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.
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.
The “she’ll be right, mate” attitude has failed us. From the Bali bombings to the Bondi massacre, the reality is clear: Radical Islam is a threat to our Western civilisation and the Albanese Labor government is too blinded by “tolerance” to see it.
While Labor and the Greens obsess over “right-wing strawmen,” they are ignoring the ecosystem of poison festering in our own backyard. Here is the truth they don’t want you to hear: ASIO is failing. They have a billion-dollar budget yet missed terrorists training in the Philippines and hate preachers holding gun licenses.
I am speaking out against this new firearm bill – the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026 – because it is a blatant distraction from the government’s failure to curb extremist Islamist violence. Legal firearm owners are being used as scapegoats while radical ideologies are permitted to grow.
The “mollycoddling” has to stop. We don’t need “taxpayer-funded therapy” for extremists. One Nation’s version of deradicalisation is simple: a boarding pass and immediate deportation.
Australia doesn’t have a gun problem; we have a radical Islamic problem. This Bill is a $15 billion tax on law-abiding citizens. It does nothing to stop a terrorist with a knife or a truck. Our focus should be on removing spreaders of hate and deporting non-citizens who threaten Australian values, rather than restricting the rights of the innocent.
We must defend our Christian, Western heritage. Anyone who betrays our hospitality and wages war on Australians must be kicked out of the country.
Let’s be clear: Labor is rushing these “dog’s breakfast” bills before a Royal Commission has the chance to discover the truth.
Labor are choosing censorship and political correctness over your safety.
It’s time to stop shooting the messenger and start facing the message.
Transcript
Part of the Bondi massacre horror was the realisation that the great Australian ‘she’ll be right, mate’ has failed us. We’ve watched the growing pro-Gaza demonstrations openly calling for violence against Jews and anyone who supports them. We’ve watched Islamic clerics preach hate against Western civilisation and call for jihad—violence against unbelievers. Many Australians thought: ‘She’ll be right, mate! This is Australia. This will sort itself out.’ It did not.
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, while the message itself—the hatred and radicalisation—went unchallenged. We were told that highlighting radicalisation, rather than the radicalisation itself, was the problem. Well, now look. Look!
Australia will not be a safe and tolerant society again until the evil encouraged to fester in our beautiful country is cast out. It is an evil that has become an ‘ecosystem of poison’, as Labor’s Mike Kelly so aptly described it recently. The Bondi massacre was not Islamic-on-Jewish terror imported from the other side of the world. The gunmen did not stop to ask if the victims were Jewish before executing them. We must call Bondi what it is: a radical Islamist attack on all Australians.
Why were the Labor Party, the Greens, the teals and the globalist Liberals so blind to the growing threat of Islamic terror in this country? As recently as 16 May 2023, Prime Minister Albanese denied the reality of Islamic terrorism when he said: … the strongest threat that has been identified for our security has been right-wing extremism.
This statement from the Prime Minister and quisling bureaucrats is misdirection. Fascists and white supremacists are a strawman argument; their numbers are tiny and their influence non-existent, yet the Prime Minister knowingly and deliberately uses them to divert Australians’ attention away from radical Islam.
The Greens are advocating an extension to the hate crimes legislation to cover hate against LGBQ+, transgenders and anyone else who does not worship their religion of the sky god of warming. Okay—I threw in the climate. But, once censorship laws such as those the Prime Minister is pushing are introduced, the inevitable outcome will be the deplatforming of political opponents. The Greens’ call to extend the hate crimes provisions are designed to confuse the issue, to create multiple moving targets and to allow the government to pretend it’s doing something without ever taking action against the real problem: Islamic terror.
One only has to look at the history of Islamic terror attacks against Western civilisation to see strong measures are needed now. In the Munich Olympics massacre of 1972, there were 12 dead. In the Bali bombings of 2002, there were 202 dead, including 88 Australians. In the second Bali bombings, 2005, there were 20 dead, including four Australians. In the London bombings, 2005, there were 52 dead. In the Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris, 2015, there were 12 dead. In the Brussels Airport bombings, 2016, there were 32 dead. In the Nice truck ramming, 2016, there were 86 dead—and no calls for a truck buyback. In the Berlin Christmas market truck ramming, 2016, there were 12 dead—no truck buyback. In the Pulse gay nightclub attack in Orlando, 2016, there were 49 dead. In the Manchester Arena bombing, 2017, there were 22 dead. In the Hamas attack in Israel on 7 October 2023, there were 1,180 dead. In Moscow’s Crocus City Hall bombing and stabbing attack in Russia in 2024, there were 145 dead. And now there’s Bondi, which was not the first Islamic terrorist attack in Australia. There was the Lindt Cafe siege in Sydney in 2014, with two dead; the car ramming in Bourke Street, Melbourne in 2017, with six dead—no car buyback; and the stabbing of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel in 2024. Islamic terror is here—right here—on Australian soil, and it’s been here for 25 years. All these terrorist attacks were predicated on a hatred of Western civilisation and a fundamental belief that Islam will rule the world and nonbelievers will convert or die.
ASIO can’t warn against what it can’t see. ASIO’s budget is now over a billion dollars a year, double what it was five years ago, and it’s not enough. Australia must decide: does it further increase ASIO funding or does it start sending people home who have demonstrated hatred for Australians?
At ASIO, there are 230 potential terrorists being monitored while they participate in deradicalisation therapy at the taxpayer’s expense. Here’s One Nation’s deradicalisation therapy: boarding passes, immediate deportation and remigration, never to return. While ASIO were busy mollycoddling violent extremists, they missed the Bondi shooters travelling to a known Philippines terrorist training ground for an extended stay before returning and committing their terror. ASIO missed that the father of a suspected terrorist purchased three guns on the same Thursday night in September 2023 from the same New South Wales firearms dealer.
ASIO missed that hate preacher Wissam Haddad holds a current New South Wales firearms licence. Haddad led Sydney’s Al Madina Dawah Centre where Naveed Akram, one of the Bondi shooters, studied. Akram’s father had a gun licence for six guns in New South Wales. How did none of this trip a red flag for New South Wales police, Home Affairs or ASIO? A royal commission must determine if this was wilful ignorance to protect a demographic that’s much more likely to vote Labor than conservative.
Australia is not the country it was when I was growing up. The destruction of social harmony started when successive governments let in people who came to live apart from us and not to assimilate with us. Those who betray the hospitality we show them must be required to leave. Those who wage war crimes against Australians should be charged. As an example, ISIS brides travelled overseas to conduct war against Australia and against our armed forces.
ISIS bride Zehra Duman spoke on social media in 2015 and demanded that the faithful ‘attack the UK, Australia and the United States’. ‘Kill them, stab them, poison their food’—your food. This is who Minister Burke knowingly and secretly enabled and helped to be smuggled back into our country. They perpetrated criminal activities and should be prosecuted instead of making work for ASIO by needing to be followed around.
Under our Westminster system of government, the buck for these failures stops with Prime Minister Albanese and Premier Minns. The terms of reference for the royal commission—if we ever see them—must allow scrutiny of how these failures occurred. This is no doubt why the Prime Minister refused for so long to call a royal commission: to protect himself and his ministers and to hide the truth.
Today, the Senate is voting on legislation which could’ve been brought in on a regular sitting day later in the year. What we are not voting on is the enabling legislation for the royal commission, to first get the data and the facts. This is what royal commissions are for—to inform bills like this. The Albanese government is putting the cart before the horse and burying the facts. Prime Minister, Australia is watching this royal commission. Do not cover up anything. If the cards are not allowed to fall as they may then it’ll be your government that will fall.
One Nation will oppose this rushed dog’s breakfast bill and the second bill coming after it later tonight. There are processes to produce good legislation. This government has made a mockery of them all. The atrocious, shoddy legislation reflects contempt for our democratic process and for the people of Australia. The hate provisions for the Commonwealth Criminal Code that Labor introduced in 2010 and subsequently amended to make prosecutions easier have never been used—not one prosecution.
Australia does not need more laws which take away the right to free speech, freedom of association, freedom of movement and freedom of protest. We need the government to start policing the laws we already have. Whether people are Christian or another civilised religion, there can only be one set of laws, which are laws based on our Christian, Western heritage. There can only be one allegiance in our community and it’s to those laws. Tolerance has been weaponised. Labor, the Greens, the teals and now the Liberals have elevated tolerance to be the end itself. The thing being tolerated became irrelevant.
Speaking about Islam has been made prima facie racism, yet criticism of Christianity and Judaism is encouraged as being the religions of white-skinned people and of colonisers. White-skinned people are being demonised by the left-wing lobby groups and by other white-skinned people, like Greens Senator McKim, who said yesterday that Australians will not be safe until we’ve eliminated Islamophobia. In ‘Greens-land’, apparently there’s no radical Islam and the terrorist attacks I listed earlier never happened. It’s this illogical, suicidal empathy that’s led us to this moment.
The list of terror attacks I read out used guns, bombs, knives, cars and trucks. Guns are a straw-man argument. ‘Look over here at these evil guns and don’t look at the person wielding the gun.’ Failing to act against radical Islam will lead to more Australians losing their lives. Australia does not have a gun problem; we have a radical ideology problem. One Nation strongly supports the right to own and use firearms lawfully and responsibly. This Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026 penalises legitimate, law-abiding gun owners. The poor wording shows a failure to understand how guns are used on farms and in sport. This is what happens when city based antigun groups are consulted and gun owner associations are not.
The bill proposes limiting the use of carriage services. This is pitched at limiting the use of the internet to access blueprints and use 3D printers to print guns. This is already illegal under state law. This bill elevates the description of ‘illegal material’ to mean whatever the hell the government decides is illegal. It could include a legal owner downloading the manual for a gun or educational YouTube videos on how to pull down, clean and reassemble a gun or on the science of a gun, like how the striking pin works and how to detect change, damage or wear to machine parts which may render the gun unsafe.
Merits review of a refusal to grant a gun licence under this bill is eliminated. Appeals would now have to be undertaken through the Federal Court, which is—what?—$20,000 minimum. The Administrative Review Tribunal system is working just fine, so now the government are fixing a problem that doesn’t exist so they can use a spurious argument to take guns off anyone they dislike.
As Minister Watt raised gun numbers, let me assist him. There are more guns in Australia now than there were in 1996, before the Port Arthur buyback, because our population has increased. The number of guns per person today is lower now than in 1996—lower—and the number of guns owned per person is lower. Honesty is important, Senator Watt.
One Nation supports the right of Australians to participate in sports involving firearms, to use firearms for hunting or recreational shooting, to collect antique and historically significant firearms and to use firearms in rural areas for pest and stock management. One Nation seeks to end discrimination against legitimate firearm owners and users, ensure all stakeholders are fairly consulted in the development of firearms laws and regulations and make existing laws fairer. We seek to improve community safety by cracking down on illegal firearm use with stronger penalties if firearms are used in committing crimes. The buyback scheme is a blank cheque, which industry sources we spoke to said could cost up to $15 billion. This is a tax on everyday Australians, because it must be paid for with a tax. One Nation supports castle law—the right to use force, fatal force if necessary, in proportion to defend one’s home and family from an intruder. Bring that legislation before parliament and One Nation will support it.
The Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 has been so badly rushed that critical passages are inconsistent to the point that a court is likely to refuse prosecution based on these inconsistent provisions. The changes on which the government and the Liberal leader, Sussan Ley, surrendered do not justify Liberals supporting this bill. The government said that creating a new offence of racial vilification was removed from the hastily redrafted bill, yet some elements are hidden in the revised bill. The bill still includes supremacy. Anyone who says ‘Australian society is superior to Islamic Society’ is off to jail for five years, 12 if you are a priest or a lay preacher. Will the government start rounding up hate preachers in the electorates of senior Labor ministers like Messrs Burke, Butler and Bowen for declaring the superiority of Islam over Christianity? Of course not.
Make no mistake, this bill continues the war on Christianity and the promotion of Islam that has been a feature of left-wing politics for a generation. I welcome the last-minute government amendment to include a clause attempting to guarantee freedom of political communication, even if that protection is already in the Constitution. It may make it less likely this bill would be used to ban political rivals, including One Nation.
The bill still does not mention antisemitism, not once. It was never about protecting Jews; it was always about promoting Islam over Christianity. Liberal leader Sussan Ley has sided with the Labor Party to wave it through without due process and with onerous clauses that take away peoples freedoms, will cost all Australians more in taxes and will, in the end, fundamentally change the nature of Australian society without protecting against a recurrence. Australians, your choice is now One Nation or no nation.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/RPfUPBEka8U/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-03-05 13:19:462026-03-05 13:19:49The Cost of Looking the Other Way
Yesterday in the Senate, we saw something extraordinary – and disturbing. First they blocked a burqa ban, then they enforced one. This contradiction highlights that rules here don’t seem to apply to the people who make them. When Senator Hanson called out the growing influence of radical Islam in Australia, the Senate responded by censuring her instead of addressing the real problem.
Radical Islam is not about peaceful coexistence—it’s about undermining our freedoms, our laws, and our culture. We’ve seen religious leaders in Australia call for Sharia law, support terrorist organisations, and even claim that saying “Merry Christmas” is worse than congratulating a murderer. This ideology encourages followers to reject integration and cooperation with Australian society. That’s not diversity—that’s division.
To my Muslim constituents who value being Australian, I say this: our fight is against radicalism, not against you. But it’s time for the Senate to stop pretending there’s no difference between peaceful Muslims and radical Islamists.
Ignoring this truth makes Australia weaker, not stronger.
Transcript
Yesterday, the Senate blocked a burqa ban and then enforced a burqa ban. The rules here don’t apply to the people that make them. Senator Hanson chose to make this very point, and the Senate has now censured her, terrified of calling out the insidious growth of radical Islamic influence in Australia, an influence which makes Australia less, not more. It’s an influence which attacks Christianity and Judaism and attacks nonbelievers everyday it’s allowed to continue. It’s an influence which has seen multiple Islamic religious leaders calling for Sharia law in Australia and for support of the Islamic State, a terrorist organisation. Some Islamic religious leaders in Australia call Christmas ‘haram’, with one even claiming that saying, ‘Merry Christmas,’ is worse than congratulating murder. It’s an influence which actively encourages their followers to not integrate into Australian society, to not cooperate with Australian law and culture.
To my own constituents who see themselves as Australians and whose religion is Muslim, I say this to you: regrettably, the war against radical Islam has found its way to your door. This was, though, inevitable. It was the Labor prime minister Bob Hawke that radicalised some Australian Muslims when importing Sheikh El-Din Hilaly to head Lakemba Mosque, a man famous for calling Australian women uncovered meat and against the protests of Australian Muslims who correctly predicted his appointment would radicalise Islam in Australia. It’s now a Labor-Greens government that has attacked Senator Hanson with venom so as to silence her, temporarily, in the Senate despite her being elected duly to represent the people of Queensland and Australia.
Muslims can, of course, peacefully co-exist with Christians. Radical Islamists cannot. Senators, it’s a damning criticism of this chamber that you do not understand the difference or you choose to deliberately ignore it—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Polley): Thank you, Senator.