Posts

20 Bodyguards Said It All

,

I asked why the Prime Minister needed a 20-person security detail to visit a Lakemba Mosque, something he’s never needed for a church or a meeting with other Australians.

Labor dodged the question and moralised instead.

When the PM needs that level of protection yet Australians are told their concerns are “offensive”, the double standard couldn’t be clearer.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Videos posted of the incident involving the Prime Minister at Lakemba Mosque last Friday show, by my count, 20 people in the security team, including uniformed officers from New South Wales Police who took up a position inside. One Nation leader Senator Hanson remarked only three weeks ago that Lakemba wasn’t safe for everyday Australians. If the Prime Minister organised a 20-person security detail in advance to provide security for the visit, doesn’t that prove the Prime Minister believed Lakemba Mosque was not a safe place for him to visit? 

Senator Ayres: You should be ashamed. 

The PRESIDENT: Before I call the minister, I’m going to remind everyone, particularly those on my right, once again that Senator Roberts has the right to ask his question in silence.  

Senator WONG: It is telling that the two questions I get on Lakemba are from the Greens and One Nation. Perhaps the Greens political party could reflect on their polarisation of this debate. 

Senator Faruqi: You must think you’re so clever. 

Senator WONG: No, not particularly, but I think there is ethics in politics, Senator Faruqi. Senator Roberts, I’m sorry. I disagree with most of what is included in your question, and I again go back to the answer I gave to Senator Faruqi recently. There are Australians who are rightly distressed by the conflict in Gaza, the loss of life and what we have seen. That is a legitimate position for people to hold. But the way to deal with differences of views—and there are differences of views on this—is not to disengage, but nor is it to seek to turn up the temperature. And nor is it to try and make people angry, which is what we see from the corner here of the Greens. I would say to you, Senator, it is a good thing for the Prime Minister of the country to go to a mosque and to engage with Australian Muslims. That is a good thing. That is about our social cohesion. That is about recognising that we have differences, different faiths, in a pluralistic society and that we can respect and celebrate all faiths. What I say to you is we should, as politicians, work to inculcate a society, work to protect a society where we can have differences of views and differences of opinion without anger and without division. And that is what we will work for. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: My question was about whether or not the Prime Minister felt safe. On 4 March, the Albanese government listed Hizb ut-Tahrir as a prohibited hate organisation. Social media has already identified at least one of those displaying violent behaviour to be a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, based on his social media posts. Minister, will your government arrest anyone associated with Hizb ut-Tahrir who acted violently towards the Prime Minister and towards other Muslims last Friday? 

Senator WONG: I have two points, Senator Roberts. The first is there is a separation of powers, and politicians don’t arrest people. The second point, the more important one, is you voted against the legislation under which Hizb ut-Tahrir was prescribed. This is so typical of One Nation! It is all complaints, but, when there is a solution, you stand in the way of it. We proudly put forward legislation which increased the capacity of governments to deal with groups that were engaging in hatred. You voted against that, and now you complain about it. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: The Prime Minister has never needed a 20-person security detail to attend a Christian church in his time as Prime Minister, nor to attend a meeting of everyday Australians. Is it true, Minister, that social cohesion in the hands of the Albanese government simply means surrendering to radical Islam? 

Senator WONG: I do hope that members of the Liberal Party listened to that question and recognised that the result in South Australia, the success of that party over there, is fuelled by your preferences. You are delivering them votes and seats in South Australia. I hope you think about that. I hope you think about that. I hope you think about that. I hope you think about the fact that you are fuelling support for the party that is now cannibalising you. You are fuelling their support. 

Honourable senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Order! I would ask all senators to please refrain from (1) interjecting, and (2) pointing across the chamber. 

Senator WONG: You use the phrase ‘everyday Australians’. Well, everyday Australians come from all walks of life, all faiths, all backgrounds. That’s what we believe. Everyday Australians come as Hindus, as Sikhs, as Muslims, as Christians, as members of the Jewish community. They are all everyday Australians. (Time expired) 

The PRESIDENT: I will just advise the Senate that Senator Babet has given his question to Senator Whitten.

/1 Comment/by

Did Agencies Fail to Do Their Job?

,

We know that no new laws would’ve stopped the Bondi atrocity. The real issue is why ASIO, the AFP and NSW Police didn’t act on the warnings they already had.

I asked the Official Secretary, Ms Anne Sheehan, of the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion how a terrorist on an ASIO watchlist was still able to get a firearms licence, what surveillance was actually happening, and why critical intelligence wasn’t shared.

The commission confirmed these failures will be scrutinized – including whether agencies simply didn’t do their job.

Australians deserve a Royal Commission that delivers real answers and a safer future for everyone.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts?  

Senator ROBERTS: The commission found that no further legislative measures would have prevented the Bondi atrocity, but what could have been done by either ASIO, AFP or New South Wales police that could have prevented this atrocity?  

Ms Sheehan: In relation to the interim report, I’d note that we commenced our second hearing block today, which is expected to run for up to three weeks. The interim report identified that there are a number of issues that needed to be further examined during this next hearing block, and that’s what we’re doing at the moment. Other than what recommendations that the commission has made that are in the interim report itself, we need to wait and see what comes out of this hearing block.  

Senator ROBERTS: I can understand that. When will we find out? Is it in the next interim report?  

Ms Sheehan: If the commissioner determines that another report is required before the final report—there’s a final report that’s due by 14 December—it’s open to the commissioner to issue other recommendations or another report along the way if she considers it appropriate to do so. It’s too early to say whether it would be needed to do that, but it’s something that can be done.  

Senator ROBERTS: I can understand your sensitivity about this, and I can understand that a lot of people will be anxious to find out why ASIO, the AFP and the New South Wales police didn’t take action. Will the commission consider how one of the terrorists got a clearance to purchase a firearm when the person had been on a watchlist with ASIO?  

Ms Sheehan: In this hearing block, the commission is considering term of reference C, which goes to the circumstances in the lead-up to the Bondi attack. There will be a range of issues considered in that hearing block, some of which will be in public, and some will have to be held in closed session, either to avoid prejudicing the criminal trial or because it’s dealing with classified information.  

Senator ROBERTS: This may be another sensitive question. Were ASIO or the AFP aware that a firearms licence had been issued to one of the terrorists by the New South Wales weapons licensing branch?  

Ms Sheehan: That really goes to the substance of matters that the commission might be looking at. I couldn’t answer that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will the commission consider what level of surveillance was directed to the murdering terrorists when they were already on ASIO’s radar?  

Ms Sheehan: Broadly, the factors that the commission is considering during this hearing block go to the terrorism threat level, the security environment in the lead-up to the attack, and the conduct of security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies relevant to the attack. I think that goes to the issue that you’ve just raised. It will also look at the security arrangements for the Chanukah by the Sea event, and how intelligence about individuals known to authorities is utilised and shared between agencies to then inform decisions made by security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies, including, for example, how individuals are monitored and how decisions in respect of firearms licence applications are made. Yes, those things will be looked at.  

Senator ROBERTS: The commission will consider if any agency did not perform their duties to protect Australians. That’s clear.  

Ms Sheehan: The commission will be looking at the conduct of intelligence and law enforcement agencies in relation to those issues I’ve outlined.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you familiar with the letter from the royal commission to Gab, in the United States?  

Ms Sheehan: I don’t think so, no.  

Senator ROBERTS: The commission sent the social media company Gab, in the United States, a letter. From what the owner of Gab posted on social media, it’s not possible to get a clear idea of what your intent was. Can you please explain what that letter was all about? Do you want me to read the letter?  

Ms Sheehan: I don’t have that letter, so I think I would have to take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Your letter included a statement that failure to comply with the notice carried a criminal penalty of 12 months in prison. Is it accurate to threaten a US citizen in the United States with a criminal prosecution under Australian law?  

Ms Sheehan: I don’t have that correspondence. I think it’s best if I take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Gab have used the United States first amendment as a defence to such actions in the past, including from our eSafety Commissioner. Could you tell me, on notice, why you’d take the action when you know the US constitution precludes you from taking that action.  

Ms Sheehan: I’ll take that on notice as well—once I’ve seen the correspondence.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts, for your efficiency in asking those questions. 

/0 Comments/by

Malcolm Roberts Sets Record Straight on Media Conspiracy Meltdown

,

According to some MSM journalists with a handful of viewers, ‘no one knows who I am’.

After a week of targeted headlines, erroneous and malicious they may be, at least I have brand recognition…

For years, media have ignored my work as a Senator because it was inconvenient to the lock-step government of Labor and Liberal.

Their destructive policies were left unquestioned by the same mastheads that have repeated, without the faintest interest in fact-checking, false and misleading statements about my beliefs.

These accusations have been patched together from interviews published on both mine (and other) social media accounts. Far from ‘uncovering’ anything – as some chose to claim to make the story sound more cloak-and-dagger than it actually was – these journalists merely opened Google.

One Nation voters are used to this sort of treatment from the press.

Most have personal experience, having been called ‘cookers’, ‘racists’, ‘conspiracy theorists’, ‘domestic terrorists’, ‘far-right’, and everything up to ‘literally Hitler’.

If you have concerns about machete wars at the local shopping centre, well, you must be trying to resurrect Labor’s White Australia Policy.

If you think biology is settled on the gender front – you’re probably committing a hate crime.

It’s a level of un-reality that turns podcast chats into click-bait. I really do pity the journalists that wasted their time on the hit job. They shamed themselves with such poor quality and dishonest work.

On that note, MSM has entered the ‘crying wolf’ phase where very few Australians believe what they print, with most having abandoned the legacy press long ago.

Do I subscribe to the chemtrail conspiracy? No. That claim is false. My office decided to answer community concerns with a podcast to explain the difference between contrails, geo-engineering, and cloud seeding. My mistake was expecting the media to have more than a five-second attention span.

Do I subscribe to 9-11 conspiracy theories and school shootings? Of course not. I’m appalled editors let that carefully constructed insinuation go to print.

Shame on them.

Being a guest on someone’s podcast does not imply ‘guilt by association’, unless Coalition MPs want to start being held accountable for the views of ABC activists.

I wager they don’t.

And, since when is ‘globalism’ considered a Jewish banker conspiracy theory?

Do I think the December 2025 Bondi massacre was a ‘false flag’?

Of course not.

It’s all a load of nonsense designed to paint the subsequent discussions listed below as ‘crazy’ when actually, these are the inconvenient truths the media don’t want to discuss.

Are there concerns about Covid vaccine safety?

Definitely.

Is Net Zero a scam?

Absolutely. And you’re paying for it.

Was the origin of Covid originally covered up? Yes.

For years, the same media organisations who called me a ‘cooker’ labelled anyone who mentioned the Wuhan lab leak a ‘far-right racist conspiracy theorist’. I’m yet to see an apology grace their columns.

Is One Nation a threat to Labor? You bet.

Is One Nation polling higher than the Liberals and Nationals combined? You bet we are.

If One Nation are the ‘Populists’ – does that make the other parties … unpopular? I’ll let you answer that one.

One Nation has spent years listening to Australians to find out exactly where our economy has broken – and created ways to fix it. These solutions benefit Australians, not large corporations, unions, or foreign billionaires. As these solutions gain mainstream public support, we’ve seen attacks against One Nation, and myself, intensify.

The most obvious of these is my work dismantling the Climate Change conspiracy and Net Zero con that has ripped hundreds of billions out of this nation, causing untold amounts of damage that our children’s children will be paying off.

It’s no surprise that both sides of politics have fought bitterly to keep Net Zero in place, even if One Nation has successfully shamed them into dropping specific dates for achieving the official Net Zero targets that they quietly retain.

Why won’t the Coalition shred the Paris Agreement?

Because it’s the ‘piece of paper’ that keeps the endless climate wealth flowing out of the Treasury.

You can read my viral Substack on the full horror of the Paris Agreement here and, indeed, it was shortly after this started doing the rounds that our political opposition turned rabid.

When we say ‘get rid of the Department of Climate Change’ and all its ‘subsidiaries’ – we know that with the money saved, there’s more than enough to rebuild our grid with reliable baseload power, guarantee pensions for our elderly and veterans, and cut taxes that are sucking the life out of businesses who provide critical employment to Australians.

To prove my point about the obscene waste of this unnecessary department, I draw your attention to recent headlines regarding its Minister, Chris Bowen.

The decision to earmark $4.2 million of your money to treat his department and foreign bureaucrats to luxury accommodation in Fiji, is nothing short of insulting.

And fraudulent.

Bookings apparently cover the Sheraton Fiji Golf and Beach Resort, Sofitel Fiji Resort and Spa, and the Radisson Blu Resort Fiji on Denarau Island. Fair-minded Australians would think the same journalists who published hit pieces on Pauline Hanson’s trip to Europe (which did not cost the taxpayer) will be doubly scornful of this taxpayer tropical getaway.

In an honest version of politics, Mr Bowen would have been told to resign. Immediately.

This expense has been ‘justified’ for a pre-COP31 meeting to be held between October 5-8 where, in his moonlight job as co-president, he will oversee the conference. Why COP31 has anything to do with Australian taxpayers remains a mystery.

Australian businesses are closing. Families are sleeping in tents. Pensioners are freezing, unable to afford their power bills (which Labor promised at the last election would drop). And young workers cannot afford rent.

Yet somehow the Minister thinks it’s appropriate to splash out money hosting staffers, bureaucrats, and himself at a beach-front resort. We’re not even going to talk about the ‘carbon cost’ of flying everyone to Fiji for a meeting that could have been done via Zoom.

It’s as if the head of the Climate Change Department doesn’t really buy into the imminent threat that underpins his role in government.

When pressed, a spokesperson from Mr Bowen’s department said, ‘The venues are the only suitable locations capable of accommodating an event of this scale with the required accommodation capacity.’

It sounds like they’re having their arm twisted for some sort of hardship rather than hosting an entirely voluntary beachside champagne conference.

What, exactly, does the average Australian gain from having their government burley the water of Climate Change hysteria? When has this conversation ever benefited taxpayers?

It was only a few months ago that a decision from the International Court of Justice, recklessly backed by Australia, left us open to potentially trillions in climate reparations. Even the UK sat up and realised that might have been a mistake and yet barely a word has been said about it.

The $4 million plus bill isn’t the end of it.

The Albanese Labor government has been offering $20,000 taxpayer-funded grants for activists to attend the COP31 conference.

The total cost of this grant program is something in the realm of $650,000, deepening our almost trillion dollars of national debt.

Remember, you’re not allowed to have tax cuts because it might threaten ‘roads, hospitals, and schools’.

Yet the truth is, there is plenty of money for those things. Tax cuts would mean this sort of climate-grifting would dry up and Labor’s activist electoral padding would get ‘quite upset’ and threaten to walk off to the Greens.

And who is going on this vacation?

‘Diverse and underrepresented groups, primarily First Nations Australians and youth.’

The purpose?

‘Promote voices and perspectives of First Nations’ and ‘enhance inclusion and diversity’.

And what are you doing? Working long, thankless hours to pay for their privilege. Skipping meals to cover the rent. Giving almost half of what you earn to this heartless machine of state-approved grievance.

Why is One Nation rising in the polls?

No idea. Must be some sort of social media algorithm sorcery. A mythical bot army fresh from the Odyssey.

Australia wasn’t asked to incur these expenses. The Minister went out of his way to co-chair COP31 with his ‘title’ of co-president bestowed on him as if it were a participation award to stop a child bursting into tears.

The government insists the ‘final cost’ will be ‘lower’ than what they’ve reserved – the point they miss is that there shouldn’t be any cost at all.

It’s not only a $4.2 million (ish?) tropical getaway that’s angering taxpayers. It’s the almost $150 million set aside for Chris Bowen’s role as the COP31 co-president, which includes 70 full-time equivalent staff. Plus his taxpayer salary as the Minister, who should be focused on his local electorate.

The arrogance is truly astonishing.

And you can add to that another $100 million for ‘broader Pacific engagement’.

Realistically, what is this bringing to Australia – other than a poverty-inducing tax burden?

The media can label me a ‘conspiracy theorist’ all they like.

I’ve got something a lot stronger that I’d like to label the Minister for Climate Change.

/7 Comments/by

Facts Over Fashionable Politics

,

Months ago, we saw a pivotal moment in the Senate.

It showed exactly what the 2028 election will centre on for One Nation: protecting Australians, strengthening families, keeping education affordable and defending the values that make this country work.

I made it clear that One Nation stands for facts over fashionable politics and for confronting violent extremism wherever it appears.

When Senator Hanson was attacked for raising concerns about radicalisation, I reminded the chamber that her comments were about extremists, not ordinary people of faith. I also warned that shutting down honest debate only leaves Australians exposed.

As we head toward 2028, my message remains the same. One Nation will defend Australia’s values, culture and security – and we won’t be intimidated out of telling the truth.

Transcript

Yesterday, the 2028 federal election battlelines were drawn. The first and foremost job of government is to protect its citizens, to allow them to lead their lives with a minimum of government interference and to provide the infrastructure to grow our productive capacity and create breadwinner jobs for all who are here. Government must educate our children without imposing a lifetime of debt. We must guarantee that someone who takes their place in society and the workforce can afford their own home and start a family. These are the things to which One Nation is dedicated. 

Australia can return to being the best country in the world. We can provide wealth and abundance for all. We’ll cast off the oppression of identity politics and implement government policy based on facts, not feelings or fashion. One Nation has always defended and will always defend the safety of everyday Australians against radicals committing violence, whether that’s radical Islam, antifa, ‘trantifa’ or any other group. 

Yesterday, our leader, Senator Pauline Hanson, was attacked here with a ferocity I’ve not seen in three terms in the Senate—for the crime of speaking the truth. Senator Hanson called out radical Islam as incompatible with Australian values and Australian security. Then it was on for one and all. 

As commentator Andrew Bolt said last week, the assertion that Senator Hanson said, ‘There are no good Muslims,’ is a lie. Her exact words were as follows: 

I’ve got no time for the radical Islam. Their religion concerns me because what it says in the Koran—they hate Westerners, and that’s what it’s all about. You know, you say, ‘Oh, well, there’s good Muslims out there.’ Well, I’m sorry—how can you, you know, tell me there are good Muslims? 

The context was clear. It was about radical Islam—not all Muslims. In her interview later with Sharri Markson, Senator Hanson confirmed she agrees there are good Muslims. Of course there are. 

Yesterday, in the Senate, I read a letter from Persian refugee Janet Shay. It explains the difference between ‘good Muslim’ and radical Islam perfectly clearly. I’ll repeat Janet’s words: 

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— 

the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps— 

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. 

Yesterday, when I read Janet’s comments, the Greens objected to Janet’s differentiation between good Muslims and true Muslims. My message to the Greens is simple: get used to it. To tar all Muslims with the crimes of the few is an insult to the hundreds of thousands of good and decent people who’ve assimilated into Australia and who maintain their religion in no different a manner than that of any other religions, including the orthodox religions, Taoism and Judaism. 

The political left’s refusal to differentiate good from true is deliberate. It provides protection to true Islamists, allowing them to hide behind the innocent. This is, of course, an action which will lead Australia to ruin—as it is in the United Kingdom and as it did in Iran, which fell to the ayatollahs after the Left formed a suicide pact with radical Islam to overthrow the shah. They expected a socialist paradise; instead, they got a short flight off a tall building. Thirty thousand leftists died in the first few months of the Iranian Islamic regime. That’s fact; that’s history. As much as the Greens and the Labor Party wish they could rewrite history, they cannot. Iran was a warning. If true Muslims can subvert a Western culture like Iran, true Muslims can subvert any nation. 

In the last few weeks, I’ve spoken with many Australians from Persia, Lebanon, the Middle East and, today, Armenia who warn of the dangers of true Islam. I’ll be clear: the Bible contains some objectionable verses. Christianity, though, had a reformation 500 years ago, which saw those verses excluded from worship. Islam has not had a reformation, and true Islam celebrates the penalties prescribed in the original works. The word Islamophobia is used in Australia to shut down the freedom to have crucial conversations about the religion—the ideology—of Islam. A phobia is an irrational fear. Reading the Koran and asking whether its teachings align with Australian values is not irrational. 

Christianity is openly mocked in Australia without legal protection from criticism, nor should there be such protection. In a free society, any belief system can be questioned. Except, when Islam is questioned, the conversation is shut down and the person asking the question is labelled the problem. The question about Islam never gets answered. In the words of Senator Hanson: 

If there is a person out there who is a Muslim and does not support sharia law, female circumcision, child marriages, who (does) support our culture our way of life and our laws, then I apologise to you – if my comment has offended you … 

I repeat the apology, and I am concerned about where this persecution of truthful senators will end. 

The recently passed hate crimes bill contains provisions which may be used against One Nation, and it seems to me that the disproportionate response from the Senate’s ruling cabal is designed to warm Australia up to doing exactly that. The hate crimes provisions added to the Commonwealth Crimes Act back in 2010—and twice since strengthened—have never been used. The only prosecutions for hate crimes have been under state legislation. This shows the federal legislation is not needed. The states already have hate speech covered. As I said during the bill debate: 

For many years, the left-wing commentariat, politicians and media accused those who sought to raise the alarms around rising antisemitism and Christianophobia with the crime of ‘threatening social harmony’. The very elastic crime of racism has now been extended to describe as racist anyone who defends Australia and our way of life. Many Australians have been guilty of shooting the messenger— 

Behaviour we saw again yesterday in this chamber— 

while the message itself—the hatred and radicalisation—went unchallenged. 

And it remains unchallenged. The hate crimes bill was sold to the Australian public as the only way the Islamic terrorist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir could be banned. Well, it’s been more than three months, and that organisation has not been banned. For the third time, parliament has passed hate speech laws that have not been used because Islam was never the target. In the latest polling, One Nation is four points behind the government, and the panic—the political revenge—is starting. 

The left is using the same playbook, as did Germany, recently, where the ruling coalition just tried to ban Germany’s version of One Nation, Alternative fur Deutschland, AfD. Fortunately, the appeals court blocked the move, for now—the point being, they tried. The Left hate contesting ideas in the court of public opinion and prefer to use thuggery, tyranny, censorship and control. One Nation will repeal the hate crimes legislation and leave the matter to the states. 

Meanwhile, true Islam in Australia continues to flout our laws, our culture and our language. In this Senate, yesterday, Senator Faruqi spoke in Arabic, which I would have thought breached the standing orders—though apparently not. It does, however, assist communication between the senator and her electorate, the same electorate which, as we speak, is holding tearful vigils for the deceased Iranian dictator and terrorist, Khamenei, at their largest mosques here in Australia—the same Khamenei whose photos Hamas supporters recently carried above Senator Faruqi’s head as they marched together across the Sydney Harbour Bridge. What more of a demonstration of the allegiance of true Islam in this country can there be than carrying the photo of a terrorist leader proudly over the harbour bridge? Protestors included the Bondi murderer Naveed Akram. The Greens are the party of the Islamic Australian caliphate. 

Without the Islamic vote, this Labor government is unlikely to be re-elected. Apparently, no betrayal of everyday Australians is beyond their chase for votes and power. Our refugee program is being used to import 25,000 true Islamists a year from countries who’ve already destroyed their own Western culture and are coming for ours. For clarity, One Nation will oppose any religion, any ethnicity and any social movement that is an affront to Western civilisation. My motion next week relating to childhood gender mutilation is an example of just that. To defend Australian culture, language and heritage is not racism, xenophobia nor whatever label the Left chooses to attach. It’s common sense. It’s designed to protect everyday Australians from the hatred and violence of radical activists and terrorists. True Islam is one element of that, but it’s not the whole problem. 

I’m a migrant who values the country to which my father brought my family in 1962, and so do the many migrants who have joined One Nation to protect our Western culture, social harmony, coherence, safety and security. One Nation will join with those who were here first and who have come since to accompany us all in our beautiful country. In fact, we represent you. Why the rest of the Senate does not will be the question to be settled in 2028. 

/0 Comments/by

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

The Alarming Reality of ISIS Returnees

,

Australians have a right to answers when it comes to our national security.

During this session with Home Affairs, I asked several questions about the returning ISIS families and frankly, the lack of clarity is alarming.

Deradicalisation programs for these returning children are entirely voluntary. If the mothers do not consent, the states have no authority to force participation.

Basic questions, like whether any of the returning adult partners hold dual citizenship, or even the general age range of the children, were repeatedly put “on notice” due to privacy concerns.

If these children are deemed at risk and taken into state care, it will be the state taxpayers left holding the bill.

Instead of clear answers on security risks and monitoring, we got political deflections from Labor ministers trying to pass the buck.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: I have one other question, and then I’ll move on. We can go through quickly. Are any of the returning terrorist partners dual citizens?  

Ms Foster: I’d like to take that question on notice. I’m very conscious that, whilst there’s been a lot of public scrutiny of this—  

Senator ROBERTS: And concern.  

Ms Foster: and concern in the community, these are Australian citizens, and I just want to be careful that I’m not breaching any privacy considerations by providing personal details about the cohort. So let me take that on notice and see whether or not that’s information that I’m able to provide.  

Senator ROBERTS: Or if you can provide it in a way that doesn’t breach privacy, by saying, ‘Yes, three of them are, and they’re of this country, this country and this country.’  

Ms Foster: Certainly. I’ll take that on notice.  

Senator Watt: Senator, can I just add one thing here? I don’t know whether you’ve heard this point before, but it’s also worth remembering that, during the coalition’s period in office, there were over 40 actual fighters—as opposed to wives and children—who returned to the country. That’s just for some perspective here as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t know what value that adds to this case, but thank you for letting me know.  

Senator Watt: I think it’s just useful background.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, I can’t interrogate Senator Duniam.  

Senator DUNIAM: We can swap if you’d like!  

Senator Watt: I’ll pass!  

Senator ROBERTS: Ms Foster, I think we can go through the rest of the questions pretty quickly, because they’re fairly simple, I think. I appreciate your need to protect security. Have the ISIS children already here commenced deradicalisation programs yet?  

Ms Foster: I don’t know the answer to that question. I’m assuming you mean those from the first cohort who came back a few weeks ago.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Ms Foster: Let me see if anyone knows the answer to that. 

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice, please.  

Ms Foster: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will the newly arrived children participate in deradicalisation programs?  

Ms Foster: The state and territory authorities will make an assessment on a case-by-case basis about the needs of each child and what is appropriate given each of their circumstances. That’s part of the process that takes place once the families return.  

Senator ROBERTS: I assume, then, that you don’t know how many children will do the deradicalisation program.  

Ms Foster: I don’t.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is participation dependent on their agreement or the consent of their mothers?  

Mr Dowling: The programs which are provided by the states and territories as they relate to deradicalisation or counselling are voluntary. My presumption would be that for a minor under a certain age, depending on the rules in that jurisdiction, parental permission would potentially be involved. But I think it would depend on each jurisdiction and how they operate their programs.  

Senator ROBERTS: What will happen if the mothers do not consent? Have the states got the authority to force it?  

Mr Dowling: For those types of counselling programs, I don’t believe there is the power to compel someone to participate.  

Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate you answering the questions even though you are not completely certain. I understand why. Are any of the children expected to remain in the care of the state in cases where the children are considered at risk in the care of the mother? In other words, will the state taxpayers get the bill?  

Mr Dowling: That would be a decision for each jurisdiction.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are any of the children considered a risk to the safety of Australians? What’s the oldest child’s age?  

Mr Dowling: There is an age range. I think to provide that detail would probably cross the privacy boundaries of what we’re able to share.  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t want names—just the range.  

Ms Foster: Let us take that on notice and see if we can provide that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Foster. Are any of the children—just the children—considered a risk to the safety of Australians?  

Mr Dowling: State and territory law enforcement and the Federal Police, as the secretary has outlined, are taking a role in continuing investigations in relation to anyone who’s arrived back home. Any implications for safety or security would be a matter for those authorities.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are any of the terrorist widows or brides or partners considered a risk to the safety of Australians?  

Ms Foster: I described before the process that the law enforcement and intelligence agencies will continue to take to assess the risk.  

Senator ROBERTS: And that’s largely state?  

Ms Foster: It’s a combination. In terms of the management of the people in their states, it’s the state law enforcement agencies. But, obviously, ASIO in particular has an intelligence function that crosses Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: And they have been advising you?  

Ms Foster: They would be contributing to the assessments about the risks or threats posed.  

Senator ROBERTS: You mentioned that earlier. Will any of the children or the adult partners be monitored?  

Ms Foster: The exact actions that the law enforcement or intelligence agencies take are ones for them. That was the subject before where I was saying that I was uncomfortable discussing what specific activities might be undertaken, because none of us wants to put those activities at risk.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Is one of the returning children the child seen holding up the decapitated head of a murdered man that appeared in the media some years ago?  

Mr Dowling: I don’t know the answer to that question. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. How many more of these terrorists’ partners and children will the government be bringing back to the country?  

Ms Foster: Senator—  

Senator ROBERTS: Or allowing back into the country?  

Ms Foster: As we’ve said before, Australian citizens have a right to enter Australia if they hold citizenship, valid passports or valid travel documents. Apart from the one person against whom the government issued a temporary exclusion order, the other adults of the cohort of women and children who were held in the internally displaced persons camp in Syria have returned with their children.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I appreciate your considered responses. I know it’s a difficult thing.  

Ms Foster: Thank you, Senator.  

/2 Comments/by

The Cost of Returned ISIS Wives

,

The Attorney-General’s Department confirmed that they had zero involvement in monitoring returned ISIS terrorist wives, or running deradicalisation programs for the children. This responsibility was passed to the Department of Home Affairs.

When asked what will it cost taxpayers to bring back and monitor these individuals, the answer? They have absolutely no idea. Officials stated that the government didn’t actually facilitate or fund the return of these families. They said they used to handle countering violent extremism, but it was moved to Home Affairs in 2017.

Now, their only real involvement is occasionally giving “general international law advice.”

If no one in the Attorney-General’s Department is tracking the costs or the monitoring, Australians are left asking: who is?

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Returning to the ISIS terrorist spouses or whatever you want to call them, did the government seek your advice before returning them to Australia? 

Ms Jones: I think we have previously given evidence to the committee that, over the course of many years, we have from time to time been involved in some discussions and we’ve provided general international law advice but we don’t play a role of providing advice in relation to particular movements of people. 

Senator ROBERTS: Was the Attorney-General’s Department consulted on the program for deradicalisation of these children? 

Ms Jones: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: What is your responsibility for funding of legal aid? 

Ms Jones: We are responsible for overseeing the National Access to Justice Partnership and other legal assistance schemes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Are you involved in any way in advising on or implementing or monitoring the program for monitoring these terrorists when they return? 

Ms Jones: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: Not at all? 

Ms Jones: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: Not even after the High Court decision on the case in the Northern Territory? 

Ms Jones: I’m not sure which case you’re referring to there, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: XYZ—I can’t remember the details. 

Ms Jones: NZYQ? 

Senator ROBERTS: NZYQ; thank you. 

Ms Jones: I would put that in a category very separate to anything relating to the return of Australians from Syria. Over the course of the NZYQ matter, before the High Court and then beyond that, we were involved in that, but that was quite separate from anything relating to returning Australians. 

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that, but that case involved monitoring. 

Ms Chidgey: That was also a matter for the Department of Home Affairs and its agencies. 

Senator ROBERTS: Wasn’t it also the Attorney-General giving advice as to whether or not monitoring or ankle bracelets were a form of punishment? Is there any form of punishment that can be ruled here? Is someone going to lodge a claim with the government? 

Ms Chidgey: I think all those questions are matters for Home Affairs. 

Senator ROBERTS: You haven’t got anything to add to it? 

Ms Chidgey: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: So you know nothing about monitoring? 

Ms Jones: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: The Attorney-General’s Department knows nothing about monitoring. Do you have any inkling of the cost involved with bringing these wives back and monitoring them? 

Ms Jones: I’m sorry; no. We don’t have a responsibility, so I couldn’t talk to any costs associated with that. 

Ms Chidgey: It’s probably useful to make clear that for the recent cohorts the government didn’t facilitate their return at all. Any questions about management of that cohort in Australia now that they’ve returned should be directed to Home Affairs, but the government didn’t in any way facilitate or manage their return. 

Senator ROBERTS: How do you know that? 

Ms Chidgey: We’re aware that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade issues passports. But the government itself, on the public record, including the Prime Minister, has been clear that the government didn’t otherwise assist or facilitate their return. 

Senator ROBERTS: And you take his word for it? 

Ms Jones: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Was this once or previously a responsibility of your department? 

Ms Jones: There was a time before the creation of the Department of Home Affairs when the AttorneyGeneral’s Department had responsibility for deradicalisation programs and the countering violent extremism program, but that moved across to the Department of Home Affairs in 2017. 

Ms Chidgey: I can confirm that for any of the returns from Syria this department has not taken any leading role. That has been the Department of Home Affairs and Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 

Senator ROBERTS: What about any subsidiary role? 

Ms Chidgey: As I think the secretary mentioned, we have at times provided some advice on Australia’s international obligations. 

/by