d_1080x1350.webp?fit=1080%2C1350&ssl=113501080Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-09-25 16:22:042025-09-25 16:22:14Charlie Kirk and the Defence of Freedom
Australian values aren’t just words—they’re the spirit that runs through every Aussie heart.
Mateship means loyalty and giving everyone a fair go. Being fair dinkum means telling the truth and respecting real science—not opinions. Family is the foundation of our human existence, and our wonderful flag is more than just a symbol – it represents the spirit of our nation. Fairness, democracy and respect for others and our communities are core to who we are.
Freedom is fundamental. Freedom of speech, belief, movement, and life is non-negotiable. Australians value governments that protect life, property, and freedom—and then get out of the way.
It’s time we stood up and protected what makes Australia great.
Transcript
Australian values pronounce a spirit. They’re not tangible, but they’re there. They’re very strong. They run through every Australian’s heart. Let’s have a look at some of these. Mateship—what’s mateship? It’s giving people a fair go, you having a fair go yourself, and you supporting mates, as well as loyalty. Then it’s being fair dinkum—I hope the Greens take notice of this. That’s telling the truth and being open to science. Science is about objectivity and integrity, not opinion. Being fair dinkum means telling the truth on the science. Family is very important to Australians. It’s a fundamental building block and the organisation and structure of human existence. The flag—our wonderful flag—is the spirit of Australia. It’s not just a cloth; it conveys the spirit of the country. Fairness is another value that Australians hold dear.
Then there’s freedom—freedom in many forms. Freedom of life and freedom to live is fundamental. Without that, there is nothing else that’s worth living for. There’s no other freedom. There is also freedom of belief; freedom of thought; freedom of faith; freedom of speech, which has been sadly trampled by both Labor and Liberal parties in the last five years; freedom of association, who I can be friends and mix with; freedom of exchange; freedom of movement and travel; and freedom to live free from government interference. Democracy is another value, as are care for each other, dependability, respect for people—not misinform people—respect for community, respect for the law, respect for environment. Australians value when governments stick to their three core responsibilities—protecting life, protecting property and protecting freedom—and getting the hell out of everything else. Our Constitution is another value that Australians hold dear, competitive federalism. The last one is that human progress and Western civilisation are to be cherished, admired and appreciated.
One Nation is the champion of free speech and have been since 2020 when we stood against the inhuman breaches of basic human rights imposed during COVID by both Labor and Liberal governments at all levels.
We support the Right to Protest Bill 2025—especially its recognition of peaceful protest—yet raise concerns about vague definitions and lack of protections for others’ freedoms, like movement and travel.
One Nation will always champion core freedoms and states’ rights, and we urge improvements to this bill to ensure clarity and accountability.
Transcript
One Nation leads the way on freedom of speech. We have done so since 2020, with the horrific impediments against freedom of speech and the withdrawal of free speech and human rights that occurred with COVID mismanagement under both Labor and Liberal governments at a state and federal level. I start by thanking Senator Shoebridge, who has, largely through his work holding governments accountable—this one and the previous one—earned my respect for his work on human rights. I do not, though, trust the Greens as a whole. They often, and usually, contradict data and evidence, so I don’t trust them. But I do trust Senator Shoebridge.
Let’s go through a quick list of positives. What do we like? This bill, the Right to Protest Bill 2025, recognises the right to peaceful protest. We support that right wholeheartedly. This bill also recognises that the right to peaceful protest is subject to issues of national security—rightly so—and also subject to public safety, public order, the protection of public health, and, importantly, the protection of other people’s rights and freedoms. That’s very important. Sadly, this last protection, the protection of people’s rights and freedoms, is just a motherhood statement, and the body of the bill contains nothing specific about those protections.
What are we not comfortable with? The definition of ‘protest’ in section 5(b) includes the phrase ‘actions that are disruptive or seek to disrupt’. We do not support disruptive matters, disruptive events or protests, or those that seek to disrupt; we oppose that. The bill does not specifically consider conflicts with other people’s individual or group rights, including the right to free movement and travel. I have a list of freedoms I keep in mind: the freedom of life, the freedom of belief, the freedom of thought, the freedom of faith, the freedom of speech, the freedom of association, the freedom of exchange, the freedom of movement and travel, and the freedom to live life free from government interference. These are basic freedoms. One Nation supports these, but we do not see any consideration in this bill for the rights of others specifically, including the freedom of movement and travel.
Nor does the bill guide or address the resolution of conflicting needs when people in society have conflicting needs, when one group wants to protest and the other group sees an infringement of its rights. The bill does not consider offensive language or intimidation through noise or numbers of protesters. For One Nation, it is extremely important, as we have said in the past on similar bills, to have Australians feeling safe. Australians must feel safe. We cannot abide by any intimidation of Australians.
My next point is that the bill encroaches on areas that should remain under state law. One Nation is very strong and clear on states’ rights because we believe in competitive federalism—a fundamental tenet of accountability in this country. What we have seen is that the states have had their rights robbed, stolen by encroaching, greedy, all-powerful federal governments that seek to run the country with no accountability under both Labor and the Liberals. We don’t like the encroachment into other areas that should remain under state law. The bill tries to limit penalties for contraventions that may be considered to apply to necessary restrictions, without defining the word ‘excessive’. There’s no definition of the word ‘excessive’. Sadly the word ‘peaceful’ is not defined, and that’s extremely important.
Our conclusions are that we thank Senator Shoebridge for introducing this bill and debating the bill, but we are concerned about the vague wording. Is there poor drafting? Let’s give Senator Shoebridge the benefit of the doubt because, although the Greens can be disruptive when it suits them, Senator Shoebridge has not done anything malicious in my experience with him.
Senator Shoebridge: Not actually malicious!
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ciccone): Thank you, senators. Please direct your contributions through the chair.
I support the concept of peaceful protest. It’s very important to get that on the record. This bill, as it is, suffers from deficiencies that need to be addressed. Thank you.
Last weekend, the Australian National Review hosted a free speech summit on the Gold Coast. Although I was unable to attend in person due to commitments in Canberra for the opening of the 48th Parliament, I expressed my strong support for all those standing in defence of free speech and national sovereignty.
We answer to God, our communities, and ourselves.
Transcript
Thank you to the Australian National Review and the organisers of this summit on Free Speech. I can’t be with you in person because I’m in Canberra attending the opening events of the 48th Parliament and working with our newly elected Senators from NSW Warwick Stacey and from Western Australia Tyron Whitten to hit the ground running in the 48th Parliament.
As Senator Pauline Hanson said after the recent election – this is not the end of an election, it’s the start of a movement.
A movement that requires conservatives and patriots to set aside political differences, to forgive those who tried to take a slice out of each other to grow their own support and to band together against the evil that threatens our beautiful country.
Australia is under threat from a parliament that’s been captured. Globalist interests continue pursuing an agenda leading ultimately to serfdom for everyday Australians.
When the World Economic Forum says, “you will own nothing and be happy” they actually mean “The billionaires they work for will own everything and you will be happy – or else”.
This was never a conspiracy theory. Their annual meetings in Davos spend days explaining how the transfer of wealth and sovereignty will be conducted.
Most elements of their control agenda have already been put in place. Continuous, hidden facial recognition and identity verification tied back to a Digital ID is already in place in Australia.
There are no controls over the data, no audits to ensure data is not being copied and that deletions occur in the correct time frame. The audit that’s done looks only at the procedures in place with no forensic audit to see what’s really going on.
Children under the age for Digital ID are being disenfranchised not just from social media, they’re cut from the internet as a whole.
Earlier this month Bing and Google announced they are trialling a system that prevents anyone under 16 accessing the internet without a parental lock. For those who would defend the idea based on “keeping kids safe” understand that evil always finds a way.
Protecting children is the role of the parent and should involve educating the child on how to recognise and avoid harm. Above all else, it should involve defeating grooming. And that involves showing our children love and enabling them to feel valued and worthy. Thereby preventing groomers from cultivating feelings of being valued and worthy.
These are the Christian values on which our society has been founded. The further we move away from these principles, giving life to an age of needless white guilt, victimhood and immorality the worse our society has become.
I was astonished to read a story a few weeks ago of a child predator here in Australia who met his victims on dating apps. Children as young as 13 are on dating apps.
Most of the sites which are of concern, and these are not X, Facebook or Youtube, have apps that the current legislation does not cover. Virtual Private Networks, VPN’s, will become huge.
The Government’s war on freedom of association will have no benefit beyond increasing the tech skills of children so they can continue to talk to their friends online.
This may involve migrating chats from regulated social media to porn sites like Pornhub whose forum has over 300 million users.
To sign up requires no age verification. Visitors simply click a check box saying they’re over 18 and provide an email address.
Video games now have chat facility, and this is a growing area for groomers to find their victims. These are not included in the Government’s control agenda.
What can we conclude from this situation? The social media ban is not about protecting children because it only protects children from the least dangerous websites.
IT’S ABOUT CONDITIONING THE PUBLIC TO ACCEPT THIS LOSS OF PRIVACY AND PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY.
It’s about perfecting the technology to be used at some point against all of us.
And it’s about getting children used to government control from cradle to grave.
We’re seeing the weaponisation, the inversion, of human rights to justify the loss of freedoms to an extent that just a few years ago would have been unthinkable.
No longer are human rights about DEFENDING freedom. In this inverted world human rights are used to limit our freedom, limit our choice of words, limit our right to protest, limit our right to freedom of association and freedom of commerce.
This is a move that’s an essential precursor to the final stage of their global control agenda, which is the imprisonment of citizens inside home units that are nothing more than human filing cabinets, located in prison communities, called variously 15-minute cities dishonestly labelled as so-called “sustainable” cities.
In these digital prisons you will not own a car, your furniture, your whitegoods. Instead, there is life-by-subscription. Which is well underway.
During the governments’ COVID response we witnessed these predatory billionaires respond to the virus using their control of the media and their control of corporations like Coles and Woolworths to spread fear.
Fear that offered as the solution jabs from pharmaceutical companies these same parasitic billionaires own.
In this way, $5 trillion was transferred from everyday citizens worldwide to the world’s predatory billionaires.
All under the protection of politicians who take donations from these crony capitalist companies.
This is called crony capitalism and it’s the greatest threat to human rights in our lifetime.
The growth of conservative powerhouses such as Reform in the UK and AfD in Germany shows the public have finally realised the water around them is boiling.
The fight for free speech and human rights is the challenge those at this conference have accepted.
Praise to you.
Restoring freedom must start with the people’s media, which is rising. Yet it won’t bring enough people to our movement without improving credibility through more rigorous journalism.
Self-control is something we adults teach our children yet often forgot to use ourselves.
In the Senate, I’ve prided myself on being factual and this has protected myself and One Nation, playing a large role in the growth of our electoral support.
Finally, as a movement we need to restore Christian values, biblical values.
We do not answer to Julie Inman Grant. We do not answer to Anthony Albanese. Nor to the World Economic Forum, nor to the UN World Health Organisation, nor the UN.
We answer to God. We answer to our communities. We answer to our self.
Good luck to all the award nominees for the Australian Media Awards and enjoy the summit.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/08doSkp27kg/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-07-23 08:06:132025-07-24 11:50:47Australia Must Unite Against Globalist Control
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
Last week at Senate Estimates, I asked the Australian Federal Police (AFP) about the measures that are in place to protect Australians that are in a country that is guided by a Christian influenced Constitution. The AFP clarified that while they don’t monitor social media, they will review evidence to determine if any hate crime offence has occurred.
Greens’ Senator Shoebridge challenged whether our Constitution is really influenced by Christianity, however the Chair ended this line of discussion, stating that the preamble of our Constitution referenced “Almighty God”. (It’s worth noting that the country was overwhelmingly Christian when the Constitution was drafted.)
The AFP took on notice my question about the total number of arrests that have been made to date, however so far, there have been two charges for displaying terrorist symbols and ten for advocating terrorism. My question regarding deportation of non-citizens convicted of hate crimes was also taken on notice.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you and your people for appearing here today, Mr Kershaw. According to our Commonwealth Constitution’s opening sentence Australia is constituted as a Christian country. What’s being done to charge those preachers in mosques of preaching hatred and threatening violence and use of physical force against Christians here in our country and bringing such hate preachers to justice?
Mr Nutt: Senator, I can take that one. Obviously, we’re very concerned where online hate speech and other actions of hate occur in the community. We obviously work in partnership with our state and territory colleagues, who are often first responders to certain offences. The AFP does not monitor the internet. We certainly review any allegation that relates to hate speech targeting any protected group against the Commonwealth offences that are available to us and we assess the content in those circumstances. That often involves obtaining legal advice. These offences change over time, in terms of what an offence may look like, decisions of court and those sorts of things, so we always ensure that, at the time, we are looking at not only current but past conduct and that we evaluate that conduct against not only the offences but the standards and decisions of courts in the jurisdiction where the offences occurred.
Senator ROBERTS: Have any such preachers of hate in Australia been charged, and, if not, why not?
Mr Nutt: I don’t have statistics relevant—
Senator ROBERTS: Can you get them?
Mr Nutt: I’m happy to take that question on notice. I take it you are just referring to the AFP, because that’s all we can respond to.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Chair, I have a point of order. I think in the circumstances this country finds itself, to leave on the record uncorrected the statement from Senator Roberts that the Constitution establishes Australia as a Christian country is unconscionable. Can I say the preamble to the Constitution references the ‘blessing of Almighty God’. As far as I can remember Christianity does not have a monopoly on the concept of ‘Almighty God’, and we shouldn’t allow that on the record.
CHAIR: Senator Shoebridge, order.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s a Christian God.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Maybe for you, Senator.
CHAIR: Senator Shoebridge, thank you. You’re welcome to go and post those thoughts on Facebook. Senator Roberts is able to make his views known, and people can take them at his word, knowing his past reputation for—I’m not saying that you are misleading the parliament, but you have your views and they’re well known, and I think people can take your statements together with your previous statements. Senator Shoebridge, I don’t think anyone would be concerned at all about statements about the Constitution in this Senate. People say a lot of different things that aren’t true from time to time. People can just read it. It’s a document. I think we can move on. Senator Roberts, do you have any other questions?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I do. There have recently been faith based crimes committed in Australia involving fire bombings, graffiti painted on buildings, cars damaged and hate symbols displayed. How many arrests have been made, and what is being done to identify the criminals and bring them to justice?
Mr Nutt: Again, I’m happy to take those matters. Again, we can only speak on behalf of the AFP. Certainly, there are Commonwealth offences not only in the recent legislative amendment on 8 February, which has been described as the hate crimes bill, but other offences including in the prohibited hate symbols and other measures act. This legislation is available to our state and territory colleagues as well, and they can use those offences where state offences don’t apply.
Since 8 January 2024, when the prohibited hate symbols act came into effect, we have not charged anyone in relation to prohibited Nazi symbols under 80.2H of the Criminal Code Act 1995; however, we have charged two individuals in respect of the prohibited terrorist organisation symbols—that is, the intentional public display of proscribed terrorism organisation symbols—and we’ve also issued a direction under section 80.2K for the display of a prohibited terrorist organisation symbol. We have not charged anyone in terms of the trading of symbols, but we do have a number of investigations on the books with respect to prohibited terrorist symbols generally.
In terms of advocating terrorism, which, again, is the current version of the offence which came into effect in December 2023, we haven’t charged anyone. This is around advocating terrorism under section 80.2C of the Criminal Code. However, under the previous version, which was available between 2021 and 2023, we charged 10 persons for advocating terrorism under section 80.2C of the Criminal Code. As I mentioned, there was some updated hate crimes offences that came into effect on 8 February this year. Those offences are yet to be utilised by the AFP.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, this question is for you. Will noncitizens convicted of hate crimes be subjected to deportation?
Senator Farrell: I’ll have to take that question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Back to the AFP. Do AFP officers need to get permission from a higher authority before making an arrest, or may an AFP officer exercise their discretion to make an arrest for a crime unfolding in front of them?
Mr Kershaw: Normally, depending on the nature of the event—if it’s a public order matter and some other particular matters—a senior officer can direct someone to be arrested, but there is also what we call the ‘Office of Constable’, which is an independent office that goes way back in the day to the UK, where an individual officer is held liable if they make the arrest. It’s their decision, independent of anyone else. So you could have a situation where one officer may gather some facts and say, ‘I’m okay to arrest that person,’ and another officer may say: ‘I’m going to use a summons. I’m not going to arrest them. I’m going to treat it differently or give them a caution.’ We, as senior officers, have to respect that and understand that. Discretion is really important, and we teach that and we train that with our officers.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there an ongoing training program for AFP officers in relation to rapidly evolving legislation relevant to the issues I’ve raised today? Mr Nutt alluded to a number of pieces if legislation that have come in, in recent years.
Mr Nutt: There are others at the table, in terms of those who are responsible for our legislative reform area. But our legislative reform area provides guidance to staff, which then gets incorporated into relevant training programs. We also work closely with the Attorney-General’s Department, which has responsibility with respect to Commonwealth legislation, and it provides materials not only to us but also to our state and territory partners on guidance in the application of Commonwealth offences, particularly new ones.
I won’t speak on behalf of the Attorney-General’s Department, but when we have new legislation that relates to areas of mutual interest with our state and territory police we provide that advice to them by essentially circulating the Attorney-General’s Department’s material. In certain circumstances—for example, in the espionage and foreign interference arena—we develop a training course and provide it to the state and territory police to assist their officers and for them to incorporate it into their own training program. We aren’t responsible for training state and territory police.
Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question, Chair. There has been a lot of violence displayed on the internet and on TV—news et cetera—for the last 12 months or so. When will Christian, Jewish and other followers of faith be able to feel safe in our own country, knowing that the police will protect them from harm?
Mr Nutt: Perhaps where I’ll take that question is that we’ve had some success with a relatively new offence relating to the possession and communication of violent extremist material. This offence focuses on material that portrays terrorist acts. It is also material that aids—in terms of education—in the carrying out of violent acts in the advancement of a religious, political or ideological cause.
Since this offence was introduced, it has been quite effective in the early identification of individuals who are consuming and potentially acting on violent extremist material. You may note that in the last week we had our first conviction under these provisions. We were very concerned about the violent extremist material that that individual had. We’re concerned because of the nature of the material and how accessible it is—building on what the commissioner has already said, in terms of the role and responsibility of internet service providers and the like in preventing the spread, distribution and access to violent extremist materials—and more broadly around end-to-end encryption. When it comes to our young people and vulnerable people more generally, we have noted the digital algorithms that may come into play of people’s internet activity and developed what has generally been considered to be echo chambers where someone looking up something may be pushed along or drawn along a path. The result being increased exposure to violent extremist material. We’re quite concerned about that as an issue.
Senator ROBERTS: To build on your answer—and thank you for the answer—I’m guessing the AFP does a lot more intelligence work these days as a proportion of its overall crime fighting than it used to because of the internet.
Mr Nutt: It’s always a mix.
Ms Barrett: I’ll also take the opportunity to reference Special Operation Avalite, which we stood up in December. That specifically targets antisemitism in this country. We have charged six people since we stood up that special operation. But I want to take this opportunity to thank the community. When we stood up the special operation, we went particularly to the Jewish community and asked them to assist us and to work together in partnership with us in relation to how we could specifically target the right areas. So I want to take this opportunity to thank the community for their partnership with us.
Senator Farrell: Senator Roberts asked a question earlier and I took it on notice. The question that you asked the Attorney-General needs to be directed to the Department of Home Affairs.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s the quickest answer I’ve ever got on questions on notice.
The Office of the eSafety Commissioner does commendable work in protecting children and adults from bullying and, most importantly, removing child abuse material. I praised the Office for this work.
However, in my opinion, the eSafety Commissioner has brought the office into disrepute with her personal vendetta against Twitter/X and her attempt to become the world internet police.
Last year, the Commissioner finalised investigations into 9,500 pieces of violent and extremist content. I asked what these were. The answer provided was that the Commissioner was taking down material from anywhere in the world, detecting it in part because they actively searched for it, even without a complaint.
Given that the Commissioner is positioning herself as the world internet police at our expense, I asked what benefit removing the 9,500 pieces of material had for Australians.
The answer relied on one incident, and there was no proof it actually caused a terrorist incident. I asked why there was no explanation of what the other material was, such as a transparency register so we can see what material they are requiring to be taken down to check for political bias. The question was ignored.
I also asked what direct benefit her actions had in addressing terrorism and violent material. The Commissioner answered regarding child material, which I had already praised.
The Commissioner is avoiding scrutiny of her takedown notices for violent and extremist material, and I believe it is because they follow a political bias.
One Nation calls for the eSafety Commissioner to stand down.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Can I, first of all, pay a compliment and I’ll read out some statistics. From the ACMA annual report 2023-24, the office of the eSafety Commissioner has received 13,824 complaints regarding web URLs, with 82 per cent relating to reports about child sexual abuse, child abuse or paedophile activity. This is a 19 per cent increase from the previous year. Your office sent 9,190 notifications related to child sexual abuse material to the INHOPE network—which I understand are the good guys, the right people to work with—and referred 130 investigations to the Australian Federal Police. On cyber abuse, you received 2,695 complaints to the Cyberbullying Scheme for Australian children and 3,113 complaints to the Adult Cyber Abuse Scheme with a removal rate of 88 per cent where removal was required. My opening comment is simple: well done; thank you very much. This is important work.
My first question is that you finalised 9,461 critical investigations into terrorist and violent extremist content, representing a 229 per cent increase—that’s amazing—in these types of complaints from the previous year. I’d like to ask about that. How do you define terrorist and violent extremist content?
Ms Inman Grant : I will turn over to Ms Snell to talk about that. That is part of our illegal and restricted content team under the Online Content Scheme.
Ms Snell : I’m actually going to invite Mr Downie, who is the executive manager for our Investigations Branch, who oversees this work, to talk specifically to this.
Mr Downie : When we’re dealing with terrorism and violent extremist content under the Online Safety Act, we deal with terrorism as defined under the Criminal Code to the pure definition of what a terrorist act is. However, when we’re applying the Online Safety Act, we apply the content according to the classification scheme, and we’ll classify that material as ‘refuse classification’, which then falls into class 1 and class 2 definitions.
Senator ROBERTS: Is this content relating to Australian content or international content?
Mr Downie : With the complaints that we receive, we receive content that can be generated or hosted anywhere in the world, but the key is that it’s accessible by the people within the Australian community.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you seek this content out yourself, or do you rely on a complaint before acting?
Mr Downie : Generally, we rely on a complaint before acting; however, we do have own-motion investigation provisions where we are then able to further conduct investigations to locate material that may be in furtherance of that complaint.
Senator ROBERTS: Of those 9,461 completed investigations, what was the outcome, please?
Mr Downie: I’d have to take that on notice for the specific details of those investigations, but in the majority of cases that content is removed.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there any demonstrable benefit from you taking this material down? What is the benefit to the taxpayer of this aspect of your office?
Mr Downie : Having access to that type of content, whether it be globally or not, is very harmful to members of the community. That material can be used to incite violence. It can be used to radicalise vulnerable people or youth, which, as we’ve seen in the media, can be then used to incite further violence within the community. So less access to that type of content can only be beneficial for the Australian community.
Ms Inman Grant : And I’d note that ASIO Director-General Burgess has said that the vast majority of terrorism investigations conducted right now are of young people between the ages of 14 and 21 and in every single case they have been radicalised somehow on the internet. You would probably also be aware of, heartbreakingly, the stabbing video of bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel, which was geo-blocked here by X but was available in the rest of the world. In the sentencing of the 17-year-old Southport killer, Axel Rudakubana, who went and stabbed three little girls to death while they were making bracelets at a Taylor Swift themed dance party, that very video, that very Wakeley stabbing video, he accessed on X 25 minutes before he stabbed those little girls and claimed that that was his inspiration. So you can imagine that this is something that the UK government has wanted to talk to us about. We have a partnership with Ofcom. We of course have different powers, but I think it’s just a very powerful reminder that this kind of content is accessed by young people. It can normalise, desensitise and, in the worst cases, radicalise.
Senator ROBERTS:On page 206 of the ACMA report, there’s a graph which shows X is the source of five per cent of your cyberabuse claims and Google four per cent, compared to Facebook at 25 per cent. Page 216 of your report lists major noncompliance actions. X has four and Google one. Why does X occupy so much of your time?
Ms Inman Grant : In terms of adult cyberabuse?
Senator ROBERTS: In terms of terrorism complaints and cyberabuse.
Ms Inman Grant : If you recall back to 16 April, around the Wakeley stabbing, we worked with all platforms. With the exception of Meta and X Corp., they all did a good job in trying to identify, detect and remove the Wakeley terrorism video. We weren’t satisfied that either Meta or X did, but, once we issued formal removal notices, Meta responded and complied within the hour, and, of course—you know the story—X said, ‘We’ll see you in court.’ That’s what has taken our time.
Senator ROBERTS: What about the others? That would apply to one of your complaints against them. What about the others? Why the other three?
Ms Inman Grant : It depends on the type of harm. For instance, when we’re talking about youth based cyberbullying, most of the cyberbullying happens on the top four platforms where children spend their time, on YouTube, TikTok, Snap and Instagram. When it comes to image based abuse, there’s a much higher proportion now of sexual extortion targeting young men between the ages of 18 and 24. They tend to meet on Instagram, sometimes on Snap, and then they’re moved off platform. So it depends on the form of abuse. It also depends on the complaints we get. But, when it comes to the terrorist and child sexual abuse material, we go to where the content is hosted and shared.
Senator ROBERTS: That still doesn’t answer the question. You’ve got four major noncompliance actions against X and only one against Google, yet you’ve mentioned several platforms. Why does X have to occupy so much of your time?
Ms Inman Grant: Because they did not comply with our notices. Google came close to not complying, so we gave them a formal warning.
Mr Fleming : Those tribunal and court cases are often initiated by X, so we’re responding to the claims that they make challenging our powers. That’s why they feature the most.
Senator ROBERTS: The report goes on to list how many notices are issued under each part of the act yet does not provide a detailed list. This is fine for child and adult abuse material, of course. We’re happy with that. For class 1 extremist and violent material, why are we not provided a list of what the commissioner considers worthy of a takedown notice and the reasons why? There’s a widespread belief in the public that you’re overstepping on your choice of material to take down.
Ms Inman Grant: Respectfully, I’d like to read from some weighted and validated surveys of the Australian public. In November 2024, a weighted survey of Australians found that 87 per cent of those surveyed supported the introduction of stronger penalties for social media companies that do not comply with Australian laws, 77 per cent supported the proposed ban on social media for children and 75 per cent supported the Australian government’s plan to introduce a digital duty of care. In August 2024, a weighted survey of Australians found that 79 per cent said that social media platforms should operate with a regulator with the power to order content removal. That seems like a pretty overwhelming amount of support from the public.
Senator ROBERTS: That wasn’t my question. My question was: why are we not provided a list of what the commissioner considers worthy of a takedown notice and a breakdown of the reasons why?
Ms Inman Grant : We provide as much transparency as we can. You would understand that confidentiality is incredibly important. We can’t describe these in great detail. We can’t name names. What kind of information do you think would be helpful to your understanding? That’s something that we can certainly look at in the interests of transparency.
Senator ROBERTS: The specific behaviours, without breaching confidentiality, would be helpful. We wouldn’t expect you to breach confidentiality or name names—certainly not—but we would like the types of actions that the commissioner thinks worthy of a takedown notice, as I said, and the reasons why.
Senator McAllister: The commissioner and I are trying to understand, with a little more precision, what sort of information. You’re simply saying a generalised list of examples that are deidentified—
Ms Inman Grant : Of 40,000 complaints we receive annually.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re dealing with them, so presumably you know what they are. I’d like to see some sort of classification so that people could understand the proportions, because at the moment I don’t think you’re accountable for that.
Ms Inman Grant : We can take that on notice. We would have to look at privacy and confidentiality. We would also have to look at resource implications and how that might serve the public interest, but we’re happy to take a look at that.
Senator ROBERTS: I think the people have a right to know. Referencing unofficial takedown notices, which I note are issued under section 183(2)(zk), these go to the question of your secrecy. If these are dangerous enough to require a takedown, then they should be dangerous enough for you to list out by making the register of takedown notices public knowledge—that’s what I was getting at. Otherwise, you’re simply exercising power without any accountability, power that can be abused. How would we know? Can you, Commissioner, point to one terrorist act you’ve prevented, one person you’ve deradicalised or one benefit to Australian society from the money you have spent on your campaign against extremist material?
Ms Inman Grant : I go back to what D-G Burgess often says, ‘You’re never congratulated when you stop something from happening.’ Again, do we have to have more heartbreaking examples of, like I just explained to you, what happened with those three little girls murdered in Southport, UK? We’ll never know. What I do know is I have parents coming up to me and saying: ‘You’ve saved my son’s life. He was sexually extorted. He had just turned 18. He went to the police; no-one would help him. I wasn’t going to let it go. I found your website. Your investigators supported him, got the content down, gave him advice and sent him on to mental health support services.’ So I do know that we’re saving lives every day.
How many cases of 12- and 13-year-old girls being cyberbullied and bullied do you need to prove that this is a veritable epidemic and that young people are losing their lives? We’re here to help them and to prevent that from happening. My biggest regret, if there is one, is that more people don’t know about us. Only about 40 per cent of the Australian population knows about us, but we do everything we can to help people. When we stop helping people and making the online world a safer and better place, then, yes, it’s time to hang up our hats, but we’re just getting started.
Senator ROBERTS: With due respect, Ms Inman Grant, you didn’t answer my question—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we have to rotate the call. There are a lot of senators who wish to ask questions.
Senator ROBERTS: I just want to clarify that one.
CHAIR: I can come back to you, if you wish.
Senator ROBERTS: It’ll only take a second to do this.
CHAIR: Go on then.
Senator ROBERTS: I asked, ‘Can you point to one terrorist act?’ I accept you’re doing a good job. You’re preventing child abuse, no doubt about that. We’ve discussed that in the past. Can you point to one terrorist act you prevented, one person deradicalised or one benefit to Australian society from the money you have spent on your campaign against extremist material? That’s what I want to know.
Ms Inman Grant : We’re not going out into the public asking young people if they saw a particular video that radicalised them or not. We do know when people have been radicalised by content that has been online. Some of the gore content that we’ve taken down includes the manifestos, the horrific imagery of people at Christchurch huddling in the corner while being shot. Anything that’s dehumanising that we are able to get down to not cause further pain to victims and their families and have not incite others into taking the same action, I think, is worth doing. I don’t need proof that I prevented this, that or the other from happening. We’re trying to make the internet a safer, more positive place with less violent extremist material, and that’s why we take these issues so seriously.
Senator ROBERTS: My concern is with—
CHAIR: We’ll go to Senator Darmanin—
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll put one more question on notice.
