Posts

From Iran to Australia: A Defiant Warning

,

On a motion supporting the people of Persia and the safety of all in the Middle East and globally, I read a letter from Janet Shay, an Iranian woman who escaped the Islamic regime, converted from Islam to Christianity and now lives safely in Australia.

Janet calls for honest debate, the freedom to question belief systems, and for clear distinctions between those who live peacefully and those whose convictions threaten public safety.

She urged the government to apply consistent standards, learn from Iran’s experience, and put Australians’ security first.

Her message is clear: It’s not good enough for our government to call behaviour ‘Terrorism’ when it’s outside of our country and refuse to say the name when it’s inside.

The safety of Australians must never be sacrificed because politicians are too afraid to have difficult conversations.

Transcript

This morning, I received an email from a constituent who was born into the Islamic regime in Iran. Her parents were Muslim yet converted to Christianity, and they were successful in fleeing Iran and moving to Australia. These are her words, based on her lived experience and that of her family: 

My name is Janet Shay. I’m an Iranian-Australian. 

Yesterday, on the 1st March 2026, the Leader of the Islamic Government of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, was killed. 

The Iranian people have waited 47 years for this moment. 

This is a historical and joyful time for Iranians and for the world. 

Although I am joyful for them, and hopeful that soon I may visit my family the graves of my loved one in Iran, I am deeply concerned for us here in Australia. 

I’ll say that again: she is ‘deeply concerned for us here in Australia’. She continues: 

In 2025 Prime Minister Albanese declared Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (the IRGC) a terrorist organisation. Thank you Prime Minister. 

However, declaring a group a terrorist organisation means very little if the ideology that drives that group continues to be taught and defended on Australian soil without consequence. 

What does our government intend do about those living among us who actively promote and defend the same ideology that endorses killing of apostates, abusing women and the sexual violation of children. 

On the 14th of December 2025 there was an attack on Bondi: on Australian soil, against Australians. The Prime Minister said sorry. Ok. 

But sorry is not honesty about what we are dealing with. An ideology cannot be called terrorist overseas but acceptable when it’s in our own country. 

See, the people protesting in Iran are not afraid of being politically incorrect, to NAME what they endured under Islam. They are not going to be gaslit into calling it a misinterpretation. 

So I’ll follow in their footsteps and speak plainly. 

There are two types of Muslims: a Good Muslim a True Muslim. I know Good Muslims. They are kind, generous and they want exactly what the rest of us want: 

safety, family, a future, a decent life. But they are good Muslims because they do not follow all that Islam actually instructs them to do. That is why they are good Muslims. 

The Islamic government of Iran, the IRGC, Hamas, al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Houthis: these are not people who went rogue away from their faith. 

These people read their Quran and said: we will do exactly as our holy leader instructs. By their own scripture’s measure, they are the True Muslims. 

The good Muslim and the true Muslim are two different people. 

The word “Islamophobia” is used in Australia to shut down the freedom to have opposing conversations about the religion of Islam. 

A phobia is an irrational fear— 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sterle): On a point of order, Senator Shoebridge. 

Senator Shoebridge: The inflammatory language here of ‘good Muslims’ and ‘true Muslims’—attacking the Muslim faith in the way that this senator is—is contrary to the standing orders. I’d ask you to have him withdraw that commentary and ensure that the debate we have in this chamber does not lead to that Islamophobia that we just heard from Senator Roberts.  

Senator Hanson-Young: Or hate speech. 

Senator Shoebridge: Or, as my colleague says, hate speech. 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Shoebridge, I don’t quite see it as you do, but I’m going to check with the Clerk to make sure. The Clerk has concurred with me. You have the floor, Senator Roberts. 

Janet Shay continues: 

The word “Islamophobia” is used in Australia to shut down the freedom to have opposing conversations about the religion of Islam. 

A phobia is an irrational fear. Reading the Quran and asking whether its teachings align with Australian values isn’t irrational.  

Christianity is openly mocked in our country without legal protection from criticism. Nor should there be such protection. In a free society, any belief system can be questioned. 

But when Islam is questioned the conversation shuts down and the person asking the question is called ‘the problem’. And the question about Islam NEVER gets answered. 

She says: 

Australia, we have the right to read, question and think for ourselves. Go to your local library. Pick up a copy of the Quran. Read the Hadith, the recorded words and example of their Prophet Muhammad. Draw your own conclusion and decide if Islam should be shielded from scrutiny in a democratic nation. 

Demand that our government clearly distinguish between those who wish to live freely alongside us and those whose convictions oppose the safety and freedom of Australians. 

And let us build our immigration, our policy and our national values accordingly. 

That is not hatred. That is not phobia. That is us protecting ourselves. 

It is not good enough for our government to call behaviour Terrorism when it’s outside of our country and refuse to say the name when it is inside. 

The people of Iran were duped into accepting an Islamic government and have paid for it in blood for 47 years, while the world stood by and didn’t listen. 

Do not let Australia learn that lesson the way Iran did. 

Long live a free Australia. 

Thank you, Janet Shay. I will return to this topic later today—the interests of Australian people at a time of threats to our security. This is what matters. The security of Australians is paramount to One Nation, and it should be paramount to every member of the Senate. 

/2 Comments/by

Labor’s “Suicidal Empathy” on ISIS Brides

,

One Nation supports the private Senator’s Bill that was introduced in March by Senator Duniam.

This Bill finally forces transparency and accountability around the return of individuals linked to terrorism.

The Bill makes it an offence to organise or facilitate the entry of people who’ve engaged in terrorism-related conduct unless both key ministers sign off in writing.

This legislation exposes Labor’s role in repatriating women who travelled to ISIS territory as committed participants in a violent extremist organisation responsible for severe harm and human rights abuses.

Their return was quietly brokered through intermediaries, even though some had openly urged attacks on Australia and its allies. A true case of suicidal empathy.

To these female terrorists, One Nation says this: you got what you went over there for; you made your bed; now lie in.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I thank Senator Duniam for this bill, which One Nation will support. The Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026 amends the Criminal Code Act 1995—the Criminal Code. The bill inserts a new offence into part 5.5 of the Criminal Code to criminalise the organisation or facilitation of the entry into Australia of certain persons who have engaged in terrorism related conduct—unless these actions occur with the prior written permission of both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Home Affairs.

The offence applies where a person organises or facilitates the entry into Australia of another person from a foreign country and where, at the time of organising or facilitating the entry, the other person has engaged in conduct constituting an offence under subsection 119.2(1) of the Criminal Code—namely, entering or remaining in a declared area—or another terrorism offence as defined under the Crimes Act 1914; the first person knows that the other person intends to engage in conduct constituting an offence under subsection 119.2(1) or another terrorism offence before entering Australia; or the other person is or has been a member of a terrorist organisation. They’re the three criteria.

The offence does not apply to conduct in which a Commonwealth authority is engaged or to conduct on behalf of a Commonwealth authority, which lets Minister Burke off the hook for facilitating the return of ISIS brides. I’ll say that again: it lets Mr Burke off the hook for facilitating the return of ISIS brides.

The bill extends the sunset date for the declared areas regime in sections 119.2 and 119.3 of the Criminal Code from 7 September 2027 to 7 September 2030. These amendments are intended to ensure that decisions concerning the repatriation to Australia of persons who have entered or remain in declared areas, who have committed any other terrorism offences or who are members of terrorist organisations occurs with appropriate Commonwealth authorisation.

The return of the wrongly named ‘ISIS brides’ inspires this legislation. The term ‘ISIS brides’ is, of course, a misnomer. So-called Australian ISIS brides are women who travelled to Syria and Iraq, of their choice, to join or marry fighters for the Islamic State group, often referred to as the caliphate. These women were involved in hijrah—immigration to the Islamic State—as wives and mothers to ‘breed the cubs of the caliphate’ and to support jihad efforts. ISIS propaganda itself targeted Western women, with roles as supporters, militarised mothers and wives—or even, when needed, fighters. They are not brides; they’re Islamic terrorists who travelled to a war zone, a proscribed area, to fight against the West and fight against Australia. They encouraged their men to kill and do other unspeakable things. They brainwashed their own children. Yet we’re supposed to bring them back here—and what? Condone their behaviour? There can be no condoning of the treachery they’ve committed.

This bill will not stop the return per se. It will force their return into the open, where the voting public will be able to clearly see that the Labor government was responsible for their return, and the people will hold the Labor government accountable. That’s what we want—openness. For clarity, Labor did that, returned them, through an intermediary from the Muslim Brotherhood, a device that Minister Burke thought would insulate the government from the fallout coming from returning these terrorists. It did not.

Western countries allowing in, or back in, terrorists committed to overthrowing our way of life and installing sharia law has a name. It’s called suicidal empathy. Let’s quote one of Minister Burke’s ISIS terrorists, who, while in Syria, said this: ‘Attack the US, Australia, the UK. Kill them. Stab them. Poison their food.’ That’s charming—really charming. It’s suicidal empathy indeed.

These women went to a war zone in Syria to fight a war for the caliphate against Australia. Syria is now a caliphate. Their side won. So why do they want to come back to Australia? Are caliphates not as appealing as Australia? Now, that’s telling. Or do they aim to help make Australia a caliphate? As I said yesterday, Shady Alsuleiman is president of the Australian National Imams Council and mentor to Wissam Haddad, the ISIS cell leader who radicalised the Bondi terrorist Naveed Akram. Alsuleiman has released a video in which he promises, ‘Islam will enter every home in Australia.’ And he does not mean to do your dishes; he means to convert you to Islam—or else. Australians have every right to feel afraid of people this government is bringing in. The government is bringing these people in. To these female terrorists, we say this: you got you went over there for; you made your bed; now lie in it.

/1 Comment/by

The Danger of Dancing Around Radical Islam

,

During the February Estimates hearings, I had the opportunity to question Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia. Although the session was brief, it raised an important issue.

How can we protect Australians if Islamic-motivated terrorism cannot be addressed directly?

It is difficult to resolve “misunderstandings” about mainstream Islamic teachings without acknowledging that radical interpretations have been used by violent actors, including in the Bondi Islamic terrorist attack.

While these views may fall outside mainstream doctrine, the reality is that many individuals adopt these distorted interpretations that lead to real-world harm.

Avoiding the link between extremist interpretations of Islam and terrorism ultimately makes it harder to address the problem effectively.

One Nation is prepared to have these difficult conversations if it means protecting Australians and ensuring tragedies like the Bondi attack Never. Happen. Again.

— February | Senate Estimates

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing. It’s nice to have you in person rather than on the box. Following my question on notice 1477 relating to the cost of producing the National Response to Islamophobia, which has not been answered, what is the cost of the document?  

Mr Malik: I thought I had submitted those answers. I’m sorry if you haven’t received them. I did complete all that. Have you received them?  

Senator ROBERTS: No.  

Mr Malik: I apologise. I have answered your question. Maybe I will follow up with the support envoy team as to why you haven’t received those.  

Senator DUNIAM: Is it still with the minister?  

Mr Malik: I replied back to the envoy support team when I got the questions on notice. I responded straightaway. Sorry. I apologise. I can follow that up.  

Senator ROBERTS: In the December estimates, I asked you why your report did not mention Sharia law and you asked, ‘What version of Sharia law?’ Therefore, you didn’t mention any. Let me be specific. The Centre for Arbitration and Resolution of Disputes, CARD, run by the Australian National Imams Council, the peak body for imams in Australia, arbitrates disputes in marital areas and civil disputes. Is this an alternative system of law based on Islamic teaching rather than on the laws applying to every other Australian?  

Mr Malik: I don’t think there are two systems of law. Everyone here understands and fully accepts that everyone works underneath Australian law. I’m not a spokesperson for the CARD. That question perhaps is best asked of them. It tries to arrive at a mutual understanding between the two partners. I’m not the spokesperson. You could clarify with them yourselves, but I think that’s why it was established.  

Senator ROBERTS: You said it was voluntary. Apparently it’s not. By consent settlement in marital disputes can be filed with the Family Court as a binding agreement, an agreement made under Sharia law?  

Mr Malik: Again, I would have to push back on that. From my understanding—as I say again, I’m not a spokesperson for CARD; I’ve actually had no engagement with CARD as well—it seems to be operating as many of the councils in the UK, and that is where the husband and wife will come together with a religious imam to try to reconcile between the two. But, ultimately, the divorce can only take place in a secular court. Again, you would need to direct that to CARD.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Australian National Imams Council has called for an end to the use of words like ‘radical Islam’ and ‘extremist Islam’. The Australian National Imams Council leader, Sheikh Shadi Alsuleiman, has gone further and declared that terrorism and Islam should not be linked at all. Your report failed to mention Islamic terrorism. Will you now correct that omission you have on your statement, and discuss the link between Islamic terrorism and Islam? Feel free to include Bondi.  

Mr Malik: Yes. I’ve actually just finished writing an article. The first topic I dedicated to you. It should be out in a few weeks. I answer that question very specifically. Again, one needs to understand the history of Islam rather than going on YouTube or TikTok. The Prophet Muhammad, who’s seen as the sole authority in Islam, said two people would be denied paradise, and the first one is a religious extremist. Muslims get confused when people say questions like you put forward to us, because within mainstream normative Islam extremism is anathema. It’s really something that we have to stay away from. Those individuals who break that code or that ethical conduct are individuals on the fringes of mainstream society. For example, when Scott Morrison read his article about reforming Islam, he seemed to miss the point that the individuals are out of their systems. As one of the leaders of Muslim countries explained, mainstream Islam does not accept extremism. It’s actually anathema to Islam. But non-Muslims will say, ‘These guys are quoting from the Quran and saying that God is great. They must be Muslims and Islam.’ I acknowledge the confusion, but I think it can quickly be put to bed by just a simple conversation and a simple reading of history, to be honest with you, as well. 

Senator ROBERTS: On notice, could you provide us with a copy of that article?  

Mr Malik: Yes. I’m hoping it will be published within two or three weeks.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll put another question on notice. 

/1 Comment/by

Is the Refugee Program Changing Australia?

, ,

The Australian government is using the UN refugee visa program to intentionally bring radical Islam into the country.

25,000 migrants arrived under the UN refugee program last year, the vast majority coming from Muslim countries. Applications from Christian refugees in Nigeria and South Africa, as well as Syrian Alawites, were excluded.

The president of the Australian National Imams Council, Shadi Alsuleiman (and mentor to Wisam Haddad, the ISIS cell leader who radicalised the Bondi terrorist Naveed Akram) released a video in which he promises that “Islam will enter every home in Australia.”

Australians have a legitimate reason to fear the current government’s immigration policies.

Transcript

I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for the Environment and Water (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today. 

His government is pursuing a strategy of important radical Islam into our country, Australia, under the guise of the UN refugee visa program. Last year, 25,000 migrants arrived in Australia under this program, almost exclusively from Muslim countries. No places were provided for refugees from Islamic terror in Nigeria or Syria or for victims of black-on-white violence in South Africa, because those refugees are Christians and Syrian Alawites and not Islamists. Where is this UN policy taking Australia? Shadi Alsuleiman is the president of the Australian National Imams Council and mentor to Wisam Haddad, the ISIS cell leader who radicalised the Bondi terrorist Naveed Akram. Alsuleiman has released a video in which he promises, ‘Islam will enter every home in Australia’—and he doesn’t mean to do your dishes! He means to convert you to Islam, or else. Australians have every right to feel afraid of people this government is bringing in.  

Question agreed to. 

/1 Comment/by

The UN’s Grip on Our Borders

,

The Albanese Labor government is accepting refugees almost exclusively from Muslim countries while ignoring Christians being slaughtered in Nigeria and Syria. Why are we importing cultures of violence instead of offering protection to those being persecuted by them?

The regime of Abu Mohammad al-Julani is currently conducting a slaughter of Christians and Alawites to establish a caliphate. I asked whether the government would balance the intake to protect these groups before they are killed. 

Why is the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees effectively “managing” our resettlement intake, a practice that risks the safety and security of everyday Australians? 

Instead of addressing why Christian refugees are being excluded, Minister Watt resorted to the usual Labor tactics: personal attacks. He attempted to smear me and my party as “divisive” and falsely attributed comments to Senator Hanson to avoid answering for his government’s policies. 

I made it clear: our immigration program should be based on protecting our security and supporting those truly in need, rather than outsourcing our sovereignty to the UN or prioritising groups that do not share our values. The Minister’s refusal to provide a straight answer only proves that this government is more interested in virtue signalling than the safety of the Australian people.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Watt. Last November, I asked you about the country of origin of refugees in your government’s refugee visa program. Your response on notice stated, ‘There were no visas granted to citizens of Nigeria or South Africa through the offshore refugee program.’ In my question, I pointed out the reason why we’re not taking in Christian refugees is that your government is taking refugees almost exclusively from Muslim countries or communities. Minister, why is your government not offering refugee status to Christians currently being subject to persecution, violence and murder in Nigeria and South Africa rather than taking the people who are propagating the culture of violence? 

Senator WATT: I’m always careful, Senator Roberts, to not concede that what you put forward as facts are actually facts, particularly on matters relating to migration because we know that you and your party seek to divide Australians based on the issue of migration. If any evidence of that is needed, it’s the conclusion of your question which yet again seeks to tar all Muslim Australians and Muslim migrants with the action of a small minority who do the wrong thing. It wasn’t that long ago that your party leader, Senator Hanson, effectively said that there was no such thing as a good Muslim, a statement that we utterly reject and, in fact, Senator Whitten rejected, to his credit. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts? 

Senator ROBERTS: I have a point of order. That’s not accurate; she did not say that. That was a media beat-up. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, thank you for sitting down when I requested it. Minister Watt, please continue. 

Senator WATT: Senator Hanson’s comments on Muslims were so outrageous that Barnaby Joyce distanced himself from them and Senator Whitten distanced himself from them. I don’t recall you distancing yourself from those comments, Senator Roberts, and it’s a matter for you to determine how you feel about those statements. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts? 

Senator ROBERTS: I just did distance myself because the comments weren’t accurate. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, that’s not a point of order; it’s a debating point. Minister Watt, have you concluded your answer? 

Senator WATT: What I’ve said repeatedly in answer to questions from One Nation on the issue of migration in this chamber is that the Albanese government proudly has a policy of not discriminating against migrants based on their religion or other personal attributes. We will always consider the merits of every migration application. Each and every day, we reject applicants who are seeking to move to Australia and migrate to Australia on the basis of character checks and other reasons, but we don’t have a blanket rule of stopping all people from a certain faith in the way that One Nation seeks to do. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the Syrian Islamic regime of President Abu Mohammad al-Julani is conducting a slaughter of Christians and Alawites in Syria to turn Syria into a caliphate. The videos are all over social media, and, yes, we have checked them, and they have been authenticated. Minister, will you reduce your Islamic refugee intake and at least balance it with Nigerian and Syrian Christian and Syrian Alawite refugees before they too are killed at the hands of Islamists? 

Senator WATT: Again, Senator Roberts, to your deep shame, you are equating every Muslim who seeks to move to Australia with the actions of what sounds like a reprehensible organisation, and that is not a position that we accept. Our position is that anyone who seeks to get a visa to migrate to Australia should be assessed to ensure that they are of good character, that they don’t present 

a security risk to Australians wherever they’re from and whatever their faith is. Senator Roberts, I might need to remind you of the comments of your leader, Senator Hanson. She was asked whether there are good Muslims out there, and she said: ‘How can you tell me there are good Muslims?’ If that’s the kind of language and rhetoric that you think is going to help bring this country together, then that’s on you. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, in your written reply dated 4 November, you twice refer to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and admit that it informs and ‘manages’ your resettlement intake. Why is your immigration program risking the safety and security of everyday Australians? 

Senator WATT: It’s not, and, Senator Roberts, I know you and your party have sought to profit politically from the awful tragedy we saw at Bondi just before Christmas. It’s worth remembering that one of the people involved in those attacks migrated to Australia during the Howard government’s period in office and the other of those people was born in Australia. But let’s just ignore the facts for a minute, Senator Roberts, hey? That’s the way you operate. The way this government operates is that we make decisions about individual applicants based on their character, based on whether they’re going to make a positive contribution to Australia and whether they represent a security risk to Australia. We do not have the kind of approach that you are encouraging us to take, and we will always, proudly, stand up for Australian values in terms of who is admitted to this country. 

/4 Comments/by

Stop Terrorists, Not Free Speech

,

Judge for yourself: does the head of the department overseeing security and immigration seem reluctant to answer simple questions? Do her answers give you confidence?

Secretary Stephanie Foster refused to say how safe Australians currently are. Instead, she tried to deflect the question to ASIO, only belatedly mentioning that the government had allocated $102 million to assist with security for Jewish sites.

Minister Watt and the government haven’t received the message: One Nation will not vote for legislation that packages necessary legal provisions we support with “bundled” provisions that strip away basic rights such as free speech and instil needless control over the people.

The answer to terrorism is not to take away the basic freedoms of Australians; the answer is to stop terrorists from entering Australia in the first place. Based on Minister Watt’s response today and Minister Ayres’ response yesterday, it’s clear that Labor is growing concerned about the surging support for One Nation.

Rather than misleading by omission and spreading falsehoods about One Nation, wouldn’t it be more effective if the “Uniparty” — Liberal and Labor — started serving Australians?

Telling the truth can be tough. However, as One Nation does, it’s better for the long-term interest of the country to raise difficult truths and facts. Instead of dragging others down out of fear, Labor should try lifting itself up.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: These questions are for Home Affairs. What is the risk to Australians of a terrorist attack on Australian soil since the Bondi atrocity at the hands of Islamic terrorists of Middle Eastern extraction and the failed bombing attempt by homegrown white supremacists?

Ms Foster: You’re absolutely right that is a question for the Home Affairs portfolio, but the threat assessments are actually done by ASIO. Director-General Burgess will be appearing later today.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m going to ask him similar questions. Isn’t it pertinent that you should know as well?

Ms Foster: That’s a specific role assigned to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you interact with ASIO and AFP to coordinate activities?

Ms Foster: We do. In terms of actually formulating that assessment, that’s a role that belongs with them.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking you whether or not you formulate the role. Thank you for explaining that ASIO does that. I thought they did that. What I’m asking is: do you know it? I can ask you questions about your department’s response based on the level of threat.

Ms Foster: I’m hesitating because an amount of the assessment work is classified in nature. I’ll need to take the question on notice before I answer about what is my state of knowledge of the classification level of the material that I have.

Senator ROBERTS: I just want to know whether or not your department knows what the level of risk is right now. What’s the rating?

Ms Foster: That’s the question I’m being cautious of. When agencies make assessments about threat, that can often be drawn from classified sources. It’s on the public record that the Director-General raised the threat level for terrorism to ‘probable’ on 5 August 2024. That’s the national terrorism threat level, which as he explains means a more than 50 per cent chance of that occurring.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll ask him this question as well, and thank you for that answer. My understanding is that the risk level rating has to be increased immediately after an attack. Has it been increased? What I’m getting to, Secretary, is: what are you doing differently now compared with before Bondi?

Ms Foster: Again, publicly, the director-general has affirmed that the national terrorism threat level remains at ‘probable’, that he did not, on the basis of information available to him, change that at the time. In terms of what we collectively have done since Bondi, you’ll see a very significant range of activities—obviously some of which you participated in in the debates on the bills which were passed a couple of weeks ago.

Senator ROBERTS: How safe are we now, living in Australia?

Ms Foster: I can only give you my previous answer, which is that it is the director-general of ASIO who makes assessments of Australia’s national terrorism threat level, and he will be appearing later today. But I’ve given you the publicly stated information to date. Mr Hansford has just reminded me that, in terms of another very significant action since Bondi, there is the allocation of a $102 million investment in security for Jewish institutions, places of worship and educational facilities.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you do anything to educate everyday Australians or citizens of Australia as to what we can do to enhance our safety?

Mr Hansford: We—as in the Commonwealth—have a range of actions, including information on the national security website and a range of information that can help people to be informed about security issues in Australia. We also play a leadership role, and I co-chair the Australia-New Zealand Counter-Terrorism Committee that has met post Bondi a number of times to talk about how we prepare, knowing what we know about Bondi from the law enforcement and policy community across Australia. We’ve had discussions around how law enforcement and policy agencies can respond to and learn from what’s happened in Bondi, cognisant of the inquiries that are underway.

Senator ROBERTS: It doesn’t sound very concrete to me. What about things like tightening up immigration standards regarding who we let into the country?

Senator Watt: We recently passed some laws to strengthen the minister’s powers to cancel visas of people promoting hate, and your party voted against those laws.

Senator ROBERTS: That was because of other things that we did not like in the bill.

Senator Watt: So you voted against what you were asking for?

Senator ROBERTS: We voted against the other provisions of your bill.

Senator Watt: Which were to make it easier to ban association with Neo-Nazis. Was it that bit that you didn’t like? What was it that you didn’t like?

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, we could talk for hours about the specifics of that bill. This is a time for you to answer my questions; it’s not for me to answer your questions.

Senator Watt: The problem with One Nation is that you call for things to happen and then vote against them. You’ve done that now on hate speech and hate crime.

Senator ROBERTS: We do not vote against tighter immigration.

Senator Watt: You voted against same job, same pay, when you called for better labour standards.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, will you increase the immigration vetting standards?

Senator Watt: You voted against cheaper medicines when you wanted things done for poorer Australians. At some point, Australians are going to see through One Nation and observe that you make promises that you don’t keep when you come to Canberra. You did it again recently, by calling for hate preachers to be banned and restricted and then voting against laws that would do that. You called for migration screening and then voted against it. So I’ll leave it to Australians to see through what One Nation does rather than what One Nation says.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you think Australians are fools and not seeing what you’re doing right now? We’ve asked for tighter immigration standards. Will you answer the question: will you provide tighter immigration standards to keep terrorists out?

Senator Watt: We just did that, and you voted against it.

Senator ROBERTS: That was because of other things in your bill.

Senator Watt: But we did what you were asking for, and you voted against it—

Senator ROBERTS: Correct, because of the other things.

Senator Watt: just as you always vote against the things that you say need to be done, and we’re onto you.

Senator ROBERTS: We’re happy to leave it in the hands of the Australian people.

Senator Watt: The Australian people, over time, will be onto you.

Senator ROBERTS: Will you call out ideologies that promote terrorism?

Senator Watt: We’ve done that, and we’ve just passed laws.

Senator ROBERTS: It took a long while for you to call out ideologies—

Senator Watt: We’ve done that. We’ve gone and done more than just call it out; we’ve passed laws. We’ve just passed laws. We don’t just call things out; we pass laws to restrict hate speech and hate preachers, and you vote against those laws.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, until the Bondi attack, only one party was calling out ideological Islam, and that was us. Now, all of a sudden, we’ve got more doing so.

Senator Watt: That’s not true.

Senator ROBERTS: The Prime Minister didn’t.

Senator Watt: There’s a long series of statements from the Prime Minister and ministers in this government. They have condemned some of the hate speech that we’ve seen in the community, whether it be from Islamic preachers or white supremacists; there is a long series of those statements. But we don’t just call things out. When we come to Canberra, we pass laws to restrict that kind of activity. So I invite you to work with the government to restrict that kind of activity, rather than just pretend that you care about these issues.

Senator ROBERTS: Secretary, do you have adequate resources to do what needs to be done?

Ms Foster: The Department of Home Affairs has a very substantial budget and staffing level, and I am able to deploy those resources to the government’s priorities.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/by

Are There Really 200 Would-Be Terrorists in Australia?

,

During the recent Senate Estimates, I questioned Mr Burgess, Director-General of ASIO, about the scale and nature of extremist threats in Australia. I cited figures of 200 potential terrorists and 18,000 people on threat-related watchlists.

Mr Burgess clarified that while “tens of thousands” have been investigated since 2001, not all remain active threats. He stated that the vast majority of individuals investigated since 2001 fall under religiously motivated violent extremism. However, he noted growth in other sectors, specifically – nationalist and racist violent extremists; extreme left-wing groups (anarchists and revolutionists) and broad “issue-motivated” extremists.

Mr Burgess declined to say whether the majority of persons under investigation were Islamist extremists.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: In terms of root cause analysis, you’ve reassured me already. Thank you for your statement. I have a few questions. Is it true that there are approximately 200 would-be terrorists living in Australia? Is it true that there are over 18,000 people on the threat related watch list?  

Mr Burgess: What I can say publicly is we have a number of people we have subject to investigations, including a number of people in our priority counterterrorism caseload who obviously get the priority. There are tens of thousands of people who have come to our attention and are no longer being investigated by us. That does not mean tens of thousands of people are potential terrorists, but they’re people we have investigated.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that the majority of these are Islamic sympathisers?  

Mr Burgess: The vast majority of people we’ve investigated since 2001 have come from a religiously motivated violent extremism cohort. But of course we have seen growth in broader issue motivated violent extremists, including nationalists and racist violent extremists and people with a range of other grievances, including on the extreme left, anarchists and revolutionists, which is something recently that we’re getting involved in. The mix is spread.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will ASIO take direct action in the future on strong suspicion of threat even if the action runs the risk of being branded racist or the result of profiling religion or whatever? It seems to be a matter of life and death.  

Mr Burgess: If it’s a matter of life and death, we and the police will be on it. We’ll be doing that together with the police. If it’s an immediate threat to life, you need the police to go through the front door, not the security service. We always investigate threats to security, and that’s what we’re investigating. We’re not racially profiling or doing anything else. We’re looking at people who hold certain ideological views that think politically motivated violence or promotion of communal violence is something that supports them or in their remit. We will act accordingly with the full force of our law. Everything we do and everything we must do has to be legal and proportionate to the threat before us.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will you label them at the risk of being called names?  

Mr Burgess: It depends what you mean by ‘label’. We assign ideology—  

Senator ROBERTS: Identify their background. 

Mr Burgess: Religiously motivated violent extremists, Sunni violent extremists, Neo-Nazis, nationalist and racist violent extremists—we call them what we need to to explain their ideology and motivation.  

Senator ROBERTS: One last challenge for you, and a very difficult one. Could you teach the minister about root cause analysis, please?  

Mr Burgess: That’s a matter for the minister, if he’s interested. He probably has a very busy day job. 

/by

Australians Deserve the Truth: Ending the Ideology of Terror

,

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. 

My deepest condolences. Senator Pauline Hanson. 

/1 Comment/by

Why Is the Refugee Program Ignoring Persecuted Christians?

,

Question Time: I asked the government why its refugee program seems to favour cultures that struggle to integrate while ignoring persecuted Christians—people who share similar values to ours and are being slaughtered right now.

Minister Watt couldn’t answer and has taken my questions on notice.

Update: Minister Watt has since provided answers, which I’ll address in a follow-up video below 👇titled – Four Islamic Nations Dominate Our Refugee Intake

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt, regarding humanitarian visas. In the 2024-25 financial years or the 2024 calendar year,
what are the top five countries of origin of refugees to which your government granted humanitarian visas?

Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for the Environment and Water): Thanks, Senator Roberts. I don’t have that level of detail with me but am happy to come back to you on notice.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: In that period, how many refugee visas were granted overall, and how many of those were issued to Nigerian Christians and South African farmers?

Senator WATT: Again, I’ll come back to you on notice.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, Islamic cultures and cultures foreign to Australia need a lot of work to integrate into our country, yet your government’s refugee program disproportionately favours
Islamic and foreign cultures over Christians, who have a similar culture to Australia’s. Minister, why does your government’s refugee program deliberately exclude Christians who are being slaughtered as we speak?

Senator WATT: Senator Roberts, I’m not quite sure that you’re telling the truth there. I have said that I will come back to you on notice with the facts, but
Australia has had a non-discriminatory immigration policy for many decades, which has been supported up until now, at least, by the Liberal Party. I’m not quite sure what their position is on these matters these days, but we remain proudly in support of a non-discriminatory migration policy, and it will remain that way under Labor as long as we’re in government

Four Islamic Nations Dominate Our Refugee Intake

Follow-up to my video titled “Why Is the Refugee Program Ignoring Persecuted Christians?”

In that video, I questioned the government about the refugee program appearing to prioritise cultures with poor integration outcomes over those who share our values and are facing severe persecution. Minister Watt undertook to provide answers on notice—and has since done so. I’ll address his response in this update.

After reviewing those answers, I again used Question Time to ask why 73% of Australia’s humanitarian visas—14,500 out of 20,000—are allocated to five countries: Afghanistan, Syria, Myanmar, Iraq, and Malaysia. Four of these nations are predominantly Islamic.

Minister Watt responded by stating that the Australian Labor Party supports a non-discriminatory immigration policy and does not discriminate against people on the basis of faith.

I asked the Minister whether Labor is cherry-picking UN advice to exclude Christians. Despite UN guidance to protect them, Christians persecuted in countries such as Nigeria, Pakistan, Iran, and Eritrea appear to be ignored.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Minister Watt. I thank the minister for his written response to my last question without notice on refugee numbers. From your reply, Minister, the top five countries for our humanitarian program, comprising 14,500 of our 20,000 humanitarian visa intake, or 73 per cent, are Afghanistan, Syria, Myanmar, Iraq and Malaysia. Four of these have Islam as their dominant or state religion. The fifth, Myanmar, is Buddhist, yet the UN Human Rights Council prioritises Rohingya refugees, who are Islamic. It seems deliberate, Minister, that your humanitarian visa program is overwhelmingly favouring Islamic refugees over Christian refugees. Why? 

Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for the Environment and Water): Thank you, Senator Roberts, for the question. I think the last time you asked me a question about this I pointed out that the Australian Labor Party, perhaps unlike other parties in this chamber, proudly stands for a non-discriminatory immigration policy. We don’t rule people out on the basis of their faith, on the basis of their race or on the basis of the country that they come from. Listening to the list of countries that you just provided to us— 

Senator McKim: Just their mode of arrival, hey? 

The PRESIDENT: Order! 

Senator WATT: I would argue that the common feature of each of those countries is not so much their religion but the fact that they are war torn and that they are countries that people are fleeing because of concerns for their safety. 

Senator McKim: What if they arrive by boat, Murray? 

Senator WATT: Senator McKim seeks to keep interrupting. It’s a— 

The PRESIDENT: Minister Watt, I’ve got Senator Wong on her feet. 

Senator Allman-Payne: Oh! 

Senator Wong: I’m sorry, Senator Allman-Payne—you don’t want me to take a point of order? President, there have been interjections from that particular senator, Senator McKim, through the response to the previous question that was asked by the Greens and now through this. I would ask you to ask him to cease the interjections on this minister. 

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Wong. I have personally called Senator McKim to account on the previous question, and I just called order. I am reluctant, always, to interrupt those that are either asking or answering questions, but, Senator McKim, just cease. Thank you. 

Senator WATT: As I was saying, our government and the Labor Party stand for a non-discriminatory immigration policy, and we don’t discriminate against people on the basis of their faith. As Senator Ayres was mentioning, I think what we’re seeing and hearing here from One Nation is foreshadowing where we’re going to see the coalition end up on immigration policy in a matter of weeks, because we know that’s what happened when it came to net zero policy. It started with One Nation railing against wind farms and railing against net zero, and then it spread to the National Party, and then it spread to the Liberal Party, and then it even spread to the so-called moderates in the Liberal Party, who had to cave in to the conservatives, the Nationals and One Nation on their opposition to net zero. So what we’re seeing here, I predict, is what we will see within a matter of weeks as the immigration policy of the Liberal Party. Hello, Senator Duniam. You’re in charge now, along with Senator Scarr. Senator Scarr might have to face a situation where he has to explain to those Brisbane multicultural groups why he’s followed One Nation when it comes to immigration policy. 

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Minister Watt. Senator Roberts, first— 

Honourable senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, just wait. I’m calming the chamber down. Please continue. First supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Your letter admits Australia has not issued one humanitarian visa in Nigeria, yet the current United Nations Human Rights Council guidance, since 2016, has promoted protecting Nigerian Christians from Islamists, citing hundreds—now thousands—of deaths. Similar guidance exists for protecting Christians in Islamic Pakistan, in Iran, in Eritrea and in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Minister, are you cherrypicking which United Nations Human Rights Council guidance you follow to exclude Christians and favour Islam? (Time expired) 

Senator WATT: No. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, it is a person’s religion—for instance, Christian in an Islamic country—that places them in danger, which is the reason for the United Nations Human Rights Council guidance in that country, for their own safety. Yet your letter says you can’t tell me how many of the humanitarian visas issued are for that reason. Isn’t that reason in their case file, and wouldn’t you have to let the United Nations Human Rights Council know how many refugees we took and why? 

Senator WATT: No. 

/by

One Nation, One Law

,

Senator Watt has circulated an edited version of my exchange with the Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia, which omits a large part of the discussion. This is the full exchange.

I asked the new Islamophobia Envoy about a report he delivered to the Government a few months ago which, in One Nation’s view, whitewashed Islamic terrorism and Sharia Law, while advocating for the suppression of criticism under the guise of stamping out Islamophobia. We have seen how this same approach in the UK has resulted in 65 Sharia law courts and the development of a parallel society between Islamic and Christian citizens—where criticism of Christianity is permitted, but criticism of Islam is not.

The Envoy lectures on Sharia Law at the University of Technology, so he should be well aware of its provisions and its incompatibility with Australian and Western civilisation.

One Nation will oppose Sharia Law and the development of parallel societies within Australia.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript (Draft)

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Malik for appearing on notice.  Could you please tell me how many staff you have?  What is your annual budget and how much of that budget did you report titled A National Response to Islamophobia cost? 

Senator Shoebridge: Good luck with that. 

Mr Malik: So in regards to budget, I can take that on notice. I don’t have that at hand.  In regards to staff, I began recruitment for my own staff from my office once the federal election results have been made clear. Up until that point I have been using or utilising the support of the Envoy Support team.   
Home Affairs did however provide me two staff full time staff, one of them is an office manager and the other is a communication Support officer. So they have been dedicated towards me, supporting me in social media, website management, proofreading, graphic design, printing and basically ensuring that my day to day affairs are in order. 

Senator ROBERTS: What do you how many staff do you expect to have? 

Mr Malik: I have recruited for five staff.  I’m hoping to close.  I’m finalising interviews for the final member of staff. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, thank you.  Your report, a national response to Islamophobia, does not mention Sharia yet.   Sharia law, should it be allowed in Australia, would replace Australian law, Australian courts, police and governance.  How can you talk about opposition to Islam without addressing the elephant in the room? 

Mr Malik: Sharia law?  I don’t believe it is an elephant in the room.  I mean, my role is to understand the reverse of that.  My role is to understand what have been the impacts of the past 25 years upon Muslim communities who are facing the brunt of discrimination, marginalisation, exclusion.  And so my job is to really understand that the question you raise is, is a good question because it highlights the misconception around Sharia law.  A statement I made in the House of Parliament at the end of July was that when people talk about Sharia law, it’s always good to ask them what do they mean by Sharia law.  So there tends to be different understandings of Sharia law.  And I further said that most Muslims would be, would be difficult for them to address one of the principles of one of the five principles of Sharia law.  So, a good question which highlights a challenge and which I hope to address in the coming months. 

Senator ROBERTS: Your report – thank you.  Your report does not include a definition of Islamophobia, but then makes more than 50 recommendations to solve the thing you haven’t defined.  How can you call for extensive legislation and a large bureaucracy to combat something you can’t or don’t define? 

Mr Malik: So the report does address that on the first page.  It’s 54 recommendations.  And there’s an argument amongst academics to how to define this term called Islamophobia.  What academics are not disagreeing about are the impacts of this prejudice or hatred or racism.  And one of the things I wanted to avoid is to avoid falling into the pits that Great Britain has fallen in and that is an annual conversation around the definition of Islamophobia masks all along the repercussions of this phenomenon of being ill advised or not being addressed.  And so what I do say however, is in the Commission of inquiry I do ask whether or not Australia requires a definition of Islamophobia in the Australian context and whether that will hinder or progress the cause. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, Mr Malik’s report does not accept that people who may have a legitimate concern about Islam.  For instance, the report does not mention ISIS, al Qaeda, nor does it mention that the latest briefing provided by the provided to the Senate by the ASIO Director General Mike Burgess showed 25 of Australia’s 29 prescribed terrorist organisations are Islamic based organisations.   
It seems that he’s simply redefining a factual and logical and genuine concern about Islamic terrorism as Islamophobia.  Minister, how would measures designed to combat Islamophobia differ from measures to combat anti Semitism or the growing anti Christian hate coming from the hard left?  Surely the words and actions directed to one group or the other would not differ in their legal implications. 

Minister Watt:  Well, Senator Roberts told you …  

Mr Malik: … 

Minister Watt: I think that question was to me. 

Senator ROBERTS: Yeah, it was. 

Minister Watt: Senator Roberts, I haven’t followed the work of either special envoy terribly closely. I’ve certainly followed media reporting of the work that both special envoys have done and I think that’s really valuable work at a time when social cohesion is deeply at risk in Australia because of the activities and language of a range of extreme groups in the community.  And the last time I looked, Mr Aftab’s role was to advocate for the needs of Muslim Australians, particularly in the face of gross Islamophobia that has been going on in our country.  Just as Miss Siegel has been engaged to advocate for the needs of Jewish Australians at a time when we are seeing gross anti Semitism in our country.  And I would encourage you and other members of your party to think about that Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, all of the three: anti-Christian, anti-Semitism and anti-Islamophobia are religion-based hate.  They’re not anti-religion. 

Chair: Thank you. 

Minister Watt: I don’t really know what point you’re making … 

Senator ROBERTS: I know you don’t. 

Minister Watt: But I have to answer questions from you and your colleagues on a regular basis in the Senate chamber, which I would describe as Islamophobic.  So I would I would encourage you to think very carefully about the sorts of questions and sorts of statements that you and your colleagues make in the public domain at a time when we are seeing social cohesion under threat and when we are seeing at a time when we are seeing the rise of neo Nazis and other extremists with whom you sometimes associate.  And you should think about that. 

Senator ROBERTS: False. 

Chair: Thank you. 

Senator ROBERTS: I do not associate with neo-Nazis. 

Minister Watt: ??? experience. 

Senator ROBERTS: But let me tell you.  You make comments about – let me tell you my comments are about pro Australia.  I put Australia first -pro Australia. 

Minister Watt: Well, you have your view of what Australia is … 

Senator ROBERTS: We want unity.    

Minister Watt: And it’s out of step with the majority of Australians. 

Senator ROBERTS: My party’s name is One Nation because we believe in unity. 

Chair: OK, I am going to rotate the call. 

/3 Comments/by