The safety of Australians is the first priority of any government. Following the horrific Bondi atrocity and the attempted Australia Day bombing in WA, I questioned the Australian Federal Police (AFP) on what they are doing to bridge the gaps between ASIO, Home Affairs and the AFP, and what specific new steps are being taken to prevent future acts of terrorism?
The response from the Commissioner and the Deputy was that while their “architecture” is mature, there is nothing specifically new being implemented in response to these recent events. They are relying on existing “enduring relationships” and a new National Security Investigation Team to monitor “hate extremism.”
While they claim information sharing is “excellent,” we cannot afford to be complacent. “Strong and enduring” relationships are good, however they don’t replace the need for constant improvement when lives are at risk.
I will continue to monitor these “joint arrangements” to ensure they are actually delivering the protection all Australians deserve, NOT just more bureaucracy.
— Senate Estimates | February 2026
Transcript
CHAIR: We can rotate the call. Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Given the role of the Australian Federal Police to enforce Commonwealth laws and to protect Australians, what further steps have been taken to open up the lines of communication between ASIO and the AFP and between the AFP and Home Affairs to prevent future acts of terrorism post the Bondi atrocity and the attempted bombing in Western Australia on Australia Day this year?
Ms Sirec: The AFP has long and enduring relationships with in particular ASIO. Our counterterrorism construct has been in for a significant amount of time and the information sharing is excellent. Equally with the various Commonwealth agencies, in particular Home Affairs, there are enduring and constant relationships and information sharing.
Senator ROBERTS: Have any additional arrangements been made?
Ms Sirec: The relationships there are strong and enduring. When we do set up new capabilities such as the National Security Investigations apparatus, there’s a restrengthening of relationships there in particular even with the states and territories. The AFP brokers relationships of the Commonwealth with states and territories as well. It’s a very mature apparatus and architecture.
Senator ROBERTS: But nothing specifically new?
Mr Nutt: I’d go further to not only what the commissioner has said but also the deputy around the announcement of the National Security Investigation teams as a new initiative and also, as the commissioner said in the opening statement, around working with state security investigation or intelligence units on intelligence security investigations. One of the key aspects of that is looking for any intelligence or investigation that involves hate extremism that could transition into a joint counterterrorism arrangement, which has been in place for a very long time. Again, it’s another mechanism that supports existing arrangements nationally.
On Monday 19 January, during an early recall of Parliament, I delivered condolences for the victims of Bondi on behalf of myself and Senator Pauline Hanson.
My condolences to the victims’ families, friends, workmates and colleagues. Nothing I can say will adequately articulate your grief, fear, devastation, shock and desperation — your search for understanding, for clarity in putting your lives back together, for addressing the hole in your heart and mind, for meaning, for making sense of it all.
It’s difficult to make sense of something senseless that’s the result of inhuman ideology, Islamic ideology, which is the number one killer of Muslims worldwide, a rampant killer of Christians and of Jewish people, and the driving force behind indiscriminate killing of non-adherents worldwide.
The most appropriate way to honour the Bondi victims is to end Islamic extremism and terrorism in Australia.
The Bondi victims, at the very least, deserve honest leadership — leadership that takes responsibility for ensuring the safety and security of all of their, and our, fellow Australians.
Transcript
Fifteen Australians massacred in 10 minutes of terror—15 Australians executed, 15 Australians given the death sentence for being in a park and on the street in a beautiful, once peaceful part of our country. Others are carrying injuries and scars for life. My condolences to the victims’ families, friends, workmates and colleagues. Nothing I can say will adequately articulate your grief, fear, devastation, shock and desperation—your search for understanding, for clarity in putting your lives back together, for addressing the hole in your heart and mind, for meaning, for making sense of it all. It’s difficult to make sense of something senseless that’s the result of inhuman ideology, Islamic ideology, which is the number one killer of Muslims worldwide, a rampant killer of Christians and of Jewish people and the driving force behind indiscriminate killing of non-adherents worldwide.
Before 14 December 2025 we thought this may happen close to us—in Bali’s two bombings, when 92 Australians died—yet surely not on our shores. How can you make sense of it all when so many people won’t name the force, Islam, that brutally murdered your loved ones? Yet before embarking on that search, I acknowledge 27 million Australians who had our collective perception of Australian security ripped away, tearing at the heart and fabric of our nation, security, culture and identity—our democracy, our unity. My condolences to all Australians whom this tragedy touches. Honouring the Bondi victims is not with words alone; above all it’s done with action—honest, genuine, meaningful actions. This is an opportunity to unite Australians whom this tragedy touches and to unite them with a unity based in truth.
Another preliminary to action is to acknowledge that life is precious. From conception to death, life is precious. This is the first of our universal God-given freedoms, the freedom of life, our freedom to live. Without freedom to live there can be no freedom of speech, no freedom of thought, no creativity, no freedom of belief and no freedom of assembly, association, initiative or movement. In other words, in another preliminary to action we must acknowledge that freedom to live is essential. In another preliminary to action we must acknowledge that in our actions honesty is vital. Regarding the Bondi massacre, honesty starts with responsibility, because parliament has failed to hold government sufficiently accountable to spur the government to take action that would have or likely could have avoided the massacre. As a senator in federal parliament could I have done more to hold the government accountable—I asked myself that—to spur the government to confront Islam’s beachhead in our country? For those upset with my comments, I quote from evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins:
Something you can convert to is not a race. A statement of simple fact is not bigotry.
Truth is important. Responsibility is a key to leadership that needs to be provided for all Australians and especially for families of the murdered. A true leader takes responsibility for failures like the failures and lapses leading to Bondi, rapidly investigates using a genuine royal commission with terms of reference that ensure truth is established and then, based on data and facts unearthed, leads changes in governance, all to protect people, not to punish or control people, apart from those responsible for lapses in doing their duty—only to protect people. I know two quotes from everyday Australians on my social media posts:
Social cohesion doesn’t occur under social coercion.
Anyone who wants to ban free speech has a lot to hide.
A real leader doesn’t weaken the people he or she leads; they strengthen people. A real leader doesn’t take resources from his political opponents; they strengthen their opponents, because stronger opponents strengthen governments—governments that care. A real leader calls an inquiry with adequate power to get to the root causes and to then recommend answers. All this, with a clarity of understanding, leads to prevention of future recurrence.
I divert briefly from Bondi to Australia’s largest domestic mass murder, the Port Arthur massacre, which killed 35 people in beautiful Tasmania on 28 April 1996, because there’s at least one important lesson there. Then prime minister John Howard illegally cancelled the request for an inquiry into the 35 deaths—an action that failed and betrayed the victims and their families. It betrayed every Australian. Had the lessons of Port Arthur been explored through a royal commission or through a proper inquest, we may not be where we are today. Our obligation lies not only to those Australians in mourning for what this country has lost in the last month but also to those Australians yet to be born. It may take many years for the circumstances of Bondi to recur, yet they will recur unless action is taken now.
Prime ministers are elected in a vote of the party caucus. Leaders, though, are not appointed; they are self-emergent as a result of their successful, sincere and honest handling of challenges and incidents that affect the people they supposedly lead. On Sunday 21 December at Bondi’s ‘Light over darkness’ vigil at the memorial to terrorist attack victims, the current Prime Minister was loudly and emphatically booed. That booing reverberated across Australia. It was an emblematic verdict from the people on the Prime Minister’s performance in response to Bondi because, in Bondi’s aftermath, our country has not seen leadership. Once the absence of leadership became obvious and open, the government tried to rehabilitate a tarnished image with branding. Branding, though, is not leadership. It is dangerous because it’s a vacuum. The best way to honour the Bondi massacre victims is to respect them, to be honest, to be open and to enable a fair dinkum royal commission to get the data and facts truthfully, and then, based on the data and facts, to change systems and adjust leadership behaviours.
Why have there been no prosecutions under Commonwealth hate crimes legislation that Labor introduced in 2010 and 2025? If the place of worship of the radicals that committed this offence could be closed under existing powers straight after the offence, why can’t others? If they can deport tennis players and Nazis under existing laws, why have they not deported Islamic hate preachers?
As a way of honouring the Bondi victims, I pledge to fulfil my role as a senator and as a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia. I will fulfil my role under our Westminster system of government to ensure that Australians can again feel safe and secure and to hold government—regardless of who’s in power—accountable in its primary role of ensuring every Australian’s security and safety. We must do more to end Islamic extremism, the world’s large perpetrator of terrorism. The most appropriate way to honour the Bondi victims is to end Islamic extremism and terrorism in Australia. The Bondi victims, at the very least, deserve honest leadership—leadership that takes responsibility for ensuring the safety and security of all of their, and our, fellow Australians.
I will now convey some condolence remarks from Senator Pauline Hanson. I’m proud to be able to deliver them for Pauline. She says:
Due to my suspension from this chamber my colleague Senator Malcolm Roberts has kindly agreed to deliver my Bondi condolence speech.
On December 14th 2025, just 10 days out from celebrating Christmas our nation was struck the cruellest blow with the terrorist attack at Bondi beach that claimed the lives of 15 innocent Australians.
Many more faced hospitalisation from injuries they incurred but countless more will carry scars for the rest of their lives from the horrors they witnessed on that fateful day.
To all of those who lost family, loved ones, or a dear close friend never forget your fellow Australians, including myself, share your grief.
Our heart goes out to you, your loss is our loss, your hurt and pain is our hurt and pain.
Your fellow Australians and many throughout the world share your grief and pain, you are not alone.
Matilda was the youngest to lose her life, a beautiful young girl only 10 years of age. Why? What could she have possibly done to warrant her life being cut short at such a young age?
Nothing! She was celebrating the Jewish festival Hanukkah with family, held at the iconic setting, Bondi beach.
Thousands of Australians attended as they do every year, only this Hanukkah ended in a massacre.
The carnage Australians witnessed as it was happening on their devices, left most of us stunned, disbelieving and in horror that this could possibly be happening in our country.
The hate and evil delivered on that day must be stamped out.
I question myself constantly what has happened to our country when two men, father and son, are seen to be deliberately firing rifles with precision and determination to kill or maim as many people as they can.
The heroic actions of Ahmed Al-Ahmed in wrestling the gun from one of the men while he was firing at people, has been praised for his bravery, from all around the world.
Also the heroic actions of the couple Boris and Sofia Gurman who saw a man taking the rifle out of his car, tried to take it from him, but tragically lost their precious lives.
There were countless heroes, including the amazing first responders, on that tragic day—
I pause here to convey Pauline’s deep appreciation, respect and admiration for the first responders who actually ran towards the firing—
many trying to help and protect the young and not so young.
Australians selfless to their own safety only to put themselves in danger to save others—
Pauline says thankyou—
This is a tragedy, a scar that will be in our history books for eternity.
Mistakes have been made, but lessons must be learnt. We cannot just move on and thank our lucky stars that it was not one of us or one of our loved ones.
History repeats itself, don’t let the death of 15 innocent Australians and the suffering of many more be swept under the carpet and forgotten.
We are very fortunate to live in such a beautiful country, that many from around the world look on in envy.
This tragedy has been a wake-up call for a lot of people. Never take your freedom, peace or harmony for granted, there are those wanting to spill their hate or evil, if we let them.
Our current and previous governments have a lot to answer for, but that is for another day.
I and my One Nation colleagues will continue to fight for your right to freedom and safety not only for you but for future generations.
A country you can be proud to live in and call home.
https://image2url.com/r2/default/images/1768981847320-73639cb1-d0b5-464b-a099-59fa6f65424a.png6321129Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-01-21 17:52:262026-01-22 17:47:50Australians Deserve the Truth: Ending the Ideology of Terror
This bill is a licence to arrest dissidents, halt debate, and silence political opposition.
On December 14, 2025 – an Islamic terror attack occurred in Australia.
Two individuals associated with the foreign ISIS group, one of whom ASIO was supposedly ‘watching’, went to an Australian beach and started murdering innocent people.
On Australian soil. A massacre of innocent people.
These individuals and their anti-human murderous intent are presumed to be products of an Islamic theocratic ideology which is part of a network of militant Islamic groups that engage in a combination of regional conflicts, power struggles, and the global act of intifada in which they seek to spread Islam ‘by the Sword’ and subjugate the peoples and religions of the world.
Islamic terror is not a response to the behaviour of the Australian people. Indeed, it has been forming caliphates for over 1,400 years. To make any insinuation that Australians and their speech are somehow to blame is an insult to rational thought.
These statements about Islam and its history of creating violent militancy are factual statements that will no doubt become criminal hate speech if the Prime Minister and his government are allowed to shamelessly exploit the Bondi Islamic terror attack.
As we speak, the Prime Minister and his ministers are busy creating a political firestorm to fabricate the feeling of existential terror – the purpose is to rush people.
To panic people.
To pass the single, most dangerous piece of legislation this nation has ever seen.
An Islamic terror attack took place, and yet this omnibus bill doesn’t have the guts to name the ideological perpetrator. Look at it. Where is the call to identify radical Islam?
Where does it cite the ideology that is the chief cause of fear among Australians?
Australians are smarter than that. Go online – before social media is banned – and listen to what people are saying. They spotted the oversight immediately.
The title of this bill is a real-time rewriting of the narrative. The Prime Minister has repackaged Islamic terror as some sort of vague antisemitism and the impossible-to-define ‘hate speech’.
This matters because Islamic terror is not a reaction to criticism of Islam, criticism of mass migration, support of Australia’s Western heritage, our Christian foundation, our demands for women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, or other Western-centric thought.
Nor do French satirical cartoons or Salman Rushdie’s literary works cause Islamic terror.
Islamic terror exists to oppress, to kill, and to convert.
Enacting ruthless, politically motivated censorship against the Australian people – and specifically conservative Australians – will not stop a single Islamic terror attack.
Let me repeat – this bill will not stop a single Islamic terror attack.
Islamic terror’s hatred – its antisemitism – its desire to ‘behead the infidels’ – which was shouted on the streets of Sydney ten years ago and with no response from authorities, politicians, or this Parliament – stems from its radicalised religious belief that is an ideology for structuring society.
An inhuman, uncivilised society.
Shutting up Australians and interfering with what should be the sacred, unassailable right to free speech and political communication – is not an act of protection. It is an act of aggression.
The Australian people asked you, Prime Minister, to stop Islamic terror. To deport the Islamic hate preachers. To find out why people on an ASIO watchlist had access to firearms. To find out why people on an ASIO watchlist were able to travel to known Islamic terror training areas.
They want to know why your government has not proscribed various known Islamic hate groups despite our allies doing so. They want to know why your government brought back female members of the Islamic State terror group despite the community telling you no.
And why your minister lied to cover up the ISIS brides’ return as it was being planned – and while it was underway.
They want to know why people holding Jewish and Australians flags are routinely arrested while those carrying Hamas, Hezbollah, and ISIS flags are not.
They want to know why current and former members of government marched beneath a portrait of the Ayatollah whose Iranian regime serves as the heart of Islamic terror – exporting it to the world including Australia.
And cruelly treats its own citizens.
Why are you, Prime Minister, presenting to us this omnibus bill which fails – catastrophically – to confine itself to the religious ideology that is murdering Australians, attacking the Jewish community, and spreading hate and violence in our country?
You and your government were given a very specific and narrow request from the people of Australia: get the Islamic terrorists out of this country or put them in jail.
What you have done instead is sloppily and dangerously draft an astonishingly extensive omnibus bill – which must be the work of months, not weeks – to make it nearly impossible for the average Australian to voice their God-given dissent, concern, and disgust at various policies and cultural changes to our country.
It is the codification of blasphemy known under the new name, ‘Islamophobia’.
As the late, great, left-wing figure Christopher Hitchens said: ‘Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons. Resist it, while you still can.’
I look around and think how far the left have fallen.
This bill is, without question, without any doubt, an abuse of Parliament’s power.
It’s a licence to arrest dissidents, halt debate, and silence political opposition the likes of which we have not seen in a hundred years.
The Prime Minister hopes that obstructing the Parliamentary process with grief and fear will be his means for creating a moral panic and that my fellow Senators will act rashly.
This bill extends the victims of the Bondi Islamic terror attack to all the people of our nation.
If this bill is passed, those who voted in favour will be betraying everything our ancestors built, everything they believed in, and slamming the door to democracy.
We make a tragedy worse – we multiply the fear – when government puts into law a document expressly PROTECTING the agents of Islamic terror and jails the Australians who try to warn against it.
This bill is the opposite of what the Australian people asked members of Parliament to do.
I believe my role is as a servant to the people of Australia. I was elected to the Senate to help shape the law and to serve Australians and to serve Australia – not to expand the reach of government into the realms of petty censorship.
After all, was it not the Senate that censured my Party Leader, Pauline Hanson, for wearing a burqa to warn that we were sleep-walking into radical Islamic terror? Two weeks later, her warnings were made real and yet she is denied a place to vote on the very issue for which she was silenced.
This bill must be voted down – in its entirety – and re-written to serve the true purpose for which it was intended: to stop Islamic terror.
It should be renamed the Combatting Islamic Terror and Hate Preachers Bill – or nothing.
As many have pointed out, our existing laws were sufficient to stop the previous terror attacks, to deport hate preachers, to disband terror networks, and arrest those who march in support of terror groups.
And yet we do NOT use those laws.
Why? Are police afraid to arrest Islamic terrorists? Are courts afraid to convict? Is the Labor government afraid of the next election?
We are not at the limit of the law – so why are we sitting here drafting new ones?
If the old ones are not used to combat Islamic terror – what makes anyone think the news ones will be?
It is far more likely – and I put this to the Australian people – that by Australia Day, it will still be acceptable to state and federal governments for demonstrators to break the law and walk under the Hamas-aligned pro-Palestine banner shouting the genocidal ‘from the river to the sea’ – while it will be illegal, or at least dangerous, to fly the Australian flag and call for an end to mass migration.
Come on. Let’s face truth and put Australians’ safety first.
Enacting ruthless, politically motivated censorship against the Australian people – and specifically conservative Australians – will not stop a single Islamic terror attack.
Say its name, Albanese: Islamic terror by Senator Malcolm Roberts
This bill is a licence to arrest dissidents, halt debate, and silence political opposition
Senator Watt has circulated an edited version of my exchange with the Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia, which omits a large part of the discussion. This is the full exchange.
I asked the new Islamophobia Envoy about a report he delivered to the Government a few months ago which, in One Nation’s view, whitewashed Islamic terrorism and Sharia Law, while advocating for the suppression of criticism under the guise of stamping out Islamophobia. We have seen how this same approach in the UK has resulted in 65 Sharia law courts and the development of a parallel society between Islamic and Christian citizens—where criticism of Christianity is permitted, but criticism of Islam is not.
The Envoy lectures on Sharia Law at the University of Technology, so he should be well aware of its provisions and its incompatibility with Australian and Western civilisation.
One Nation will oppose Sharia Law and the development of parallel societies within Australia.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript (Draft)
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Malik for appearing on notice. Could you please tell me how many staff you have? What is your annual budget and how much of that budget did you report titled A National Response to Islamophobia cost?
Senator Shoebridge: Good luck with that.
Mr Malik: So in regards to budget, I can take that on notice. I don’t have that at hand. In regards to staff, I began recruitment for my own staff from my office once the federal election results have been made clear. Up until that point I have been using or utilising the support of the Envoy Support team. Home Affairs did however provide me two staff full time staff, one of them is an office manager and the other is a communication Support officer. So they have been dedicated towards me, supporting me in social media, website management, proofreading, graphic design, printing and basically ensuring that my day to day affairs are in order.
Senator ROBERTS: What do you how many staff do you expect to have?
Mr Malik: I have recruited for five staff. I’m hoping to close. I’m finalising interviews for the final member of staff.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, thank you. Your report, a national response to Islamophobia, does not mention Sharia yet. Sharia law, should it be allowed in Australia, would replace Australian law, Australian courts, police and governance. How can you talk about opposition to Islam without addressing the elephant in the room?
Mr Malik: Sharia law? I don’t believe it is an elephant in the room. I mean, my role is to understand the reverse of that. My role is to understand what have been the impacts of the past 25 years upon Muslim communities who are facing the brunt of discrimination, marginalisation, exclusion. And so my job is to really understand that the question you raise is, is a good question because it highlights the misconception around Sharia law. A statement I made in the House of Parliament at the end of July was that when people talk about Sharia law, it’s always good to ask them what do they mean by Sharia law. So there tends to be different understandings of Sharia law. And I further said that most Muslims would be, would be difficult for them to address one of the principles of one of the five principles of Sharia law. So, a good question which highlights a challenge and which I hope to address in the coming months.
Senator ROBERTS: Your report – thank you. Your report does not include a definition of Islamophobia, but then makes more than 50 recommendations to solve the thing you haven’t defined. How can you call for extensive legislation and a large bureaucracy to combat something you can’t or don’t define?
Mr Malik: So the report does address that on the first page. It’s 54 recommendations. And there’s an argument amongst academics to how to define this term called Islamophobia. What academics are not disagreeing about are the impacts of this prejudice or hatred or racism. And one of the things I wanted to avoid is to avoid falling into the pits that Great Britain has fallen in and that is an annual conversation around the definition of Islamophobia masks all along the repercussions of this phenomenon of being ill advised or not being addressed. And so what I do say however, is in the Commission of inquiry I do ask whether or not Australia requires a definition of Islamophobia in the Australian context and whether that will hinder or progress the cause.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, Mr Malik’s report does not accept that people who may have a legitimate concern about Islam. For instance, the report does not mention ISIS, al Qaeda, nor does it mention that the latest briefing provided by the provided to the Senate by the ASIO Director General Mike Burgess showed 25 of Australia’s 29 prescribed terrorist organisations are Islamic based organisations. It seems that he’s simply redefining a factual and logical and genuine concern about Islamic terrorism as Islamophobia. Minister, how would measures designed to combat Islamophobia differ from measures to combat anti Semitism or the growing anti Christian hate coming from the hard left? Surely the words and actions directed to one group or the other would not differ in their legal implications.
Minister Watt: Well, Senator Roberts told you …
Mr Malik: …
Minister Watt: I think that question was to me.
Senator ROBERTS: Yeah, it was.
Minister Watt: Senator Roberts, I haven’t followed the work of either special envoy terribly closely. I’ve certainly followed media reporting of the work that both special envoys have done and I think that’s really valuable work at a time when social cohesion is deeply at risk in Australia because of the activities and language of a range of extreme groups in the community. And the last time I looked, Mr Aftab’s role was to advocate for the needs of Muslim Australians, particularly in the face of gross Islamophobia that has been going on in our country. Just as Miss Siegel has been engaged to advocate for the needs of Jewish Australians at a time when we are seeing gross anti Semitism in our country. And I would encourage you and other members of your party to think about that Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, all of the three: anti-Christian, anti-Semitism and anti-Islamophobia are religion-based hate. They’re not anti-religion.
Chair: Thank you.
Minister Watt: I don’t really know what point you’re making …
Senator ROBERTS: I know you don’t.
Minister Watt: But I have to answer questions from you and your colleagues on a regular basis in the Senate chamber, which I would describe as Islamophobic. So I would I would encourage you to think very carefully about the sorts of questions and sorts of statements that you and your colleagues make in the public domain at a time when we are seeing social cohesion under threat and when we are seeing at a time when we are seeing the rise of neo Nazis and other extremists with whom you sometimes associate. And you should think about that.
Senator ROBERTS: False.
Chair: Thank you.
Senator ROBERTS: I do not associate with neo-Nazis.
Minister Watt: ??? experience.
Senator ROBERTS: But let me tell you. You make comments about – let me tell you my comments are about pro Australia. I put Australia first -pro Australia.
Minister Watt: Well, you have your view of what Australia is …
Senator ROBERTS: We want unity.
Minister Watt: And it’s out of step with the majority of Australians.
Senator ROBERTS: My party’s name is One Nation because we believe in unity.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/BcadgTrR71g/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-12-04 11:10:252025-12-04 11:10:44One Nation, One Law
Why Pauline Hanson was censured and our Bill – silenced.
They called it ‘a stunt’.
They being the hypocritical globalists in the Senate, the media mouthpieces waiting at the doors, and the predatory activists desperate for something to be outraged about.
The stunt being Senator Pauline Hanson’s decision to wear a burqa in the Chamber, which has brought the suffocation of our democracy to the public’s attention.
Since being delivered a majority – despite the lowest primary vote in history – Labor has made little effort to maintain Parliament’s veneer of debate.
Their deals with the Greens have allowed Bills to be rushed into law. Dissent is silenced by shuffling One Nation speakers to the bottom of the list and then cutting the speeches right before One Nation were about to speak – as happened to us on the controversial Environmental Protection and Reform Bill. Inquisitions are being staged where ‘concern for truth and safety’ are brandished as a way to enforce censorship.
Rapidly, Parliament has devolved into a protection racket for the worst policy imaginable.
When democracy is denied, ‘stunts’ become the best way to signal the alarm.
Big state politics thrives on bureaucracy. Its defenders pretend their air of ‘superiority’ and ‘maturity’ equals sensible policy when – really – they are performing the same role as a million pages of bureaucratic bullshit holding down the truth.
Boredom, bureaucracy, and silence. That is how democracy dies.
Politics was never meant to perform with the mannerisms of a hospital coffee shop or library foyer.
The Senate was not envisioned as a stuffy room.
When we consider political speeches that changed the world, they were not monologues in praise of moderation. They were brave. Indeed, the moment that won Donald Trump the election was when he rose from the stage, fist raised, shouting, ‘Fight! Fight! Fight!’
‘In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.’ – George Orwell
‘Truth’ is exactly what Pauline Hanson was seeking.
When a Muslim woman is forced – either by her family, society, or self-imposed culture – to cover herself in a piece of black a cloth banned in over 20 countries, she is invisible.
When a Western woman with red hair and a knee-length dress does the same, the oppression is instantly visible. It is uncomfortable. We see ourselves – the West – treading the edge of religious oppression.
Wearing the burqa in the Senate was an act of truth-telling.
‘Truth’ that lends weight to the lie that Islam is a purely neutral force in the West.
Like most religions, it has extreme edges. This intense variation of Islam is the largest perpetrator of global terror. It runs slave trades in its conquered provinces where Yazidi women are kept as prisoners. It subverts the political systems of its host country, running parallel Sharia court systems and strong – unwritten – cultural laws that run contrary to the accepted customs of the local population. It marries little girls to old men overseas (who they are often related to). It compels relatives to murder young women who fall in love with the wrong man under the false banner of ‘honour’. And it denies the hard-earned rights of women in the West to autonomy by enforcing a type of garment used to subjugate women.
This is what Australians thought about when black robes concealed one of the most recognisable faces in Australian politics.
The Senate refused the debate and threw Pauline Hanson out with screams of ‘racism’ because no one standing opposite could begin a debate – let alone win one.
Forgotten by the press is that this bill was also about security.
It was about banning a range of face coverings – not just the burqa. It included Antifa rioters concealing their identity, balaclavas which have become a symbol of fear on the streets of Melbourne, and those who hide their face while burning the Australian flag. If the debate had been allowed, the public would have seen that this bill was bigger than burqa.
When Pauline Hanson made a similar point in 2017, politicians controlled the press.
They were perfectly capable of fabricating outrage by reprinting copies of the same header over every broadsheet. There was a consensus within the Establishment. A pact to protect ‘multiculturalism’ over the far more sensible policy of assimilation.
Social media existed, however it was owned wall-to-wall by Democrat-leaning Silicon Valley entities and sometimes part-owned by Saudi figures.
Today, things are different. Elon Musk’s purchase of X might not be perfect, but its alignment with free speech principles has allowed the people of Australia to have a say on the burqa.
To the media’s shock, they agree with Pauline Hanson.
They probably agreed with her the first time too.
Not only did Australians agree, they were furious at the behaviour of the Senate for first stifling debate and then throwing Senator Hanson out.
Even conservative members of the Liberal and National parties – no doubt believing their own press from 2017 – were caught off guard when voters criticised them for censuring Senator Hanson.
A note to the Liberals: you cannot praise Scott Morrison for his coal stunt and then condemn Senator Hanson. Nor is it advisable to follow up the next day with a stunt of your own, waving bits of paper behind Sussan Ley to mock Labor for their power prices.
As usual, it is one rule for the Lib-Lab uniparty and another for One Nation.
It is evident that ‘stunts’ themselves are not a problem – it was the topic of the burqa they feared.
Voters are smart. They know something is wrong.
We fought too hard for our culture and our values to weather this moral descent without complaint.
Young people are coming to One Nation because they see this cultural shift in the streets they walk every day. The Canberra Bubble never truly sees what’s happening to Australia except through the sanitised fantasy of outraged activists.
One Nation will not abandon the women of Australia, the people who fled here for safety, or those whose families built this nation from the ground up.
And we will not sit politely while the safety of Australians is put at risk.
Even if the Senate throws us out a thousand times, we will remain, because you elected us to serve you, not those in the Chamber.
Bigger than the burqa by Senator Malcolm Roberts
Why Pauline Hanson was censured and our bill – silenced.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/b69d5c74-8e91-4b3f-9e45-f7742d71a2bd_1494x1037.jpg?fit=1494%2C1037&ssl=110371494Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-12-03 18:10:072025-12-03 18:17:02Bigger than the Burqa
Foreign governments are acting against Australians right here on our soil—and that’s why One Nation support the Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025. This bill finally allows foreign states and their agents to be listed as terrorist organisations when they plan, assist, or advocate attacks against Australia. It’s about protecting Australians from intimidation, bullying, and terrorism.
The bill also creates new offences to stop anyone helping these entities, while allowing legitimate engagement where required. Yes, the reversal of the onus of proof is serious, and we’ll keep scrutinising it—but in this case, it’s justified to prevent deadly acts of terrorism. Australians of all backgrounds deserve protection.
One Nation backs this bill because every Australian deserves protection from terrorism and foreign coercion.
Transcript
One Nation has called out foreign governments and their agents who act against Australian citizens and even against our country right here in Australia. These include China, some Islamic nations and some members of the former Soviet Union. The Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025 would amend the Criminal Code to enable listing of certain foreign states or foreign state entities as terrorist organisations. Currently, this is not possible with the law, because foreign states or foreign state entities are not able to be listed as terrorist organisations. Two lawyers, including a barrister, and their staff have scrutinised this bill for One Nation, and our senators have considered and discussed the bill. The bill would authorise the Governor-General to list in a regulation foreign state entities as state sponsors of terrorism. That’s wonderful. The precondition to this occurring is that the minister for the Australian Federal Police, who is the home affairs minister, must believe on reasonable grounds that the foreign state or entity has engaged in, prepared or planned, assisted or fostered the doing of a terrorist act targeted against Australia or, in addition, if the entity has advocated doing a terrorist act that was targeted at Australia. The minister can only act with the agreement of the foreign affairs minister.
Secondly, the bill creates new offences which would criminalise conduct in which these entities engage and criminalise the conduct of persons who would seek to assist or support these activities. Additionally, it provides for appropriate defences for people who the law requires, for example, to engage with a listed entity or engage with an entity for a legitimate purpose. One aspect that has raised some concerns, though, is the reversal of the onus of proof that will apply when some defendants raise certain defences, where the defendant must establish the defence on the balance of probabilities. For example, a defendant may have the onus of establishing that they took all reasonable steps to disassociate themselves from a particular terrorist entity. The reversal of the onus of proof is a major event in legislation and should not be done lightly. Nonetheless, it appears justified here because of the nature of the offending behaviour.
We in One Nation have noticed this increasing trend in Labor-sponsored legislation over the last few years, and that sounds alarm bells to those who are responsible for scrutinising good policy. We’re very concerned about this trend. At times, this is a precursor to control and may reflect today’s Labor’s propensity to control. This reversal of the onus of proof must be carefully scrutinised on each occasion on which it’s raised. On this occasion, the government has justified this approach because of the preventive nature of measures that are being enabled to protect the Australian community from targeted acts of terrorism and the high risks of death or injury associated with such acts of terrorism. This bill’s additional protections are reasonable in the overall circumstances, given that radicalised Islamic extremists perpetrate relatively frequent terror attacks and Chinese Communist Party agents intimidate and bully law-abiding Australian citizens of Chinese dissent here in Australia. One Nation believes that Australian citizens of all backgrounds must be protected. We support this bill.
The Office of the eSafety Commissioner does commendable work in protecting children and adults from bullying and, most importantly, removing child abuse material. I praised the Office for this work.
However, in my opinion, the eSafety Commissioner has brought the office into disrepute with her personal vendetta against Twitter/X and her attempt to become the world internet police.
Last year, the Commissioner finalised investigations into 9,500 pieces of violent and extremist content. I asked what these were. The answer provided was that the Commissioner was taking down material from anywhere in the world, detecting it in part because they actively searched for it, even without a complaint.
Given that the Commissioner is positioning herself as the world internet police at our expense, I asked what benefit removing the 9,500 pieces of material had for Australians.
The answer relied on one incident, and there was no proof it actually caused a terrorist incident. I asked why there was no explanation of what the other material was, such as a transparency register so we can see what material they are requiring to be taken down to check for political bias. The question was ignored.
I also asked what direct benefit her actions had in addressing terrorism and violent material. The Commissioner answered regarding child material, which I had already praised.
The Commissioner is avoiding scrutiny of her takedown notices for violent and extremist material, and I believe it is because they follow a political bias.
One Nation calls for the eSafety Commissioner to stand down.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Can I, first of all, pay a compliment and I’ll read out some statistics. From the ACMA annual report 2023-24, the office of the eSafety Commissioner has received 13,824 complaints regarding web URLs, with 82 per cent relating to reports about child sexual abuse, child abuse or paedophile activity. This is a 19 per cent increase from the previous year. Your office sent 9,190 notifications related to child sexual abuse material to the INHOPE network—which I understand are the good guys, the right people to work with—and referred 130 investigations to the Australian Federal Police. On cyber abuse, you received 2,695 complaints to the Cyberbullying Scheme for Australian children and 3,113 complaints to the Adult Cyber Abuse Scheme with a removal rate of 88 per cent where removal was required. My opening comment is simple: well done; thank you very much. This is important work.
My first question is that you finalised 9,461 critical investigations into terrorist and violent extremist content, representing a 229 per cent increase—that’s amazing—in these types of complaints from the previous year. I’d like to ask about that. How do you define terrorist and violent extremist content?
Ms Inman Grant : I will turn over to Ms Snell to talk about that. That is part of our illegal and restricted content team under the Online Content Scheme.
Ms Snell : I’m actually going to invite Mr Downie, who is the executive manager for our Investigations Branch, who oversees this work, to talk specifically to this.
Mr Downie : When we’re dealing with terrorism and violent extremist content under the Online Safety Act, we deal with terrorism as defined under the Criminal Code to the pure definition of what a terrorist act is. However, when we’re applying the Online Safety Act, we apply the content according to the classification scheme, and we’ll classify that material as ‘refuse classification’, which then falls into class 1 and class 2 definitions.
Senator ROBERTS: Is this content relating to Australian content or international content?
Mr Downie : With the complaints that we receive, we receive content that can be generated or hosted anywhere in the world, but the key is that it’s accessible by the people within the Australian community.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you seek this content out yourself, or do you rely on a complaint before acting?
Mr Downie : Generally, we rely on a complaint before acting; however, we do have own-motion investigation provisions where we are then able to further conduct investigations to locate material that may be in furtherance of that complaint.
Senator ROBERTS: Of those 9,461 completed investigations, what was the outcome, please?
Mr Downie: I’d have to take that on notice for the specific details of those investigations, but in the majority of cases that content is removed.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there any demonstrable benefit from you taking this material down? What is the benefit to the taxpayer of this aspect of your office?
Mr Downie : Having access to that type of content, whether it be globally or not, is very harmful to members of the community. That material can be used to incite violence. It can be used to radicalise vulnerable people or youth, which, as we’ve seen in the media, can be then used to incite further violence within the community. So less access to that type of content can only be beneficial for the Australian community.
Ms Inman Grant : And I’d note that ASIO Director-General Burgess has said that the vast majority of terrorism investigations conducted right now are of young people between the ages of 14 and 21 and in every single case they have been radicalised somehow on the internet. You would probably also be aware of, heartbreakingly, the stabbing video of bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel, which was geo-blocked here by X but was available in the rest of the world. In the sentencing of the 17-year-old Southport killer, Axel Rudakubana, who went and stabbed three little girls to death while they were making bracelets at a Taylor Swift themed dance party, that very video, that very Wakeley stabbing video, he accessed on X 25 minutes before he stabbed those little girls and claimed that that was his inspiration. So you can imagine that this is something that the UK government has wanted to talk to us about. We have a partnership with Ofcom. We of course have different powers, but I think it’s just a very powerful reminder that this kind of content is accessed by young people. It can normalise, desensitise and, in the worst cases, radicalise.
Senator ROBERTS:On page 206 of the ACMA report, there’s a graph which shows X is the source of five per cent of your cyberabuse claims and Google four per cent, compared to Facebook at 25 per cent. Page 216 of your report lists major noncompliance actions. X has four and Google one. Why does X occupy so much of your time?
Ms Inman Grant : In terms of adult cyberabuse?
Senator ROBERTS: In terms of terrorism complaints and cyberabuse.
Ms Inman Grant : If you recall back to 16 April, around the Wakeley stabbing, we worked with all platforms. With the exception of Meta and X Corp., they all did a good job in trying to identify, detect and remove the Wakeley terrorism video. We weren’t satisfied that either Meta or X did, but, once we issued formal removal notices, Meta responded and complied within the hour, and, of course—you know the story—X said, ‘We’ll see you in court.’ That’s what has taken our time.
Senator ROBERTS: What about the others? That would apply to one of your complaints against them. What about the others? Why the other three?
Ms Inman Grant : It depends on the type of harm. For instance, when we’re talking about youth based cyberbullying, most of the cyberbullying happens on the top four platforms where children spend their time, on YouTube, TikTok, Snap and Instagram. When it comes to image based abuse, there’s a much higher proportion now of sexual extortion targeting young men between the ages of 18 and 24. They tend to meet on Instagram, sometimes on Snap, and then they’re moved off platform. So it depends on the form of abuse. It also depends on the complaints we get. But, when it comes to the terrorist and child sexual abuse material, we go to where the content is hosted and shared.
Senator ROBERTS: That still doesn’t answer the question. You’ve got four major noncompliance actions against X and only one against Google, yet you’ve mentioned several platforms. Why does X have to occupy so much of your time?
Ms Inman Grant: Because they did not comply with our notices. Google came close to not complying, so we gave them a formal warning.
Mr Fleming : Those tribunal and court cases are often initiated by X, so we’re responding to the claims that they make challenging our powers. That’s why they feature the most.
Senator ROBERTS: The report goes on to list how many notices are issued under each part of the act yet does not provide a detailed list. This is fine for child and adult abuse material, of course. We’re happy with that. For class 1 extremist and violent material, why are we not provided a list of what the commissioner considers worthy of a takedown notice and the reasons why? There’s a widespread belief in the public that you’re overstepping on your choice of material to take down.
Ms Inman Grant: Respectfully, I’d like to read from some weighted and validated surveys of the Australian public. In November 2024, a weighted survey of Australians found that 87 per cent of those surveyed supported the introduction of stronger penalties for social media companies that do not comply with Australian laws, 77 per cent supported the proposed ban on social media for children and 75 per cent supported the Australian government’s plan to introduce a digital duty of care. In August 2024, a weighted survey of Australians found that 79 per cent said that social media platforms should operate with a regulator with the power to order content removal. That seems like a pretty overwhelming amount of support from the public.
Senator ROBERTS: That wasn’t my question. My question was: why are we not provided a list of what the commissioner considers worthy of a takedown notice and a breakdown of the reasons why?
Ms Inman Grant : We provide as much transparency as we can. You would understand that confidentiality is incredibly important. We can’t describe these in great detail. We can’t name names. What kind of information do you think would be helpful to your understanding? That’s something that we can certainly look at in the interests of transparency.
Senator ROBERTS: The specific behaviours, without breaching confidentiality, would be helpful. We wouldn’t expect you to breach confidentiality or name names—certainly not—but we would like the types of actions that the commissioner thinks worthy of a takedown notice, as I said, and the reasons why.
Senator McAllister: The commissioner and I are trying to understand, with a little more precision, what sort of information. You’re simply saying a generalised list of examples that are deidentified—
Ms Inman Grant : Of 40,000 complaints we receive annually.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re dealing with them, so presumably you know what they are. I’d like to see some sort of classification so that people could understand the proportions, because at the moment I don’t think you’re accountable for that.
Ms Inman Grant : We can take that on notice. We would have to look at privacy and confidentiality. We would also have to look at resource implications and how that might serve the public interest, but we’re happy to take a look at that.
Senator ROBERTS: I think the people have a right to know. Referencing unofficial takedown notices, which I note are issued under section 183(2)(zk), these go to the question of your secrecy. If these are dangerous enough to require a takedown, then they should be dangerous enough for you to list out by making the register of takedown notices public knowledge—that’s what I was getting at. Otherwise, you’re simply exercising power without any accountability, power that can be abused. How would we know? Can you, Commissioner, point to one terrorist act you’ve prevented, one person you’ve deradicalised or one benefit to Australian society from the money you have spent on your campaign against extremist material?
Ms Inman Grant : I go back to what D-G Burgess often says, ‘You’re never congratulated when you stop something from happening.’ Again, do we have to have more heartbreaking examples of, like I just explained to you, what happened with those three little girls murdered in Southport, UK? We’ll never know. What I do know is I have parents coming up to me and saying: ‘You’ve saved my son’s life. He was sexually extorted. He had just turned 18. He went to the police; no-one would help him. I wasn’t going to let it go. I found your website. Your investigators supported him, got the content down, gave him advice and sent him on to mental health support services.’ So I do know that we’re saving lives every day.
How many cases of 12- and 13-year-old girls being cyberbullied and bullied do you need to prove that this is a veritable epidemic and that young people are losing their lives? We’re here to help them and to prevent that from happening. My biggest regret, if there is one, is that more people don’t know about us. Only about 40 per cent of the Australian population knows about us, but we do everything we can to help people. When we stop helping people and making the online world a safer and better place, then, yes, it’s time to hang up our hats, but we’re just getting started.
Senator ROBERTS: With due respect, Ms Inman Grant, you didn’t answer my question—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we have to rotate the call. There are a lot of senators who wish to ask questions.
Senator ROBERTS: I just want to clarify that one.
CHAIR: I can come back to you, if you wish.
Senator ROBERTS: It’ll only take a second to do this.
CHAIR: Go on then.
Senator ROBERTS: I asked, ‘Can you point to one terrorist act?’ I accept you’re doing a good job. You’re preventing child abuse, no doubt about that. We’ve discussed that in the past. Can you point to one terrorist act you prevented, one person deradicalised or one benefit to Australian society from the money you have spent on your campaign against extremist material? That’s what I want to know.
Ms Inman Grant : We’re not going out into the public asking young people if they saw a particular video that radicalised them or not. We do know when people have been radicalised by content that has been online. Some of the gore content that we’ve taken down includes the manifestos, the horrific imagery of people at Christchurch huddling in the corner while being shot. Anything that’s dehumanising that we are able to get down to not cause further pain to victims and their families and have not incite others into taking the same action, I think, is worth doing. I don’t need proof that I prevented this, that or the other from happening. We’re trying to make the internet a safer, more positive place with less violent extremist material, and that’s why we take these issues so seriously.
Senator ROBERTS: My concern is with—
CHAIR: We’ll go to Senator Darmanin—
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll put one more question on notice.
In light of the crime wave sweeping our nation, I asked the Department of Home Affairs what they’re doing to ensure Australian’s security and to make sure we are not continuing to import violence and terror into Australia.
As it turns out, those illegal immigrants released included murderers, rapists and child sex offenders and the government chose not to say where in the community these persons were living. Of the 149 detainees released, 24 have already re-offended.
The Department did not provide any information that would diminish concerns about safety in the community, other than to say they were being monitored (not very well).
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you for appearing today. I’m going to ask questions in Outcome 3 about the High Court decision that resulted in terrorists being released.
CHAIR: We’re in Outcome 2.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s correct. We’re in Outcome 2. The Queensland government’s casual, relaxed approach to crime has people worried. Last week we had a series of violent crimes by African immigrants, including the horrendous stabbing and killing of a grandmother in a car theft near Brisbane in broad daylight last week while she was out shopping with her six-year-old granddaughter. These incidents are spreading further fear in the community of activities of violent immigrants who have not been assimilated into the Australian notions and culture of nonviolence. Given the current record immigration levels, what actions are being taken by Home Affairs to ensure the security of Australians from imported risks of violence and terror?
Mr Willard: I might make a few comments in response. Anyone who applies for a visa from outside Australia is subject to the same criteria for the granting of that visa, regardless of their nationality. It involves assessments of their character, security, health and a range of other items. So that’s the first threshold in terms of visa consideration. I am aware of the tragic incident, which received a lot of media reporting. I don’t want to go into the details of the incident, but in the normal course of events, if someone were a visa holder, there might be consideration given to cancelling a visa if someone was subsequently convicted of an offence. In respect of this particular matter, it remains a criminal matter for the courts. I would make the point, though, that it doesn’t necessarily follow that the people involved were immigrants. From our initial considerations, the people involved were not visa holders.
Senator ROBERTS: I have two questions from that. The first is that you and I are both public servants, and what I’m doing is relaying some of my constituents’ fears. I’m serving my constituents, and many constituents in Queensland are afraid of the crime wave that’s taking over our state. How many people have had their visas revoked and been deported in the last 10 years?
Mr Willard: That actually sits in outcome 3. I can try to provide some information on visa cancellations at that time.
Senator ROBERTS: Visa cancellations due to criminal activities?
Mr Willard: That’s an item in Outcome 3, when we look at visa compliance.
Senator Malcolm Roberts calls on the Prime Minister to demonstrate the same political leadership as President Trump and declare ANTIFA a terrorist organisation.
“We need to stop these far-left anarchists who use violence and fear to push their radical socialist agenda before they recruit and organise further in Australia,” Senator Roberts said.
“Australia is a peaceful democratic nation where people resolve our differences through mutual respect and debate, culminating at the ballot box.”
ANTIFA are already attacking police and intimidating innocent people attending public events in Australia.
Senator Roberts added, “All responsible politicians should be defenders of our cultural, social and democratic values and it is the Prime Minister’s job to act urgently and decisively to protect the social fabric of our peaceful society.”
Australia’s political leaders need to swiftly and ruthlessly safeguard Australia from this same fate.
ANTIFA protesters are self-proclaimed anti-capitalists, oppose freedom and democracy, and are destroying major cities in the USA.
Modelling themselves on previous ANTIFA movements going back as far as the 1930’s, their agenda has always been aligned with communist political parties aimed at bringing about the downfall of capitalism.
The irony of this movement is that ANTIFA (formed from the term anti-fascists) are themselves behaving as fascists to suppress opposition and call for strict obedience to their self-determined culture of control over others.
