Premier Malinauskas is campaigning in the South Australia state election with the lie that building submarines in SA will provide our young with “breadwinner” jobs — jobs that will allow them to own their own homes, start a family and generally live the life successive Liberal and Labor governments have actually taken from them.
The numbers don’t add up. The subs’ program will employ 4,500 people during fit-up and 4,500 during construction, out of a workforce in South Australia of 975,000. Shipbuilding already employs 14,000 and many of these will move over to the subs.
Most likely, the subs will employ a few hundred of our young, a drop in the employment bucket in SA. Not only is the Premier lying about how many young people will be employed in subs’ construction, he’s wrapping the whole thing up in an elitist sales pitch. Your children, he says, will be so busy building subs and living the high life that they will not have time to look after their elderly parents; therefore, we need immigrants to, quote: “wipe their bums.”
This is offensive to South Australians who are looking after their parents and to aged care workers who do so much more than personal care.
The Premier’s elitist view of the world is not shared by One Nation.
Transcript
One Nation has long maintained that the immigration invasion is about politics, not economics. South Australian Premier Malinauskas waded into that debate last month, when he said:
My message to One Nation voters is: ‘Who’s going to feed you and bathe you and wipe your bum when you’re 90?’ … Because it ain’t going to be your kids, because if I get my way, they’re going to be working on submarines, with high-paying jobs, so they can afford to own their home …
And he said that, if we’re taking real people out of the housing construction industry to work on the submarines, we’re going to need people to do that work too—to work in aged care. What a socialist nirvana South Australia will be, with migrants, according to the Labor premier, acting as a servant class to their white masters and their children, who will have economic abundance and not have to wipe their own bums!
Elitism and socialism go hand in hand. The Russians, during communism, called this elitist cabal the ‘nomenklatura’. In communist China, they’re called ‘princelings’ for their wealth and imperial manner. In Australia, we just call them the Labor Party. What an insult to the many migrants with real qualifications who have come to Australia to lift themselves up through their own hard work and endeavour and who, in so doing, have lifted up all who are here.
A quick look at employment numbers gives the lie to the Premier’s grand vision of recreating the Raj in Adelaide. Total employment on the submarine program will be 4,500 during construction of the shipyard and then 4,500 to build the submarines. The 10,000 jobs are sequential, not all at the same time. The size of the South Australian labour market is 975,000 people. Shipbuilding already employs 14,000 people, some of whom will move over to the subs. All we need to fill the remaining places is for state and federal Labor to start planning now for the subs workforce through targeted vocational and university placements for Australian workers. The Premier’s big pitch to the electorate is elitist and dishonest.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Hbn6VZxm_CQ/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-03-03 14:33:062026-03-03 14:33:09Elitism: The New Labor Way
For decades, the Liberal-Labor Uniparty has put the cart before the horse, bringing in record numbers of people before building the infrastructure needed to support them.
And what’s the result? Record homelessness, average house prices skyrocketing across Australia, and an entire generation of young Aussies giving up on the “Great Australian Dream”.
One Nation introduced the Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018 to put the power back in YOUR hands.
We must: ✅ Build the homes before the people arrive. ✅ Prioritise Australians over globalist agendas. ✅ END mass migration.
The Division
How They Voted
Transcript
Firstly, I have some housekeeping. The Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018 has been amended to update the question to be proposed in the plebiscite. It was necessary to reintroduce this bill and then amend it to overcome drafting delays due to inappropriate staffing levels in parliamentary support services, thanks to the Labor government. It’s a constraint the government has not inflicted on itself, given the thousands of pages of legislation before the Senate this week alone. Some technical amendments have been circulated to update section references.
The intent of the bill, though, is the same as on the previous occasions One Nation has brought this bill before the Senate. It’s time to ask the Australian people in a plebiscite: how much immigration is enough? That is a question for the people. After all, in a representative democracy, the first duty of a parliamentary representative is to listen to the MP’s masters—the people. I’ll say that again. After all, in a representative democracy, the first duty of every parliamentary representative is to listen to the members of parliament’s masters—the people. The remainder of the bill sets out the provisions necessary to conduct the plebiscite. That section of the bill closely follows the provisions of the gay marriage plebiscite. Just as One Nation respected the wishes of the Australian people in that outcome, we would expect all members of parliament and senators to respect the outcome of this plebiscite.
This bill will pose the question, ‘Do you support a zero net migration policy for a period of five years?’ It’s a very simple, straightforward question. ‘Zero net’ simply means the number of new arrivals must equal the number of people who leave—zero net migration; net migration, zero. This brings to an end the era of massive population growth and mass migration started under John Howard’s prime ministership. That will ease the pressure on housing, medical services, education, transport and infrastructure and provide space for the assimilation for the massive number of people who have been brought to Australia under this Labor government. Five years is enough for that process to work through, especially the construction of housing and infrastructure.
And One Nation would police existing immigration laws. There are an estimated 200,000 people here illegally, meaning people who have deliberately breached their visa conditions, which is illegal. These people should be deported—remigration back to where they came from. That provision is not in this bill. We should not need a bill to make the government police the laws it already has. One Nation does not oppose immigration. We oppose mass migration, which—for the deliberately ignorant or unaware, unconscious and uncaring left-wing commentariat—can be defined as new migration from all sources which exceeds the housing construction rate after accommodating natural population increase. Pretty simply, build the home before the person arrives. This is not rocket science—build the home before the person arrives. I speak as a migrant and as an Australian citizen.
For a generation, the Liberal, Labor and Greens parties have had this simple concept backward—bring a migrant to Australia and, once they’re here, build them a home. In the meantime, they’re homeless. Eventually build them a home—no rush! This backwards approach to immigration has caused the worst housing crisis in Australian peacetime history—record homelessness and growing. New migrants coming in here are homeless. Australians are homeless. The elderly, unemployed and working poor are being priced out of the housing market as new arrivals increase demand. That drives up rents and home prices.
The government has then stepped in and created schemes to make it easier to afford one’s home, supposedly, usually through low-deposit mortgages and first home buyer grants. All these do is drive up the price of the house, so the young person is back where they started, needing an unaffordable deposit and a higher income to cover repayments on a home that should, at their asking price, be made of gold. Other speakers, I’m sure, will point out how the Albanese government’s latest confidence trick on young home buyers, the low deposit housing scheme, has had exactly this effect—driving up prices so that young buyers are no better off.
You will hear an opposing argument that the housing crisis is not about population growth; it’s about housing construction. In recent days, the Labor Party has once again stood in front of cameras in their high-vis gear, complete with hard hat, all borrowed from the wardrobe department, to announce more money is to be spent on housing. What comes of these announcements? Nothing. People cannot build with what we don’t have. There is a lack of approved land, equipment, materials and experienced construction labour. It’s an outrageous thing to say all we need to do is to bring in more tradies. To begin with, more new arrivals is the cause of the problem. I’m mindful that sitting right behind me is someone who’s in the construction industry from Western Australia, Senator Tyron Whitten, and he will be speaking later. Secondly, homes are not making it to the tradie stage fast enough to justify more tradies.
This is all a smokescreen anyway. The reality is that the ALP doesn’t want more tradies, having only brought in 6,000 new tradies in their entire first term. That’s less than one per cent, a fraction of one per cent, of the government’s mass migration intake—less than one per cent building houses for the other more than 99 per cent, as well as the pent-up demand from the past. The government wants a labour shortage so their union boss mates can demand ludicrous wage rises. I’ve heard of stop/go attendants earning $140,000 per year and, in some areas, $200,000 a year. What does that do to the cost of houses? What does that do to the profit and viability of builders? Construction companies are going under. We can see that.
What do material shortages do to their profit? This epidemic of mass migration is happening around the world, a global push from globalists setting the agenda in BlackRock Inc. and then moving into the housing market with benefits given to them by the Labor government only in recent weeks. In the absence of Australian production of building materials, Australia is a price taker. We are competing with literally the entire world to get building materials to Australia. Local councils are flat out processing development applications. Everyone in the housing chain is juggling red tape, green tape and blue UN tape to somehow manage to get homes built. More tradies won’t fix that problem; reduced housing demand and fewer new arrivals will fix that problem.
Consider this question: more arrivals increase home prices and cause homelessness, so what does reducing new arrivals do? There’s no need to guess at the answer. Our friends across the ditch in New Zealand have answered the question for us. New Zealand has woken up. Immigration numbers were reduced from 70,000 in 2024 to just 13,000 in 2025. As a result, new home prices fell and rents stabilised after just one year of reduced migration. Look at Canada. The same has happened in Canada. In contrast, Australia keeps bringing in more new arrivals than we have houses. And guess what? House prices and rents keep going up and up and up. Go figure. It’s pretty simple. Australia is already building more new homes per capita than any other country in the world, yet record homelessness continues growing.
An entire generation of young Australians is being disenfranchised. I talk to these fine young Australians every day. They tell me that they’re giving up on ever owning their own home—giving up! Giving up on their own country. Scott Challen, a builder in Brisbane, tells me that, daily, young people are being disenfranchised. That is dangerous for the future of our country. These young people speak of their frustration, of their betrayal, at the hands of the governing Liberal-Labor uniparty. These are children that have done everything society has asked of them. They’ve studied hard, stayed out of trouble and achieved a trade or university degree. They are working in a good job—or two jobs, or for some of them three jobs, to make ends meet—and they find that, despite this dedication and sacrifice, they’re struggling to pay rent, let alone save for a home deposit. Even if they can save a deposit, where can they afford to buy? Sydney? The average home price is above $1.5 million. No young person can afford that, yet Sydney is where the jobs are. Why is Sydney so dear? Well, new arrivals—that’s the answer. Analysis of average home prices, average rents and immigration numbers in Sydney in the last five years shows a simple fact: the higher the immigration intake, the larger the increase in rents and home prices—full stop, end of story. Conversely, the lower the intake, the lower the prices.
How many people are currently in Australia who aren’t Australian citizens? Good question. After a bit of digging, I believe the answer is around 3.7 million people, made up of 2.5 million temporary visa holders and 1.2 million permanent residents, plus 380,000 tourists and short-stay crew. That makes four million people plus, when including tourists, here in this country who are not citizens. Migration statistics are opaque and confusing. They are deliberately opaque and confusing. There are lots of traps when adding different types of data together, and it’s an area where we’re prone to get fact-checked, misreported and misrepresented. This allows the champions of mass migration to understate the intake and then deflect away from migration to blame other factors, like a lack of tradies. Don’t fall for it. It’s rubbish.
If you are in this country and not a citizen, you need to be on a visa. We know how many visa holders are in the country right now. As at July 2025 there were 2.5 million temporary visa holders, not including tourists. There were 1.5 million permanent visa holders, and four million noncitizens—four million non-Australians—all of whom need a home in which to live. The effect this is having on the housing market can be seen in a simple statistic: 43 per cent of the population of Greater Sydney and 41 per cent of the population of Greater Melbourne were born overseas. That isn’t migration; that’s mass migration. It’s invasion. It’s part of a globalist agenda across many woke Western nations, and Australians are shouting this in the streets now.
In every nation, it is the government’s duty to design immigration policy for the benefit of citizens already in the country, not for the benefit of those outside wanting to come into the country. Immigration policy, just as a side point, has four broad aspects in my view. The first is numbers of people allowed—no, invited—into the country. The second is the quality of people allowed in, their skills, whether they will be put straight to work and contribute productively, safety and security, the quality of people and the culture. The third is: will the people coming in assimilate and integrate into the identity of the country? The fourth is: will Australia’s identity be preserved? Multiculturalism, introduced by Bob Hawke and reinforced by John Howard, undermines assimilation and integration and destroys Australian identity.
Stop it and restore Australian identity. This bill, though, is only about numbers. The question of how much immigration is too much has never been put to the Australian people. It’s time. As a migrant and as a citizen, I value our country and say: it’s time.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/dnyqqLW6fbs/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-03-03 08:47:122026-03-03 08:47:21Ending the Era of Mass Migration
I questioned officials from the Department of Home Affairs on the government’s failure to deport over 100,000 individuals who have no legal right to be here.
There are 101,976 individuals who were refused a protection visa and have yet to be deported. Some of these cases date back as far as 1994.
I highlighted a recent case where a South African man was raided and detained at dawn just 24 hours after his visa was cancelled. The government clearly has the capability to enforce our borders and laws. So why, out of over 100,000 people here illegally, did the government only involuntarily deport 5 people in a single month? That’s a 0.005% deportation rate.
When I asked for an honest explanation, Minister Watt did what he always does: he resorted to name-calling and labels to avoid the discussion.
Australians deserve an immigration system that actually enforces the law, not one that picks and chooses when to act while tens of thousands stay here illegally.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to change the topic to deportation. According to your ‘Monthly update: onshore protection (subclass 866) visa processing – October 2025’, the total number of individuals that were not granted a final protection visa that have yet to be deported at the end of the period is 101,976. How many of those 101,976 rejected refugees or unlawful noncitizens are currently seeking merits or judicial review from a court or tribunal?
Ms Foster: We could go through that data for you. I’d just note, for the rest of the committee, that we just had a series of questions and that exact data was provided to the committee.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Should I just go through the Hansard? To save time, I’ll go through the Hansard.
CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Your reporting has a caveat that the 100,000 number includes anyone who has been rejected for a protection visa since 1994. Do you have any data on the distribution in terms of how old some of those applications were? For example, do you have any data on how many people have not been deported after being rejected for a protection visa more than five years ago or more than 10 years ago? How many are still lingering here?
Mr Thomas: We’ll have to take that on notice to get that breakdown for you.
Senator ROBERTS: You haven’t got that data?
Ms Foster: It’s to get the particular breakdown that you’re asking for and so that we can see if we can do it by year—year groups.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you, Ms Foster. It would be appreciated if it’s done by year, because some people seem to be lingering forever. Do you have a breakdown of how many of the hundred thousand are included in the temporary visa stock data? I would assume anyone who is in the country illegally without a visa is not included in the 2.9 million, but I’d like a more specific number—on notice?
Mr Willard: On notice. I’d note that, in that temporary visa figure—that includes bridging visas. Many of these would be on bridging visas, but—
Senator ROBERTS: If you could break that down too, please—
Mr Willard: I’ll have to break it down.
Senator ROBERTS: Break that down. This is my last question, Chair. In November, a South African man whose visa was cancelled after attending a Neo-Nazi rally in Sydney was detained by immigration agents in a predawn operation, according to the media, and faces deportation. That was just one day after the visa cancellation by Minister Burke. I highlight that, as it shows that you obviously have the capability to raid houses, detain people in the dark and get them deported. But you don’t appear to be using it. Out of the more than 100,000 people here illegally, your October report says you involuntarily deported fewer than five that month. That’s a 0.005 per cent deportation rate. Why aren’t you raiding these houses and deporting people who have no legal right to be in Australia?
Senator Watt: I thought you said earlier that you don’t associate with Neo-Nazis, but you seem very concerned about the fact that the government decided to deport one.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re hiding from a discussion—an honest discussion—by labelling me?
Senator Watt: No, no. I’m happy—
Senator ROBERTS: Minister Watt, you’re making this a habit.
Senator Watt: I’m happy—
Senator ROBERTS: If you haven’t got the data and you haven’t got the logic behind it, just say so, and we’ll get it on notice.
Senator Watt: I’m happy for the officials to answer your question.
Senator ROBERTS: Good.
Senator Watt: I’m just a bit perplexed about why, on the one hand, you say you don’t associate with Neo Nazis but you seem very concerned about a Neo-Nazi being deported.
Senator ROBERTS: Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the fearful—
Senator Watt: You called them a Neo-Nazi. You just called them a Neo-Nazi.
Senator ROBERTS: Correct. That’s what the media called them. So does that make me a Neo-Nazi because I’m discussing—
Senator Watt: I’m not saying you’re a Neo-Nazi. I’m just questioning—
Senator ROBERTS: But you’re implying it, Senator.
Senator Watt: No, I said earlier that you didn’t seem to be very happy when I said that you associate with Neo-Nazis—
Senator ROBERTS: Because what you said was not correct.
Senator Watt: and other extremists, but here you are, asking about the deportation of a Neo-Nazi.
Senator SCARR: Point of order, Chair.
Senator ROBERTS: Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the dishonest, the fearful, the stupid and the gutless.
CHAIR: There is a point of order.
Senator Watt: Thank you for that free character assessment, Senator Roberts.
Senator SCARR: Chair, please return us to some order—questions being asked and answers being given.
CHAIR: Thank you for that very helpful direction, Senator Scarr. If we can proceed in an orderly question and-answer fashion, that would be of much help to the committee.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m happy to do that.
Ms Foster: Senator Roberts, we provided some data in response to the previous questioning about the numbers of people who are removed each year. If it would be helpful, we could quickly reprise that data.
Senator ROBERTS: What I’d like, Ms Foster, is to know why one person, regardless of who he or she is, was able to be detained in the middle of the night, their house raided, but the other 102,000 were not.
Senator Watt: What makes you think that no others were treated similarly?
Senator ROBERTS: Well, in the answer to my question, perhaps you could tell me.
Senator SCARR: Point of order, Chair.
Senator ROBERTS: My answer is—
CHAIR: There is a point of order.
Senator Watt: Well, you make—
Senator SCARR: Questions are being asked now by the minister of members of the committee. Again, can I ask that we return to orderly—
Senator Watt: Well, okay. There’s a simple reason for that.
Senator SCARR: Sorry, can I finish my point of order.
Senator ROBERTS: These are simple questions, Minister.
Senator SCARR: Can I finish my point of order.
Senator ROBERTS: They’re very simple.
CHAIR: Senator Scarr, yes, you can finish your point.
Senator SCARR: We’re running out of time. Can I just ask, Chair, that we return to the orderly process of questions coming from the committee members and being answered by the representatives at the table.
CHAIR: Thank you.
Senator Watt: May I make a point of order.
CHAIR: Can I respond.
Senator Watt: Sure.
CHAIR: It’s within the rules for the minister to respond to questions being asked by senators, but I would encourage the minister to answer the question rather than pose one.
Senator Watt: Sure. I’ll frame this not by asking a question. Senator Roberts has just suggested that the government has chosen to deport one person, who participated in a Neo-Nazi rally, and has suggested that the government does not deport—was it 102,000 other people?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Why can’t you do the same—
Senator Watt: I’d be interested to know what evidence Senator Roberts has for that suggestion.
Senator ROBERTS: Your answer will be sufficient.
Senator Watt: I’m disputing your suggestion.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, then give me the data. That’s all I’m after, Minister—the data.
Senator Watt: You’re not very good at listening to data when it’s presented to you, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for the judgement on my questions. It’s now very, very clear what I’m requesting from you.
Senator Watt: Perhaps the officials could advise you with some facts, if you’re ready for that, about whether the government does deport other individuals rather than one neo-Nazi.
Senator ROBERTS: No, that’s not my question. That’s not my question, Chair. My question is: why don’t you raid other people’s houses and get them out of the country as well?
Senator Watt: This is the point. You’re suggesting that doesn’t occur. Would you like facts?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I would—the number of people raided.
CHAIR: In a second, I will invite the officials to respond to your question, Senator Roberts, but I am going to call final question for you, before I need to rotate the call.
Senator ROBERTS: That is my final question.
Ms Sharp: Senator, for the first three months of this financial year, 943 people were involuntarily removed from immigration detention. In many instances, they would have been detained from their home prior to being placed in immigration detention and then removed. In the previous financial year, we had 3,457 involuntary removals from immigration detention.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much, Ms Sharp. Can you tell me the number of houses that were raided and people detained, on notice?
Ms Foster: In many cases, in fact, most cases, those people were in the community, and were detained by Border Force officers, and then taken into detention in order to be removed.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me the number, please?
Ms Foster: We can have a look at that.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. I found that easy in the end, thank you.
Senator Watt: I look forward to you using those facts, Senator Roberts.
The Labor Government keeps telling you migration is coming down. The data tells a different story.
Right now there are about 2.9 million people here on temporary visas and another 1.8 million on permanent non‑citizen visas — a total of roughly 4.7 million non‑citizens.
That’s 4.7 million people competing for a home, clogging your roads, and filling your GP waiting rooms. Our infrastructure cannot cope with the scale of this influx.
This isn’t ‘sustainable’ — and it’s a disaster for the Australian way of life.
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending. I’d like to discuss migrant numbers and stock data. Can I go to the number of temporary visa holders in the country first. The temporary visa holder stock data says that, at 30 September this year—which is the latest data, apparently—there were 2.9 million temporary visa holders in the country, and 2.53 million when excluding tourists and crew. Can you confirm, please, that that’s the largest number of temporary migrants in the country ever recorded in the month of September.
Mr Willard: I will just find those figures. The 2.925 figure you provided is correct. I’m not able to confirm it’s the largest number ever; I’d have to take it on notice and check every other month.
Senator ROBERTS: If you could—thank you. So we have the government saying that migration is coming down but we actually have what we understand to be the highest number of temporary migrants in the country for this season on record. The total number of migrants in the country certainly hasn’t gone down, has it?
Mr Willard: That figure has increased. Just so we’re clear, that’s temporary visa holders, so that includes people like tourists. It also includes, as I think you mentioned, crew visas, and it includes New Zealanders, who are in fact the largest cohort. The visa that New Zealanders have, through the trans-Tasman agreement, is technically a temporary visa.
Senator ROBERTS: But the 2.53 million figure excludes tourists and crew. That’s what you confirmed.
Mr Willard: Yes. I’d have to do the maths, but that looks about right.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s my understanding of what you said. So we’ve got a high number of migrants, and it hasn’t gone down. Now let’s turn to permanent visas. At the last hearing, the department confirmed there were 1.8 million people in the country on permanent visas. Do you have an update on that figure, or is that still the same?
Mr Willard: I do have that figure. I think it is about the same, but I can’t give you the precise number. I might have to take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. So, adding the 2.9 million temporary to the 1.8 million permanent, there are now 4.7 million visa holders in the country who are not Australian citizens, correct?
Mr Willard: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that a record for the number of visa holders in the country?
Mr Willard: Again, I’ll have to take that on notice to check the records.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that it is, but I’ll wait for it to be confirmed by you. Can you give a breakdown, please, of the categories of permanent visas and their numbers, as per your latest data.
Mr Willard: Bear with me, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s okay. No need to rush. We just want it accurate.
Mr Willard: You asked for permanent visa holders?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes—categories of permanent visa holders.
Mr Willard: I’ll run through the figures here. The largest category is the resident return visa. I think last time we were at estimates we spoke about this visa. This is a visa that permanent residents can get once they’re at the initial travel period on their first permanent visa.
Senator ROBERTS: So they can return to the country.
Mr Willard: It’s called resident return, but essentially it’s a permanent resident renewing their travel rights on their visa. That’s 855,000. These figures are to 30 September 2025. There’s the partner permanent visa, which is 205,000. There’s the skilled migration visa, which is 447,000. There are parent visas, which are 38,000. Then there’s a range of other visas—child, other family, other permanent, and special eligibility, which are all smaller amounts, but there’s a range of other visas there as well.
Senator ROBERTS: Why don’t you publish the number of permanent visas on issue like you do with the temporary visa stock?
Mr Willard: We publish the Migration Program numbers every year, in terms of the Migration Program outcome.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that including the permanents?
Mr Willard: It includes all the visas issued in the context of the Migration Program for that particular year.
Senator ROBERTS: But not the total number of permanents?
Mr Willard: It doesn’t include the total number. We do publish a paper called ‘The Administration of the immigration and citizenship programs’, which has a lot of data. I’d have to come back to you as to whether it has that specific number in it.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me why you don’t publish the number of permanent visas on issue, like you do with the temporary visa.
On Monday 19 January, during an early recall of Parliament, I delivered condolences for the victims of Bondi on behalf of myself and Senator Pauline Hanson.
My condolences to the victims’ families, friends, workmates and colleagues. Nothing I can say will adequately articulate your grief, fear, devastation, shock and desperation — your search for understanding, for clarity in putting your lives back together, for addressing the hole in your heart and mind, for meaning, for making sense of it all.
It’s difficult to make sense of something senseless that’s the result of inhuman ideology, Islamic ideology, which is the number one killer of Muslims worldwide, a rampant killer of Christians and of Jewish people, and the driving force behind indiscriminate killing of non-adherents worldwide.
The most appropriate way to honour the Bondi victims is to end Islamic extremism and terrorism in Australia.
The Bondi victims, at the very least, deserve honest leadership — leadership that takes responsibility for ensuring the safety and security of all of their, and our, fellow Australians.
Transcript
Fifteen Australians massacred in 10 minutes of terror—15 Australians executed, 15 Australians given the death sentence for being in a park and on the street in a beautiful, once peaceful part of our country. Others are carrying injuries and scars for life. My condolences to the victims’ families, friends, workmates and colleagues. Nothing I can say will adequately articulate your grief, fear, devastation, shock and desperation—your search for understanding, for clarity in putting your lives back together, for addressing the hole in your heart and mind, for meaning, for making sense of it all. It’s difficult to make sense of something senseless that’s the result of inhuman ideology, Islamic ideology, which is the number one killer of Muslims worldwide, a rampant killer of Christians and of Jewish people and the driving force behind indiscriminate killing of non-adherents worldwide.
Before 14 December 2025 we thought this may happen close to us—in Bali’s two bombings, when 92 Australians died—yet surely not on our shores. How can you make sense of it all when so many people won’t name the force, Islam, that brutally murdered your loved ones? Yet before embarking on that search, I acknowledge 27 million Australians who had our collective perception of Australian security ripped away, tearing at the heart and fabric of our nation, security, culture and identity—our democracy, our unity. My condolences to all Australians whom this tragedy touches. Honouring the Bondi victims is not with words alone; above all it’s done with action—honest, genuine, meaningful actions. This is an opportunity to unite Australians whom this tragedy touches and to unite them with a unity based in truth.
Another preliminary to action is to acknowledge that life is precious. From conception to death, life is precious. This is the first of our universal God-given freedoms, the freedom of life, our freedom to live. Without freedom to live there can be no freedom of speech, no freedom of thought, no creativity, no freedom of belief and no freedom of assembly, association, initiative or movement. In other words, in another preliminary to action we must acknowledge that freedom to live is essential. In another preliminary to action we must acknowledge that in our actions honesty is vital. Regarding the Bondi massacre, honesty starts with responsibility, because parliament has failed to hold government sufficiently accountable to spur the government to take action that would have or likely could have avoided the massacre. As a senator in federal parliament could I have done more to hold the government accountable—I asked myself that—to spur the government to confront Islam’s beachhead in our country? For those upset with my comments, I quote from evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins:
Something you can convert to is not a race. A statement of simple fact is not bigotry.
Truth is important. Responsibility is a key to leadership that needs to be provided for all Australians and especially for families of the murdered. A true leader takes responsibility for failures like the failures and lapses leading to Bondi, rapidly investigates using a genuine royal commission with terms of reference that ensure truth is established and then, based on data and facts unearthed, leads changes in governance, all to protect people, not to punish or control people, apart from those responsible for lapses in doing their duty—only to protect people. I know two quotes from everyday Australians on my social media posts:
Social cohesion doesn’t occur under social coercion.
Anyone who wants to ban free speech has a lot to hide.
A real leader doesn’t weaken the people he or she leads; they strengthen people. A real leader doesn’t take resources from his political opponents; they strengthen their opponents, because stronger opponents strengthen governments—governments that care. A real leader calls an inquiry with adequate power to get to the root causes and to then recommend answers. All this, with a clarity of understanding, leads to prevention of future recurrence.
I divert briefly from Bondi to Australia’s largest domestic mass murder, the Port Arthur massacre, which killed 35 people in beautiful Tasmania on 28 April 1996, because there’s at least one important lesson there. Then prime minister John Howard illegally cancelled the request for an inquiry into the 35 deaths—an action that failed and betrayed the victims and their families. It betrayed every Australian. Had the lessons of Port Arthur been explored through a royal commission or through a proper inquest, we may not be where we are today. Our obligation lies not only to those Australians in mourning for what this country has lost in the last month but also to those Australians yet to be born. It may take many years for the circumstances of Bondi to recur, yet they will recur unless action is taken now.
Prime ministers are elected in a vote of the party caucus. Leaders, though, are not appointed; they are self-emergent as a result of their successful, sincere and honest handling of challenges and incidents that affect the people they supposedly lead. On Sunday 21 December at Bondi’s ‘Light over darkness’ vigil at the memorial to terrorist attack victims, the current Prime Minister was loudly and emphatically booed. That booing reverberated across Australia. It was an emblematic verdict from the people on the Prime Minister’s performance in response to Bondi because, in Bondi’s aftermath, our country has not seen leadership. Once the absence of leadership became obvious and open, the government tried to rehabilitate a tarnished image with branding. Branding, though, is not leadership. It is dangerous because it’s a vacuum. The best way to honour the Bondi massacre victims is to respect them, to be honest, to be open and to enable a fair dinkum royal commission to get the data and facts truthfully, and then, based on the data and facts, to change systems and adjust leadership behaviours.
Why have there been no prosecutions under Commonwealth hate crimes legislation that Labor introduced in 2010 and 2025? If the place of worship of the radicals that committed this offence could be closed under existing powers straight after the offence, why can’t others? If they can deport tennis players and Nazis under existing laws, why have they not deported Islamic hate preachers?
As a way of honouring the Bondi victims, I pledge to fulfil my role as a senator and as a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia. I will fulfil my role under our Westminster system of government to ensure that Australians can again feel safe and secure and to hold government—regardless of who’s in power—accountable in its primary role of ensuring every Australian’s security and safety. We must do more to end Islamic extremism, the world’s large perpetrator of terrorism. The most appropriate way to honour the Bondi victims is to end Islamic extremism and terrorism in Australia. The Bondi victims, at the very least, deserve honest leadership—leadership that takes responsibility for ensuring the safety and security of all of their, and our, fellow Australians.
I will now convey some condolence remarks from Senator Pauline Hanson. I’m proud to be able to deliver them for Pauline. She says:
Due to my suspension from this chamber my colleague Senator Malcolm Roberts has kindly agreed to deliver my Bondi condolence speech.
On December 14th 2025, just 10 days out from celebrating Christmas our nation was struck the cruellest blow with the terrorist attack at Bondi beach that claimed the lives of 15 innocent Australians.
Many more faced hospitalisation from injuries they incurred but countless more will carry scars for the rest of their lives from the horrors they witnessed on that fateful day.
To all of those who lost family, loved ones, or a dear close friend never forget your fellow Australians, including myself, share your grief.
Our heart goes out to you, your loss is our loss, your hurt and pain is our hurt and pain.
Your fellow Australians and many throughout the world share your grief and pain, you are not alone.
Matilda was the youngest to lose her life, a beautiful young girl only 10 years of age. Why? What could she have possibly done to warrant her life being cut short at such a young age?
Nothing! She was celebrating the Jewish festival Hanukkah with family, held at the iconic setting, Bondi beach.
Thousands of Australians attended as they do every year, only this Hanukkah ended in a massacre.
The carnage Australians witnessed as it was happening on their devices, left most of us stunned, disbelieving and in horror that this could possibly be happening in our country.
The hate and evil delivered on that day must be stamped out.
I question myself constantly what has happened to our country when two men, father and son, are seen to be deliberately firing rifles with precision and determination to kill or maim as many people as they can.
The heroic actions of Ahmed Al-Ahmed in wrestling the gun from one of the men while he was firing at people, has been praised for his bravery, from all around the world.
Also the heroic actions of the couple Boris and Sofia Gurman who saw a man taking the rifle out of his car, tried to take it from him, but tragically lost their precious lives.
There were countless heroes, including the amazing first responders, on that tragic day—
I pause here to convey Pauline’s deep appreciation, respect and admiration for the first responders who actually ran towards the firing—
many trying to help and protect the young and not so young.
Australians selfless to their own safety only to put themselves in danger to save others—
Pauline says thankyou—
This is a tragedy, a scar that will be in our history books for eternity.
Mistakes have been made, but lessons must be learnt. We cannot just move on and thank our lucky stars that it was not one of us or one of our loved ones.
History repeats itself, don’t let the death of 15 innocent Australians and the suffering of many more be swept under the carpet and forgotten.
We are very fortunate to live in such a beautiful country, that many from around the world look on in envy.
This tragedy has been a wake-up call for a lot of people. Never take your freedom, peace or harmony for granted, there are those wanting to spill their hate or evil, if we let them.
Our current and previous governments have a lot to answer for, but that is for another day.
I and my One Nation colleagues will continue to fight for your right to freedom and safety not only for you but for future generations.
A country you can be proud to live in and call home.
https://image2url.com/r2/default/images/1768981847320-73639cb1-d0b5-464b-a099-59fa6f65424a.png6321129Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-01-21 17:52:262026-01-22 17:47:50Australians Deserve the Truth: Ending the Ideology of Terror
A good idea has many parents—just look at the push to suspend costly National Construction Code changes. One Nation proposed it first, saving $50K per home. Now the Liberals and Labor are claiming credit.
Yet the real crisis is homelessness, driven by mass immigration policies started by the Liberals and turbocharged by Labor—over 500,000 arrivals a year while Aussies sleep in cars.
Only One Nation has a comprehensive housing policy. We would cut demand by stopping illegal immigration and visa abuse, ban foreign home ownership, slash construction costs by ending net zero and overregulation. On the finance side, One Nation would roll HECS debt into home loans and allow super to fund deposits.
It’s time to put Australians first.
Transcript
A good idea or a popular idea has many parents. A bad idea or an unpopular idea is an orphan. Well, look at this! One Nation came up with the idea of holding the National Construction Code changes—stopping them, suspending them—to save $50,000 per house in construction costs. That was One Nation, before the election! Now we see Senator Bragg taking ownership of it for the Liberal Party. Then we see the Labor Party coming up with the idea at the roundtable. Where did it come from? One Nation. We have a homelessness crisis in this country. Every major provincial city in Queensland has homeless people sleeping in cars. Working mums and dads are sleeping in their cars. They come home to see if their kids are still there. Why? Because the Liberal Party started mass catastrophic immigration under John Howard, and the Labor Party has turbocharged it now with over 500,000 new immigrants per year.
That’s what’s driving the homelessness crisis. And only One Nation has a comprehensive policy for housing—working on the demand side, working on the supply side, working on the cost side and working on the finance side to reduce demand. To stop immigration, we would deport immediately 75,000 people who were here illegally and deport students who were not in compliance with their visas. On the supply side, we would stop foreign ownership of houses in this country—just stop them! We’d give them two or three years to sell and get out. Free them up. Many of those homes are locked. On the cost side, we would reduce regulations, stop the National Construction Code changes, and end net zero to reduce the price of energy. On the finance side, we would roll HECS debts into home loans and allow access to super accounts to get a deposit. Why can’t your super account invest in your own home when it can invest in other people’s homes? This is bloody ridiculous!
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ZfR0Bo7i2yE/sddefault.jpg480640Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-11-13 14:59:562025-11-13 15:00:05Your First Home Shouldn’t Be a Dream
I thank Senator McGrath for this motion, which One Nation supports. This government is flooding the country with new arrivals who need a bed to sleep in. Home construction is 500,000 homes behind, and this figure is not reducing; it’s growing. A sensible party would simply impose a moratorium on new buildings until housing catches up. That’s One Nation policy.
This, though, is not a sensible government nor an honest government. The roundtable received a proposal to force Australians with spare bedrooms to take in new arrivals or pay a penalty tax. Elderly Australians living in their family homes, with children moved out and bedrooms galore, are terrified of this idea. Current best practice is for the elderly to stay in their homes for as long as possible. Now they are to be turfed out through taxation and forced into retirement homes. In answer to my question on this topic to Minister Gallagher yesterday, I did hear a qualified denial. The minister did not rule the idea out, though; rather she used vague words like, ‘The proposal was not raised while I was in the room.’ Really? That’s not a clear statement. The idea must be dismissed and never considered again.
I would raise this simple question: what’s a bedroom? Does ‘bedroom’ mean any room that can be used to house a new arrival? Studies, rumpuses, garages turned into granny flats? Who will make these decisions? SBS, who promoted the idea, has clearly never watched Doctor Zhivago, a movie depicting life under Soviet rule, which depicted this very thing. The Soviets actually did this, so it’s an idea with precedent. Will the government include compulsion in addition to taxation? Will all those Australians who are buying their homes under Help to Buy or government guaranteed mortgages, who have the government as the shareholder or guarantor on the mortgage, be forced to comply? Will they? Who knows, because no-one is saying. They won’t deny it.
I call on the Prime Minister to rule out any new taxes on the family home, including land tax, bedroom tax and grave tax.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ON3w73M5OnU/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-11-04 13:11:582025-11-04 13:12:08Hands Off Our Homes
I’m an immigrant, and I love this country deeply. Like many others who marched in the March for Australia, I came here legally, embraced the culture, and built a life as part of the Australian community—not separate from it. We weren’t born here, but we’re proud Australians.
What we’re standing up against isn’t immigration itself—it’s immigration without assimilation. We’re tired of politicians pushing mass immigration without thinking about the social and economic hardship it causes. We’re fed up with being called racist or hateful just for wanting to protect our way of life, our jobs, and our communities.
Australians aren’t against migrants — we’re against policies that prioritise foreign workers over Aussie ones, that erode secure employment, and that replace permanent jobs with insecure subcontracting. Labor used to stand for workers, but now they’ve abandoned the working class in favour of globalist agendas, predatory billionaires and their corporate interests.
The truth is diversity is not our strength. Our strength lies in people from all over the world with different backgrounds coming together as Australians, respecting our laws, values, and culture. That’s the Australia I believe in – the Australia I marched for. If you love this country, if you want to contribute and be part of a united Australia, then join us.
Transcript
Immigration without assimilation is an invasion.’ So read the T-shirt that a lovely, older immigrant lady wore in the Cairns March for Australia on Sunday. Many of the tens of thousands of Australians who marched for Australia on Sunday were not born here. Like me, they’re immigrants. I spoke with marchers from all over the world, of every religion and skin colour. They are wonderful Australians who came here as migrants legally, who love this country and who have built a life in Australia, not on top of it—not those who impose their religion, their culture, their intolerance and their perpetual hate onto Australians and who marchers rightly criticised. Marchers criticised politicians and others who hate this country so much that they seek to flood Australia with like-minded arrivals to destroy our culture and to carve off religious and ethnic enclaves in order to divide us. The Australian public are not against immigrants. We’ve had a gutful of excessive, mass immigration—a simple distinction that the unhinged rants from Greens and Labor senators yesterday were designed to cover up. I appreciate the far left in this country have disappeared up their own nobility complex and have completely abandoned any pretence of democracy, decency or civil discourse. Vile, unhinged abuse devoid of facts—indeed, devoid of any relevance to the motion I presented yesterday—doesn’t work on One Nation. It doesn’t work on our supporters and it doesn’t work on those who attended the many marches for Australia. Our beautiful country can embrace and lift up only so many people before the economic and social costs cause the elastic of society to snap back, which is the process you’re watching with confused looks on your faces and fear in your eyes.
The immigration debate is not an argument about someone’s past nationality, religion or skin colour. It’s an argument about wealth, opportunity and security. Former Labor prime minister Julia Gillard knew this to be true. In an address to the University of Western Sydney in March 2013, then prime minister Gillard promised Labor would ‘stop foreign workers being put at the front of the queue, with Australian workers at the back’. She said:
We will support your job and put Aussie workers first.
What a difference 10 years makes! Now those foreign workers are being advanced to the front using DEI, and Australian workers are being told not to apply. Often, the application is not even for a job with secure employment, an award or guaranteed conditions. In the new Australia, jobs are now a subcontracting arrangement requiring an Australian Business Number, an ABN. A microbusiness with a single customer—the same business which used to employ Australians on permanent employment, with awards protecting wages and working conditions—is no more. In just 10 years, the Greens have pushed Labor so far to the left they have abandoned their working-class base, embracing a UN/World Economic Forum sustainability agenda which gives their members less and foreign, predatory billionaires more.
It’s no surprise that marches included members of the AWU, the CFMEU, the ETU and other unions who’ve seen their wealth, opportunity and place in Australia be reduced. Labor has failed to defend Australian workers from employment arrangements that destroy the standard of living of everyday Australians. Instead of listening to the public, rightly complaining, Labor came into this place yesterday and ranted against One Nation. They name-called, lied and misrepresented out of confusion and fear. One Nation has a message for this government: go back to your masters at the World Economic Forum, go back to your owners—the world’s predatory billionaires—and tell them Australia has had enough. We’re not going to be ground zero for your evil plan to tear apart Australian society, culture and cohesion and rebuild in the image of the World Economic Forum. Everyday Australians want our country back. Our success is inevitable because our Australia, built on family, on community and, yes, on national pride, is paradise compared to your ugly vision of a society based on an ever-changing agenda relying on intimidation and bullying.
Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam found that the greater the diversity in a community the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and the less they work on community projects. A massive new study based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America supports those who marched on Sunday. In the most diverse communities, neighbours trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogeneous settings. The study found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings. Ask the five tight monocultures—Japan, Taiwan, China, South Korea and Singapore. Diversity is not our strength. Our strength is Australians who’ve come here from all over the world, with different races and religions providing different perspectives on life, working together as a community of Australians old and new. One Nation welcomes anyone who loves our country, who wants to join in and who wants to pull their weight, follow our laws and, in so doing, lift themselves up. If that’s the Australia you love, please join One Nation and help us reverse the decline of our beautiful country.
Australia’s migration program is failing to deliver the skilled workers we were promised.
An analysis shows that in 2023-24 only 12% of permanent migration spots went to skilled workers — and 0.09% to tradespeople. Meanwhile, the housing crisis worsens.
The system is broken!
— Senate Estimates
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. I want to go to an analysis of the migration program—it’s an analysis done by Emeritus Professor Peter McDonald and Professor Alan Gamlen, who are affiliated with the Migration Hub at the ANU—and also a comment on their analysis by Leith van Onselen, the economist, who says of the report:
Australia’s immigration system is unskilled and broken.
They say, ‘In 2023-24, the permanent migration program’—185,000—’delivered just 166 tradespeople, negligible against national needs.’ The report also shows that just 12 per cent of places in the nation’s permanent migration program are going to skilled workers. Instead, many of these place are being allocated to members of skilled workers’ families. Zero point zero nine per cent of new permanent residents are in the trades. Australians have been promised that the migration program is to fill skills shortages to fix the housing crisis, and that’s being used to justify hundreds of thousands of arrivals—millions over the last few years. Yet now we know that just 166 tradies arrived in one year. Why is your department failing to make sure the people who are granted permanent places in Australia are actually skilled? Senator Watt: Maybe the place to start, Senator, is what figures the department has around—there was a little discussion about this earlier in a session you weren’t here for, but maybe that’s a decent place to start.
Ms Sharp: Certainly. Thanks, Minister. Going very specifically to primary visa applicants who work in the construction sector, in 2024-25 there were 15,524 skilled visas granted to workers in construction.
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me—what was the total migration that year?
Mr Willard: 185,000.
Senator ROBERTS: 185,000?
Ms Sharp: That was the permanent program, Senator, yes. Of that permanent program, 8,741 were skilled workers in the construction sector.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s about four per cent.
Senator Watt: But very different to the numbers you were just quoting, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Depends how they’re classified, Minister.
Senator Watt: Well, I think you gave a figure of 150-something—
Senator ROBERTS: 166.
Senator Watt: Yes, whereas the actual number is over 8,000—so, pretty big difference.
Senator ROBERTS: We can argue about the accuracy because it depends on the classification, but keep going.
Mr Willard: Senator, I’d add that the permanent program—it’s roughly two-thirds allocated to the skilled program. You are correct that the skilled program includes the primary applicants and their immediate family members, and there were 132,148 places delivered in that skilled program in 2024-25.
Putting biological reality and mass migration under scrutiny
Australia has a Sex Discrimination Commissioner who isn’t sure what we mean by ‘biological men’ and a Race Discrimination Commissioner who refuses to attribute unprecedented levels of mass migration to the housing crisis and cost-of-living nightmare.
Both these individuals are paid roughly $400,000 + super.
At last week’s Senate Estimates I was able to question these commissioners on their recent dealings as part of my role holding the bureaucracy to account to you, the taxpayer.
What I heard in response was not only frustrating, it begs very serious questions about their standard of work.
‘What do you mean by biological males?’ – Dr Anna Cody, Sex Discrimination Commissioner
Here are some highlights from my questioning of Dr Anna Cody, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner in the context of the Giggle vs Tickle case and, more generally, the interference of sex-based protections in law through the inclusion of trans individuals.
Roberts: So, what sort of chromosomes does she [transwoman Roxanne Tickle] have – XX or XY?
Cody: I can’t answer that, Senator.
Roberts: You can’t?
Cody: No, I can’t answer that.
Roberts: Wow. [headshake]
Roberts: On my reading of what you’ve said in Giggle vs Tickle, the position on biological males in female spaces seems pretty clear at the Human Rights Commission. Could you explain?
Cody: What would you like me to explain, sorry Senator?
Roberts: What your position is.
Cody: On which issue?
Roberts: The position on biological males in female spaces – could you please explain the Human Rights Commission – your position on that?
Cody: What do you mean by biological males, Senator?
Roberts: Can someone who was born on XY chromosomes change to XX chromosomes? A male change to female?
Cody: I don’t believe so, but I’m not a scientist.
Roberts: Would you agree that a piece of legislation can’t change a person’s sex? If born a man they are a man. If they are born with XY chromosomes they’re a man and they stay a man?
Cody: No, I would not a agree.
Roberts: You don’t agree?
Cody: No.
Roberts: You talked about XX / XY you didn’t really know the answer. How can you make a decision on sex?
Cody: The issue that I’m saying around me not being able to identify whether someone has XX or XY is because I haven’t tested them. I’m not a scientist. That’s not my area of expertise.
Roberts: If a person was born male, that’s XY. Born female is XX.
Cody: Not always, Senator.
Roberts: No?
Cody: No.
Roberts: Someone who was born a man – a boy – has XY chromosomes, cannot change to have XX – is that correct?
Cody: If they are born – if their chromosomes are XY then their chromosomes, I don’t believe they can change, but as I repeat, I’m not a scientist, so I haven’t studied whether or not they can change.
Roberts: So, you’re not a scientist, how do you know which side to take in a court case?
Cody: Um, I’m not taking a side within a court case, our role is as amicus so that is to provide a clarification – help to the court in understanding the legal issues that are in dispute.
Roberts: So, how can you clarify if you don’t understand?
Cody: The – the – what – I – I – understand the law, what I don’t understand is the science around the XX / XY unless the evidence is before the court.
Astonishing! This is reminiscent of the Department of Health taking on ‘notice’ the definition of a woman.
The situation was not much better with the Race Discrimination Commissioner, Giridharan Sivaraman. Previously the former Chair of Multicultural Australia and Member of the Queensland Multicultural Advisory Council, he seemed particularly reluctant to address the economic, social, and cultural impact of mass migration.
Roberts: Is questioning the migration intake numbers racist?
Sivaraman: In of itself? It doesn’t have to be. No. It’s a question of what’s associated with that and whether certain groups get targeted.
Roberts: Okay, thank you. Mr Sivaraman, there are currently 4 million people in this country – our country – who aren’t Australian citizens – are not Australian citizens – taking up beds while Australians are homeless. Record homelessness – after years of unprecedented levels of mass migration. We have been at record numbers for multiple years in a row. That’s not saying anything disparaging about those people who have arrived. That’s just a fact. It is just a mathematical fact that if we continue to accept arrivals at the rate we are, our schools, hospitals, dams, transport, and housing are going to become even more overwhelmed than they are. That’s a fact. Is anyone who acknowledges that fact a racist?
Sivaraman: Um, Senator, I think the first issue is to simply to – connect – in a very linear way migration to the various problems that you’ve described would not be accurate. The problems that you’ve-
Roberts: What is inaccurate about it, Mr Sivaraman?
Sivaraman: The problems that you’ve alluded to like housing, the cost of living – are complicated problems with many different sources. Migration is one of the many different factors that may or may not contribute to those issues. Directly linking them is something that I wouldn’t agree with. And it’s that simplification that often then leads to the scapegoating of migrants, Senator, and I think that can be problematic.
Roberts: Could you tell me how I’m scapegoating migrants when I am one, and can you tell me how it’s simplifying the issue?
Sivaraman: Because it is a simplification of an issue if you directly say that there is only one cause for the significant problems.
Roberts: I didn’t say there was only one cause – it’s just a significant factor.
Sivaraman: Even that in itself is a simplification, Senator, that it could be any number of factors that contribute to those issues.
In both cases, the commissioners reject simplicity.
The biological norms which underpin human gender are simple. ‘Progressive politics’ is the first movement in history to regress ideologically to such a point that it struggles with the definition of men and women. This self-inflicted ‘confusion’ has jeopardised the protection of women, made a mockery of women’s sport, and a laughing stock out of what was once the greatest civilisation on Earth.
Australia’s first female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has a lot to answer for on this topic. After all, it was under her watch that the amendments were made to the Act. Consider the irony of a female leader making Australia less safe for women.
Meanwhile, the undeniable reality of mass migration is a simple mathematical principle that creates a complex forest of problems downstream of the initial mistake. These additional issues are being used to talk-around the primary cause even though the average Aussie on the street has a clear view of what went wrong. Ask them. They know.
I have found that simplicity is often rejected because it allows us to identify the policy error at the heart of these tragedies befalling Australian society.
If we know which policy is causing the problem, we know who wrote it, who voted for it, and how to fix it.
In these cases, we have sex discrimination policies that have been erroneously modified to remove accurate biological qualifications of sex to suit the trending ideological movement of the day, rather than upholding the protection of biologically segregated spaces – as was their intention.
For migration, the problem is the Big Australia Ponzi scheme being run by Labor (and the Coalition in the past) to cook the economic books and obscure the per capita backwards economic trend taking place. Doing so would mean admitting that migrants are being used to prop up political parties, bureaucratic structures, and the interests of developers while the immediate needs and rights of Australian citizens are torn to shreds.
Yes, we can still ask questions about these topics – but the quality of the answers we receive speaks volumes about the ingrained nature of the bureaucratic double-speak quagmire we need to dismantle before real change can be made.
Questioning the commissioners by Senator Malcolm Roberts
Putting biological reality and mass migration under scrutiny
