I raised with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Ms Raelene Sharpe, the facts of a recent State case in which the sentencing judge stated that a convicted paedophile received a reduced sentence because the offender came from a culture where sexual offences against children were more tolerated.
I asked what the prosecution’s stance would be if such an offence were to come before a Commonwealth court and was informed that a Commonwealth judge would also take cultural factors into account during sentencing.
I found this deeply concerning, as I believe sexual offences against children are among the most serious crimes. In my view, an offender’s cultural background should not diminish the gravity of such offences.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Turning to another case, I’m alarmed by the recent trend in some states to reduce sentences for heinous crimes because of historical cultural experiences. I’ll get to the federal implications here. One recent state case—this is a state case I’m citing— involved a person from overseas who was convicted of child sexual offences and had his sentence reduced because the trial judge felt that, because of his previous exposure to such activity, it would be unfair for him to be severely punished if he believed what he was doing was not seriously wrong. I think that’s horrified a lot of Australians, and constituents have contacted us. Since when has the law reduced sentences simply because the defendant thought it was okay to commit sexual offences against children?
Ms Sharp: I’m not sure that that’s how the law operates; you’ve conflated a number of factors. When a sentence is imposed—I am really speaking about the role of courts here, which is outside my direct operation. When courts are determining what sentence to impose, they consider a whole range of factors. Many of those are set out in the Crimes Act, but some are set out by the common law, by the courts as they develop the law of sentencing over time. Those factors include the personal circumstances of both the victim and the offender.
Senator ROBERTS: A lot of our constituents would be very upset with the decision. They’re telling us they are. They think the judiciary needs to be re-educated, but that’s not for you; I accept that. Can you reassure the Australian public that such a claim would not result in a similar discount if the offence was a Commonwealth one?
Ms Sharp: Senator, I’m not sure precisely what the claim is. I can say that we make submissions to courts about what we think the appropriate sentence is—what we think are the appropriate factors relevant to sentencing, but those factors do include the personal circumstances of an offender. That’s simply the state of the law, and that’s set out in the provisions of the Crimes Act which deal with how sentences are to be imposed in relation to federal offences.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it pretty clear cut that molesting a child, sexually abusing a child, sexually assaulting a child, is exactly that? The law would be pretty clear cut on that, wouldn’t it?
Ms Sharp: Is exactly an offence? Yes, it is an offence.
Senator ROBERTS: And the sentence would be lessened if the male comes from a country where paedophilia is allowed?
Ms Sharp: No. Senator, I’m not sure of the particular details of the case about which you’re speaking. At a general level, at a high level, the personal circumstances of an offender are relevant to determining what the appropriate sentence is for every case. It’s not a question of whether that lessens the gravity of the offence. It’s just one of the factors that go into the mix in determining what is the appropriate sentence for a particular matter.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m at a loss for words. Anyway, thank you very much.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ZrAxvPbJ6jo/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-10-27 18:21:592025-10-27 18:22:07No Excuse for Abuse: Protecting Children Must Come First
The Australian Human Rights Commission has previously argued for minors to be given life changing surgeries and puberty blockers under the ‘gender affirmation’ model. They claimed these treatments could be reversed, weren’t risky and were supported by science: none of these are true.
The UK Cass review has completely discredited ‘gender affirmation’ for children. It’s time for the taxpayer funded Human Rights Commission to rule out ever supporting children being put onto puberty blockers or sex-change surgery ever again.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. I’ve got questions on gender—sex change. My questions are to the commissioner who looks at gender-affirmation care and children. That may be Dr Cody; is that right?
Dr Cody: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to make clear, from the start of these questions, that I support adults doing whatever they like if they want to transition or attempt to transition. However, I draw the line at children. Previously, the commission has argued in court that puberty blockers were ‘reversible’, the risk of a wrong decision to give a child puberty blockers was ‘low’ and the outcome of a wrong decision would not be ‘grave’. My questions to the commission are: do you still stand by that position completely, and why the hell are you in court arguing to put children on puberty blockers?
Dr Cody: I believe that you are referring to family court decisions in which we have intervened as amicus. I’m not aware of the details of those specific cases. I would have to educate myself around exactly what our argument was. We do not have any intention to—or any cases in which we are intervening, or have sought to intervene, as amicus in relation to the use of puberty blockers or gender-affirming care with children.
Senator ROBERTS: But your words are significant. Are you a medical doctor?
Dr Cody: I’m not.
Senator ROBERTS: There’s no good evidence that puberty blockers are reversible, and the effects of puberty blockers on the developing brain of a child are simply unknown. Why should the Australian taxpayer be funding the commission to argue for children to make irreversible changes to their body that we have no good clinical evidence for?
Dr Cody: One of the fundamental human rights that we all have is a right to health care. That includes children—the importance of all children having the appropriate access to health care from the moment they are born right through until they turn 18. Gender-affirming health care is a part of that access to health care.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, let’s continue. The Cass review in the UK—have you heard of that?
Dr Cody: I have.
Senator ROBERTS: It was one of the most sweeping and intensive inquiries into puberty blockers for children. The Cass review said that the evidence for puberty blockers is so poor that they should be confined to ethically controlled clinical trials, and cross-sex hormones for minors should only be used with extreme caution. The Cass review had the gender affirmation treatment protocol used at the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne independently evaluated for the scientific rigour in development. Do you know what it scored?
Dr Cody: I’m sorry, what scored? I didn’t catch the first part of that question.
Senator ROBERTS: It had the gender affirmation treatment protocol used at the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne independently evaluated for the scientific rigour in development. It scored 19 out of 100—very low rigour. Are you aware that, in the United States, there was a US$10 million report over nine years that was not published because the lead author didn’t want the results to be public? Those results were that there were no improvements in the mental health of children who received puberty blockers after two years. Are you aware of that?
Dr Cody: I’m not aware of that study in the United States. In relation to the Cass review, one of the findings of that review was recognising the importance of having a holistic approach to health care—which we have in Australia—that includes a psychologist’s treatment, social work treatment and having wraparound services with a GP and psychiatric assistance for any child who has any issues around their gender. One of those recommendations is something that we actually have within Australia and that we’re lucky to have within our healthcare system.
Senator ROBERTS: Until recently, it’s been almost automatic in some areas to put children who suffer from gender dysphoria, which is not uncommon in adolescents, on affirmation to change their gender. I can’t remember the name of the institute—it’s either the Australia-New Zealand society of psychiatrists or psychologists that has come out recently saying gender affirmation is not recommended. When are you going to stop going to court at taxpayer expense arguing for these experimental, life-changing, irreversible, mentally damaging chemical treatments to be given to children.
Dr Cody: At the moment, we are not intervening as amicus in any cases before the Family Court.
Senator ROBERTS: I think this question will probably go to the president. In your opening statement, you say:
Human rights are the blueprint for a decent, dignified life for all. Human rights are the key to creating the kind of society we all want to live in …
Could you tell me what is the field of human rights? What rights are encompassed in the field of human rights?
Mr de Kretser: The modern human rights movement started after World War II with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where the international community, after the horrors of World War II and the Holocaust said, ‘No more. These are the basic standards that everyone, no matter who they are or where they are, needs to lead a decent, dignified life.’ They have then been expressed in two key international treaties, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and various other treaties have codified aspects of rights since then. The human rights in those treaties have only been partly implemented in domestic Australian law, which is why we’re calling for a human rights act to properly implement Australia’s international obligations and to properly protect people’s and community’s human rights in Australia. Is there a specific human right or aspect that I can address for you?
Senator ROBERTS: I’d just like to know what you see as the core human rights that humans have and that you’re overseeing in this country?
Mr de Kretser: The legislation that we have—our discrimination laws—implements the obligations to protect aspects of the right to equality, for example. We have seven commissioners. Six of the seven are thematically focused on different rights: Commissioner Cody, obviously, is focused on equality rights; Commissioner Hollonds is focused on child rights; Commissioner Fitzgerald is focused on the rights of older persons—and the like. The key international treaties are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights.
CHAIR: I don’t want to interrupt this really helpful lecture on human rights law. If you’ve got a punchline question, you should get to that now.
Senator ROBERTS: Is freedom of speech seen as a human right?
CHAIR: Yes. Good question.
Mr de Kretser: Absolutely. Freedom of expression—our freedom of speech—is an aspect of that. Freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of religion and the like are critical human rights.
CHAIR: That’s all the questions we have for you this evening. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you for the work that you did on the framework and delivering that in the last couple of days. I know it’s taken an enormous amount of work.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/IwYtODBw25U/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-12-10 15:19:272024-12-10 15:19:30Children Deserve Care and Love – Not Life Changing Surgeries
The pornographic publication – Welcome to Sex – which is aimed at children, was shortlisted for the Prime Minister’s Literary Awards. This book is unclassified, meaning it can be accessed by children of any age, and is found in the children’s section of many libraries.
I asked Creative Australia how this could happen. The answer was disturbing and effectively amounts to a confession that their industry experts and selection panel have become so desensitised to sexual content for children that no one thought teaching young children about sexual techniques—topics that most adults would find inappropriate—was a problem. Instead, it was seen as something that should be encouraged, leading to it being shortlisted for the award.
One Nation is committed to implementing measures that will allow children to be children, protecting them from exposure to adult sexual material before they reach their teenage years.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending today. Who decides which publications are listed in the Prime Minister’s Literary Awards? Is that entirely a decision of Creative Australia, or does the Prime Minister make recommendations?
Mr Collette: It is neither, in fact. It is certainly not either the Prime Minister making recommendations or Creative Australia. We have a robust process. We appoint industry experts to act as adjudicators. We then call for nominations. Then all those books are read. I can’t recall by how many—I can find that out for you—but literally hundreds of books are read over the course of six months. Our selection committee will then choose the shortlist and eventually the winners of each category.
Senator ROBERTS: How many people are on the selection committee?
Mr Collette: I think there are about eight. I’d have to check. I haven’t got that with me.
Senator ROBERTS: Industry experts—that means authors, or publishers, or both?
Mr Collette: It means people with a significant record in the book industry.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the age range for each of the categories young adult and children?
Mr Collette: The young adult range goes from 13 to 19 years.
Senator ROBERTS: And children?
Mr Collette: Under that.
Senator ROBERTS: Everything less than that?
Mr Collette: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: The book Welcome to Sex is unclassified, meaning it’s available for children of any age. The author of the book has stated it’s suitable for eight-year-olds. The book is sold by the publisher without an age guidance. Why was the publication listed under young adult rather than children’s?
Mr Collette: I wasn’t aware of that, Senator. I would have to check that. The entries were assessed by an independent panel of judges with expertise across young adult writing, which is a category for works written for readers, as we said, between 13 and 19. I can tell you the names of the judges. They’ve since been published. The title, as you probably know, has been a bestseller in Australia, widely respected by teachers, psychologists and academic researchers. The title won the 2024 Australian Book Industry Award Book of the Year for Older Children in May 2024.
Senator ROBERTS: What are older children?
Mr Collette: Thirteen to 19. The book is clearly aimed at a teen audience, and the book’s introduction states, ‘Welcome to a book about sex and being a teen.’ I note, too, that Welcome to Sex has now been recommended as an educational resource for young people 14-plus by eSafety Kids, which is a trusted e-safety provider endorsed by the eSafety Commissioner. I’m not aware of the details of the question you’ve asked me. I will certainly investigate it. But there is a lot to recommend the excellence of that book, and indeed it has now been endorsed as a text for older children.
Senator ROBERTS: Older children being teens and 14-plus under the eSafety Commissioner—okay. I think the answer to this is no, but I’ll ask it anyway. Did the Prime Minister or any member of his staff or department make any representation regarding this publication, either for it to be included at all or for it to be included in a particular category?
Mr Collette: No, certainly not.
Senator ROBERTS: I thought so. Can you confirm that it was your decision to list that publication for a Prime Minister’s Literary Award, or was it the committee?
Mr Collette: It was the committee’s decision.
Senator ROBERTS: Who made the decision for the publication not to win? If it’s won so many awards, why didn’t it—
Mr Collette: It would be the committee.
Senator ROBERTS: The book was reprinted with a splash on the cover, ‘Prime Minister’s Literary Award nominee’ and sold many copies based on your endorsement. Did you receive any representation on behalf of the publisher for that work to be included in the awards? I imagine publishers would love the extra sales that result from that recommendation?
Mr Collette: Publishers do love the extra sales. One of the things we’ve done since we took responsibility for the awards was to bring it forward in the calendar year because, as a former publisher myself, I understand that two-thirds of our books are sold in three months before Christmas. So we had publishers, but more importantly booksellers, urging us to announce these awards early because they mean so much to keeping bookshops afloat. So, yes, we did all that. But the entire selection of that book was made by the panel of experts, as was the winner.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/M4FsoKhu4yw/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-11-18 07:51:392024-12-20 11:10:32Pornographic Book for Kids Shortlisted for Prime Minister’s Literary Award
The State Governments constantly come begging to the Commonwealth for money for schools which are State Government responsibility. This money inevitably ends up going towards ‘woke’ agendas, such as those promoted by Queensland Premier Steven Miles.
Drag queen story times, welcome to country and gender affirmation in schools is ridiculous and taxpayers shouldn’t be funding such programs.
I have long called for education to be about the basics: Education NOT Indoctrination!
Transcript
The schooling resource standard, or SRS, estimates the amount of public funding that schools need to meet their students’ educational needs. As of 2024, the Commonwealth is responsible for providing 20 per cent of public schools funding and, in line with this arrangement, states are required to take on 75 per cent, leaving a five per cent gap. The Commonwealth wears extra loadings for medium and small schools, which is estimated to cost the federal government $600 million in 2024 alone, as well as other student based loadings.
This scheme was agreed upon between the federal, state and territory governments under the National School Reform Agreement. Australia is a federation of states, and education is a state responsibility. Not only are the states failing to meet their 75 per cent target; they’re demanding that the federal government tip in more money for an additional five per cent. It is hypocrisy for the Victorian education minister, Ben Carroll, to suggest that the federal government should cut its funding to non-government schools to make up for it. The Commonwealth is already paying its fair share and meeting its target as outlined in the schooling resource standard, and the states are not paying their fair share—their agreed share. The states have even declined the offer of the federal government taking on an additional 2.5 per cent to help in closing the gap. They are asking for the full five per cent. How can the states ask for anything when they’re not even meeting their own target?
It’s worth noting that, in Australia, states and territories are responsible for the majority of public school funding, to which in 2024 alone the Commonwealth government is contributing $11.2 billion. Contrary to union bosses’ claims, the federal government over the past decade has taken on a greater share of the responsibility of funding schools. In fact, in 2013-14, states were responsible for 87 per cent of public school funding. Today that share is 12 per cent lower. It’s not the Commonwealth’s job to make up for the states’ fiscal illiteracy and mismanagement or the states’ pursuit of woke agenda. Look at Steven Miles, the Premier of Queensland. He is driving an agenda that includes gender bending and kiddies talk.
Senator Allman-Payne interjecting—
Senator ROBERTS: Senator Allman-Payne was talking about human relations. This is bending our children. That’s what we’re paying for. We should not be paying for that. Reading kids drag queens’ story times in schools—ridiculous! It’s left to the parent to defend their children and come in and stop it. One Nation stands on the fundamental idea that education is a state responsibility. We support Senator Tyrrell’s matter of public importance, and we thank her for it.
One Nation is dedicated to supporting families not only within Australia but also abroad. The persistent issue of child labour perpetuates the cycle of poverty, as children are deprived of education and are forced to work in impoverished conditions throughout their lives.
Currently, products manufactured through child labor are readily available in Australia. My proposed bill aims to eradicate this by imposing fines and, ultimately, prohibiting the sale of products associated with child labor in their supply chains.
The Customs Amendment (Preventing Child Labour) Bill 2023 is currently before a Senate Inquiry. I urge you to send in your submissions on this crucial matter.
Later this year, I will bring this bill to a vote, emphasising our commitment to combatting child labour and upholding human rights standards.
Australian has a moral obligation to end child labour. Together, we can make a meaningful difference in the lives of countless children forced into this horrific conditions.
Child labour hinders a child’s physical and educational development. It reinforces the vicious circle of poverty and affects children across the developing world. No child should have to sacrifice their childhood to work.
I’m proud to announce that I will be introducing my Bill, The Custom’s Amendment (Preventing Child Labour) Bill 2023, at the next sitting. This Bill introduces escalating penalties on products with child labour in their supply, leading eventually to a complete ban. Using a stepwise approach gives offending suppliers time to move away from employing children to employing adults instead. Imposing an immediate ban on these suppliers would be disastrous to the economies of the countries involved. These children would be in school and their parents in jobs if wealthier nations had not turned a blind eye for so long to the problem.
It’s Australia’s moral obligation to help end the cycle of child labour.
Transcript
As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I proudly advise the Senate that on the next sitting day I’ll introduce One Nation’s Customs Amendment (Preventing Child Labour) Bill 2023. There have been many attempts to ban products with child labour in their supply chains—all have failed. The reasons were always the same. Including adult slave labour and child labour in the same Bill ensures failure. These are two different problems needing two different solutions. Adult slave labour is a contentious issue which has always failed on the definition of slave labour. It’s best dealt with politically. Child labour, on the other hand, has a clear definition from the International Labour Organization. If a child misses school, or would miss school if school were available, in order to engage in work, that’s child labour.
My Bill imposes escalating penalties on products with child labour in their supply chain, leading eventually to a complete ban. This approach gives companies time to fix their supply chain, and it allows ethical companies time to ramp up production and meet increased demand. It gives offending suppliers time to move from employing children to instead employing adults from the same area. However, a knee-jerk solution to immediately ban products with child labour in their supply chain would be disastrous for the economies of the countries hosting industries currently using child labour. This is why governments in these countries have had little appetite to address the issue. These children would be in school and their parents in a job if it were not for rich Western countries looking the other way because everyone loves cheap electronics, clothing and coffee. I ask all senators for their support when the Bill is brought to a vote early next year. I would welcome discussion with the minister on a government led solution.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Our-Smartphones-Contain-Cobalt-Mined-by-Children.jpg?fit=670%2C445&ssl=1445670Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-05-03 15:13:122024-05-03 15:15:08Australia’s Moral Obligation to End Child Labour
Last sitting I was pleased to co-sponsor the Childhood Gender Transition Prohibition Bill 2023 from Senator Antic which seeks to prevent children from being surgically or chemically harmed in the name of gender identity. The Senate Committee that selects new legislation for inquiry refused to recommend this bill for a public inquiry. Senator Antic moved a motion to amend their report to require an inquiry.
The Greens opposed this amendment because they are clearly afraid of the truth coming out about child mutilation in the name of gender dysphoria. Labor opposed it in the name of wokism which is the cult they slavishly follow to avoid standing up for civil rights, decency and human values.
Why Senators Lambie, Tyrell and Pocock voted against sending our bill to a committee inquiry is anyone’s guess. It is very disappointing to see however, along with noting that so many of the Libs were out to lunch to avoid making a choice.
As I said in this speech, this is not about transphobia. It is about a child’s future and parental rights. By ensuring someone has reached the age of 18 before making such a final and irreversible decision about their future, they can avoid a lot of potential heartache and regret.
We don’t expect a child to know what they want to be when they grow up. Why would we let them decide they want to be the opposite sex?
Transcript
I speak in support of Senator Antic’s amendment. The Senate has portfolio committees to inquire into legislation for a good reason. Every committee is, from time to time, asked to inquire into a bill that raises issues of significance, as this bill does. The conventions and procedures of a committee inquiry are well suited to handing controversial issues such as this. Such inquiries are conducted all the time, because they’re essential to the legislative process. The Senate is open to denying a bill due process, so the question must be asked, why? What is it about this issue that has the Greens on the rampage, the ALP in hiding and the globalist wing of the Liberals rushing to cross the floor to avoid talking about it.
Childhood gender surgery, whether physical or chemical, is not an insignificant matter. It is life changing, often life ending and irreversible. When young gender transitioners realise that it is irreversible and they regret their decision, that can often lead to them choosing suicide, to end their life. Billions of dollars of taxpayer money is involved. More importantly, the lives and health of tens of thousands of Australian children are at risk. There’s no room to vote this matter on feelings or fear. We need to get the facts. Gendered identity surgery on children relates to their physical health and to life itself.
I appreciate that there are those even on the conservative side who refuse to question childhood gender surgery. That’s their right. Australians are increasingly asking why there is a cover up. Who are you protecting? I have received representatives from constituents from many different states approaching this issue from many different perspectives. Whenever One Nation has brought these perspectives to this place we have been shut down. That is not democracy. That is not the exercise of Senate powers without fear or favour; it is the complete opposite. It is control and shutting down. It is censorship. I have promised my constituents I will bring their perspectives to this place, and I will never take a step back from doing that fairly and honestly.
The public have turned against causing chemical and physical mutilation and harm to children in the name of gender identity. The Senate will have to deal with this issue in the near future, so let us do it now. Let us get on with the job. Send this bill to a committee and let Australia contribute to the debate. Let parents have their say. Let victims of childhood transition have their say. And, yes, let trans people have their say. I point out, that all that is done by this bill that I co-sponsor with Senator Antic and Senator Babet is found mainly in section 8. It prohibits doctors prescribing surgery or puberty blockers to people under the age of 18. That’s all it does. A health practitioner—
The PRESIDENT: Senator McKim on a point of order?
Senator McKim: The point of order is relevance. The question before the chamber does not go to the substance of the bill. It goes to whether or not the bill should be referred to a committee. I ask that Senator Roberts be relevant to the question.
The PRESIDENT: Senator McKim, these are broad-ranging discussions. Senator Roberts is being absolutely on point to the amendments before the chamber.
Senator ROBERTS: Section 8, clause 1 reads:
A health practitioner must not knowingly provide gender clinical interventions to a minor that are intended to transition the minor’s biological sex as determined by the child’s sex organs, chromosomes, and endogenous profiles.
There are then details of the medical procedures and the prohibition of prescription drugs that achieve the same purpose except for the medical treatment of disorders of sexual development. Section 12 restricts the expenditure of Commonwealth money—taxpayers’ money—on treatment.
A committee improves bills, a committee scrutinises bills and a committee, above all, gives an opportunity for the people of Australia to have their say. I know many trans people. I’m pleased to meet them and proud to have them as friends. I communicate with some of them regularly. This is not about transphobia; this is about making sure that people have the right to have a say in this bill, which is absolutely essential. I commend Senator Antic’s amendment to the Senate.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/QkE61m4ziyg/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-11-30 13:06:142023-11-30 13:06:19Let Australians Have Their Say on Gender Transition
Child labour hinders a child’s physical and educational development. It reinforces the vicious circle of poverty and affects children across the developing world. No child should have to sacrifice their childhood to work.
I’m proud to announce that I will be introducing my Bill, The Custom’s Amendment (Preventing Child Labour) Bill 2023, at the next sitting. This Bill introduces escalating penalties on products with child labour in their supply, leading eventually to a complete ban. Using a stepwise approach gives offending suppliers time to move away from employing children to employing adults instead. Imposing an immediate ban on these suppliers would be disastrous to the economies of the countries involved. These children would be in school and their parents in jobs if wealthier nations had not turned a blind eye for so long to the problem.
It’s Australia’s moral obligation to help end the cycle of child labour.
Transcript
As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I proudly advise the Senate that on the next sitting day I’ll introduce One Nation’s Customs Amendment (Preventing Child Labour) Bill 2023. There have been many attempts to ban products with child labour in their supply chains—all have failed. The reasons were always the same. Including adult slave labour and child labour in the same Bill ensures failure. These are two different problems needing two different solutions. Adult slave labour is a contentious issue which has always failed on the definition of slave labour. It’s best dealt with politically. Child labour, on the other hand, has a clear definition from the International Labour Organization. If a child misses school, or would miss school if school were available, in order to engage in work, that’s child labour.
My Bill imposes escalating penalties on products with child labour in their supply chain, leading eventually to a complete ban. This approach gives companies time to fix their supply chain, and it allows ethical companies time to ramp up production and meet increased demand. It gives offending suppliers time to move from employing children to instead employing adults from the same area. However, a knee-jerk solution to immediately ban products with child labour in their supply chain would be disastrous for the economies of the countries hosting industries currently using child labour. This is why governments in these countries have had little appetite to address the issue. These children would be in school and their parents in a job if it were not for rich Western countries looking the other way because everyone loves cheap electronics, clothing and coffee. I ask all senators for their support when the Bill is brought to a vote early next year. I would welcome discussion with the minister on a government led solution.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Rcv5nkH_M1c/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-11-23 13:50:202023-11-23 13:50:24Australia’s Moral Obligation to End Child Labour
I asked the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) whether Drag Queen story times are part of the curriculum.
Initially the answer was a firm NO from David de Carvalho, before circling back and side-stepping the issue by saying he was processing the question.
I asked what control or influence the national curriculum has over state schools and was told there is some freedom to adapt and adopt before implementing the curriculum.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here. We have a number of constituents—quite a few—who are very concerned about the story I’m going to tell you about. Can you please advise me which part, if any—because the ABC got it wrong last time—of the Australian Curriculum relates to drag queen storytime? Right, thank you. We have schools that are hosting drag queen storytimes where they’re getting drag queens in to read stories to children. It’s happening on the Sunshine Coast and in other parts of Queensland. It’s done on school time, so we thought that surely it has to relate the curriculum for them to do that. That’s why I’m asking in that section. My second question—because you’ve denied it, which I thought would be correct—is: what control or influence does the national curriculum have on state schools?
Mr de Carvalho: I’m not sure I denied your question; I was waiting for the full extent of it.
Senator ROBERTS: You indicated quite clearly that it doesn’t exist in the curriculum.
Mr de Carvalho: I indicated, I guess, that I was trying to process the question with a view to giving you a sensible answer. I may ask Ms Foster to contribute there. What was the second part of your question?
Senator ROBERTS: What influence does the national curriculum have over state schools, and is there any compulsion to follow the national curriculum? What are the responsibilities?
Mr de Carvalho: There is an agreement that states and territories will implement the Australian Curriculum, but each of them does that in a slightly different way. The terminology that we use in relation to this is that states and territories are free to ‘adopt and adapt’ the curriculum to suit their local circumstances. That is the agreement, and different states and territories are in different parts of the plan to implement the Australian Curriculum. They’re going through and looking at it and determining to what extent they can adopt it fully. Some states’ curriculums are very close to the Australian Curriculum, and other states adapt it slightly before implementing it.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it done on a state-by-state basis, or are individual schools free to go wherever they want?
Mr de Carvalho: We have three sectors in the country. Jurisdictions—certainly in the state school systems—tend to take a uniform approach for their jurisdiction. Different jurisdictions have different mechanisms for adopting and adapting the curriculum. For example, in Victoria there is the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority; in Queensland you have the Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority; and New South Wales has the New South Wales Education Standards Authority. These are the bodies in those major jurisdictions which have a close look at the Australian Curriculum and then determine how, if at all, it should be adapted for those jurisdictions. WA have their School Curriculum and Standards Authority, and they also undertake that adaptation approach. The other jurisdictions tend to be closer—Queensland is closer, as are Tasmania, South Australia and Northern Territory—in terms of their implementation.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/l-4YBecEixM/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-11-01 11:41:042023-11-03 14:20:40What Part of the School Curriculum is Drag Queen Storytime?
The Classification Board is required to protect children from all forms of sexual exploitation, abuse, and pornographic material. This is outlined in the legislation written in 1995. Restricting publications such as graphic novels, in the best interests of children, is not book burning, it’s common decency.
The motion I have introduced to the senate is about classifying books like ‘Welcome to Sex’ in such a way that prevents young children from reading them.
Why? Because it is not legal to instruct children in how to have sex before they have come of age. Basic morality and community standards are reflective of a civilized society and we would do well not to forget that.
Once lost, a child’s innocence cannot be replaced.
The ‘woke’ agenda’s increasing desire to enlist young children in an adult’s world of sex and depravity is nothing short of grooming.
My motion refers the classification to a committee review to create a new category for sexually explicit material directed to adolescents, to ensure kids don’t get their hands on this material without parental supervision.
Transcript
I move:
That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting day in March 2024:
The adequacy of the current classification system for publications to protect children from age-inappropriate material, including:
(a) the need, if any, for penalties on publishers who fail to meet their obligations under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 to submit potentially offending material to the Classification Board for review; and
(b) any other related matters.
As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I’m speaking this evening in support of my motion to refer the classification system to a Senate inquiry. I’ve circulated a briefing document to explain this motion, and I hope senators have had time to review the material relating to cartoons for adults, otherwise known as graphic novels, in digital and printed form. The Classification Board administers the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. Not every publication, though, is checked, of course. This would not be feasible. Instead, a system of voluntary referral is in place for questionable publications. That’s where the problem is—the system of referral or non-referral.
A publication called The Boys has been available in Australia since the first issue in 1996. This is the same The Boys that Netflix turned into a hit streaming show. Children, having seen the sanitised Netflix version and then seeing the book version on the shelf of their local library, will, of course, pick the book up and borrow it, unaware of the depictions of extreme violence, rape, public sex and bestiality found in the publication. Even more troubling, all of these things are portrayed in a positive light. For 25 years, this material has been perfectly legal to sell, display and lend to minors of any age.
A week after the Classification Board appeared before Senate estimates to answer questions from me and Senator Antic, the board reviewed all six volumes of The Boys as a result of a referral from campaigner, family protector and child protector Bernard Gaynor. A citizen fulfilling his responsibility to the community, to the nation, got it referred to the board. Three volumes were restricted and three were allowed to remain on sale unrestricted, meaning available in libraries to children. One of the banned works, episode 5 in volume 1, was titled ‘Herogasm’ and chronicled the sexual exploits of our superheroes. Graphic depictions included orgies and bestiality. This behaviour was presented in a positive light, with smiles, high fives, raised fists and whoops all around.
Dynamite publishing did not refer their publication to the Classification Board as the law requires. I’ll say that again. Dynamite publishing did not refer their publication to the Classification Board as the law requires. The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 does not prescribe a penalty on a publisher who does not refer a work that may be subject to sanction. That’s an incentive to not submit a work. This is one of the terms of reference of this motion. Penalties may be appropriate for a publisher who failed to submit a work that was subsequently restricted.
One of the volumes that was not banned depicted the male lead character, Homelander, raping the lead female character, Starlight, complete with protestations, using language that should not be suitable for children. The board declined to restrict the volume because the nudity in the rape scene was not overly graphic. What about the rape? All senators and members of parliament are required to take a course on sensitivity to women. The Classification Board clearly needs to attend the same training. The second justification for not restricting the volume is even worse. It was, ‘The two characters both climaxed, suggesting the sex was not rape but consensual.’ The Classification Board is apparently bringing back, ‘But she came’—the old rape defence. Where are the women’s activists? Where are the Greens talking about women now? They’re nowhere to be seen.
Another graphic novel currently on sale and on display in libraries unrestricted by the Classification Board is Nagano, which depicts sexual behaviour featuring girls who are actually labelled in the illustration as being seven years old, just in case there was any doubt about who these comics are really aimed at.
Now we have the book Welcome to Sex. The authors are Yumi Stynes, Melissa Kang and Jenny Latham. It’s published by international publishing house Hardie Grant Children’s Publishing. Much has been said about this publication in recent weeks. For those who have not read it, let me explain a little about this book. The publication is officially aimed at ages 10 and up, with author Yumi Stynes publicly stating that she would have no problem with an eight-year-old reading the book. Certainly some of the information in this book will help adolescents come to terms with their changing bodies and their relationships around that process. If the authors had stopped there, we would have no problem. They didn’t stop there. The second half of this book is nothing short of an instruction manual on how to perform adult sex acts, commencing with advice to young girls to take their own virginity with a hairbrush and then moving onto hand jobs, sex and even anal sex, ending with advice on how to send naked selfies. This is all in a book published for ages 10 and up. How is it legal to advise kids to have sex before they are legally able and to send illegal child pornography and to advise children to ignore the counsel of their own parents? How is this legal? Ten-year-old children cannot have sex and should not be tutored on how to do so.
It may be that this material is being sold because the Classification Board only has the choice between ‘unrestricted’ and R18+, which is restricted to sale in plain wrappers to adults. In effect, the current classification system has no jump between Cat in the Hat and actual porn. All publications become either one or the other. Legislation written in 1995 simply didn’t envisage this trend of graphic novels that are sexually violent and exploitative material that one could describe as child-grooming material.
Children are far more valuable than this. I’m asking the committee to decide if there should be more steps in the classification options so material like this can be allowed for sale to adolescents old enough to actually engage in the sexual practices explained in this publication. After all, the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 does require the board to protect children from all forms of sexual exploitation, abuse and pornographic material. This publication is pornographic. Restricting a publication like this is not book burning, as some have suggested, some who are afraid of a debate. One Nation is not calling for the book to be banned. We are suggesting this book should be classified in a way that prevents young children from reading it. That is not book burning. That is basic decency reflecting community standards that say teaching 10-year-olds how to have anal sex is just plain wrong. A legally binding MA15+ classification would achieve that. I ask for the Senate’s support for my motion.
The Vote
After constituents told me children can access disgusting pornography on store shelves & libraries, I moved a motion to refer the book classification system to a senate inquiry so that Australians can have their say.
Our children deserve our protection.
We finally got the Liberal-Nationals to support an inquiry. Labor, Greens, Pocock and the Teals (LGPT) voted to stop an inquiry. The vote was: YES – 25 and NO – 30.
The LGPT brigade think it’s okay for children to access porn and that Australians shouldn’t be able to voice their concerns.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/JUKBz8V6478/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-08-02 12:32:172023-08-04 14:20:46One Nation Will Always Protect the Innocence of Children
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Frame-1.png?fit=1280%2C720&ssl=17201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-07-27 13:21:342023-07-27 13:38:17Not in Front of the Children!
