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.
