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
It’s “rumoured” the Labor government are planning to bring hundreds of thousands of Indian workers into Australia on top of the current mass migration crisis.
After days of coverage, this “rumour” has not confirmed nor denied.
Across Australia, construction companies are collapsing due to rising costs. The Treasurer must know that this massive construction plan will drive up the price of building materials even further because of demand.
The result?
More Australian businesses destroyed. More Australian jobs lost.
Transcript
Homelessness in my birthplace, India, is a national scandal. Close to two million people are living on the streets—children, women and the elderly—vulnerable to violence and disease.
Why would the government be discussing bringing hundreds of thousands of Indian labourers and tradesmen here to build one million new homes, financed with a United Arab Emirates loan? Is it a loan or will these be build to rent?
How about India borrows the $500 billion and builds housing in their country, getting their children, women and elderly off the streets? The Indian Minister of Commerce and Industry, Piyush Goyal, told us about this plan and Indian mainstream media confirmed it. After days of coverage, this government has neither confirmed nor denied it. One would think that’s a concession. If you are not planning this, say so. If you are planning it, then admit it and answer our questions, starting with the fact that hundreds of thousands of Indian migrants have to sleep somewhere. Is that what the spare bedroom tax was for—billeting these new migrant workers? If not, then the first two years will be spent building homes for these imported workers who will, no doubt, never leave them. Where does that get us? Are these 200,000 workers on top of the 2.9 million new visa holders the government has let in since 2022 or are they extras?
It’s been four years now, and I understand that less than 10,000 of the 2.9 million you’ve let in are qualified construction workers. That’s 0.3 per cent building houses for the 99.7 per cent. Where are your plans to provide land, building inspectors and trade qualification checks to make sure these homes are built to standard? All over our country construction companies are going broke due to rising costs. The Treasurer must know that this massive construction plan will cause runaway demand inflation in building materials, forcing more of our builders to the wall. All you’ll do is destroy Australian companies and take jobs from Australians. Why do you hate our country?
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Photo3-1.jpg?fit=2048%2C1365&ssl=113652048Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-09-04 22:26:422025-09-10 12:59:37March for Australia
One Nation moved to establish a Senate inquiry into the program of mass immigration.
On Monday 1 September, I asked the Australian Senate to establish an inquiry into the impact of immigration on our economy.
The Australian public and the government must be properly informed about the data and the impacts of this policy. Without that, there can be no genuine policy debate or discussion.
That’s why we want to establish this inquiry, to take the emotion out of the debate and deal with the facts and data.
See the Senators who voted NO to our inquiry 👇 Almost all Liberals, Labor and Greens teamed up to block the inquiry.
Live Debate: 1 hr 16 mins.
Motion Defeated – 37 to 9
Number of Temporary Visa Holders in Australia
Mainstream media is out there gaslighting Australia, telling us that immigration is going down.
Can anyone point to the part of the graph where we aren’t currently at record migration levels?
Source: Number of Temporary Visa Holders in Australia, Department of Home Affairs.
2GB Radio Interview with Ben Fordham: Our flag is a symbol of national pride, unity, and identity. Burning it is not protest — it’s desecration. Like Trump, I believe there must be serious consequences.
Transcript
Ben Fordham: The US president has just signed an executive order which makes it a criminal offence. Donald Trump has told reporters if you burn our flag, you get one year in gaol, no early exits, no nothing. And there’s a similar push happening here in Australia. Pauline Hanson wants to criminalise the burning of the flag. The One Nation leader has launched a petition calling for laws to be introduced to protect our national flag. Malcolm Roberts, the One Nation Senator from Queensland, is on the line right now. Malcolm, good morning to you.
Senator Roberts: Good morning, Ben. It’s nice to hear you being so cheery.
Ben Fordham: Yeah, well, there’s no other way to do it, mate, at this time of the morning. So let me kick off first of all, with Donald Trump. I think this will be a popular move. I mean, regardless of what you think of any politician, people are very protective when it comes to their country and their flag.
Senator Roberts: Well, it’s wonderful to see the protests coming on the weekend, you know, because people in Australia can feel or sense something slipping away, mate. There’s a national identity that’s deteriorating and that’s linked to personal ID – personal identity – and Australia has an identity crisis and similar in America, and the globalists have pushed this agenda that’s destroying national boundaries, national sense of pride and Pauline can see that and I can see that, and what we need to do is restore what it means to be Australian.
Ben Fordham: So what are you suggesting should happen to someone who desecrates the Australian flag?
Senator Roberts: Well, that’s a matter for the parliament. I haven’t done too much thinking of that. But there be serious punishment. It should be a breach of the law and punishable, you know, and Donald Trump’s gone for a year in gaol. Why can’t we do that?
Ben Fordham: 30,000 people have signed the petitions so far, and we’ve seen some of these incidents recently and in the past when you have a protest and then someone thinks – I know what I’ll do, I’ll pull out the Australian flag and then start lighting it on fire, and always Australians are very defensive when it comes to that, so that would outlaw such a practise.
Senator Roberts: Well, you know, I’m delighted to see Australians taking back our country. I understand and I can empathise very much with people’s frustration and annoyance and anger. The government surrenders. It won’t stand up for Australia, it won’t stand up for Australians, it won’t stand up for a flag. Australians witnessing every protest on Palestine and other protests, with hundreds of people carrying foreign flags and taking homes from us Aussies. They see the Hamas flag, which is banned – it’s a terrorist flag – they can see that being hauled along and nothing done. And yet people have frowned upon if they carry an Aussie flag. It’s crazy. You know, a nation is not just a shoreline – we’re an island nation – but it’s not just the dirt that we’ve got here, it’s the sense of culture, national spirit – it’s the glue. You know, you can’t touch it, but you can feel it and you can’t see it, but you can feel it. It’s the glue that gives people cohesion and the culture is very, very important and people know that one of our – well it’s the most important thing in any organisation, whether it’s a football club, Ben, or sporting club or nation or a corporation or a business, the culture is what’s so important. It’s vital for productivity, security, on safety and people can sense it slipping away and the government’s a part of that – the cause of that. So people are standing up and they want action.
Ben Fordham: You mentioned the August 31 protests. They’ll be happening this Sunday and there’ll be lots of Aussie flags out for that. And very important Malcolm Roberts, that everyone keeps a cool head this weekend when they’re at those demonstrations.
Senator Roberts: Absolutely, Ben. And what happens at some of these protests in the major capital cities is that people come along – plants from the left wing – and they come along and pretend to be Nazis and stir things up and then the protesters are given the blame. It’s actually very, very important that people be cool, be calm and just step for Australia and our flag and our nation. That’s all we need to do and just behave peacefully.
Ben Fordham: We appreciate your time. Thanks for jumping on the line.
Senator Roberts: You’re welcome, Ben. Keep going.
Ben Fordham: Good on you. Malcolm Roberts, the Senator for Queensland with Pauline Hanson’s One Nation.
Thousands of proud Australians have now signed the petition to ban burning of our flag. Burning our flag isn’t free speech—it’s anti-Australian. Respect our flag. Respect our country.
I joined 2SM Radio to discuss a serious breach of Australia’s visa system – 23,000 international students have obtained fraudulent qualifications.
This widespread abuse undermines the integrity of our education sector, accelerates unsustainable immigration, and places additional strain on housing, wages, and public infrastructure.
The Albanese Government must take decisive action and should include deportations and full accountability from this government.
