Posts

When Art Crosses the Line

,

Why are taxpayers bankrolling art projects that cross the line from “expression” into outright extremism?

Creative Australia admitted to funding nearly $100,000 for events linked to an artist who has publicly praised a listed terrorist organisation and celebrated violence.

We also learned that $48,000 went to an exhibition that mocked public figures and pushed divisive political messaging, followed by another $318,000 from the department for the same project.

Everyday Australians are sick of seeing their money poured into insider art projects that promote radical politics instead of strengthening community culture.

One Nation get’s labelled as “divisive” for asking when taxpayer funding will start serving Australians, not ideology.

Labor keeps batting accusations back and forth like a game of political tennis, but we’re not here to play – we’re here to get answers for taxpayers.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: You gave $1.692 million to Diversity Arts Australia, DARTS, which is the national voice for ethnocultural and migrant racial equity in the arts, cultural and creative industries. Their primary focus is ‘advocacy, research and brokering connections for women and DEI related purposes’. Why are taxpayers funding advocacy groups to influence government policy? Where’s the arts funding here? This is advocacy, research and brokering connections. Why are taxpayers funding advocacy?  

Mr Blackwell: One of the functions of Creative Australia is to support Australian arts practice that reflects the diversity of Australia. I’m not sure about the amount of funding over what period you’re referring to, but that may well be activities that allow us to perform this function.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, why are we funding this? The primary focus is ‘advocacy, research and brokering connections’. Why are we funding advocacy? Basically, advocacy is funding advocacy groups to influence government policy. Where’s the art?  

Senator Green: I’m not familiar with that project, so we’d have to take it on notice. I don’t know if the officials from Creative Australia have more information for you about what that project or that organisation is doing. Obviously, some organisations are funded for a particular project, so they might have some more explanation for you.  

Mr Blackwell: We do, actually. Thank you, Minister. Diversity Arts Australia are a delivery partner to service the organisations under the community, arts and cultural development stream of our funding. Those organisations that we classify as delivery partners provide services to the arts sector. They strengthen the arts sector, and they allow the arts sector to leverage more value through that connection. That is the connection through to the arts sector and how we would then fulfil that function to support Australian arts practice that reflects the diversity of Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: You used some nice buzzwords in there—delivery, diversity, leverage. But you didn’t tell me why you’re funding advocacy. Advocacy is not art.  

Mr Blackwell: No, but it’s advocacy for the arts. It’s not lobbying; it’s advocacy for the arts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why are you funding that?  

Mr Blackwell: Because that’s part of our remit.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Does your system for accountability for grants include the concept of a responsible person, RP? Can you give a quick explanation of that, please?  

Mr Blackwell: Sorry; could you repeat the question?  

Senator ROBERTS: Does your system for accountability for grants include the concept of a responsible person, and could you give a quick explanation if it is?  

Mr Blackwell: I would say that we have a responsible process for issuing our grants from start to finish.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does that incorporate a responsible person for each grant?  

Mr Blackwell: Could you define ‘responsible person’ for me?  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking you if it includes that. It doesn’t sound like it does.  

Senator Green: Perhaps you need to provide the context of what you’re referring to—the agreement or the consideration of the application. You may have to give us a guide on what you’re referring to.  

Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps it’ll come out in the more detailed questions.  

Senator Green: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: You gave $197,500 to a recipient called Click Ink Inc. for the Bankstown Poetry Slam. They describe themselves: We actively work to dismantle barriers of access, power, and representation. We prioritise the voices of those most affected by, and disaffected with, systemic oppression. They say: ‘We fight for anti-imperialism, solidarity with Aboriginal sovereignty and our Muslim, Arab and migrant communities.’ That’s the end of the quote. Events include ‘They call me the good Muslim’, ‘I am Palestinian’ and related pro-Palestinian events. My question is simple. Why are taxpayer dollars funding propaganda? This isn’t art; it’s politics. 

Mr Blackwell: I would say that it is art. I’d have to disagree with you. I would say that it is art. Poetry slams are a common and popular form of artistic expression in this country.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll go through the quote again: We actively work to dismantle barriers of access, power and representation. We prioritise the voices of those most affected by and disaffected with systemic oppression. They say: ‘We fight for anti-imperialism and solidarity with Aboriginal sovereignty and our Muslim, Arab and migrant communities.’ This sounds like it’s very divisive and pushing an ideology, not art. It doesn’t bother you?  

Senator Green: Art can be political or non-political. You might not like that type of art, but it might be what other people choose to express. It might be a form of expression for them, or there might be an audience for that type of art. I think it’s wrong to say that art can’t be political or shouldn’t be political in some sort of way. Otherwise, we might have a lot of pictures of fields but we wouldn’t have any generation of debate or discussion through the use of art. Are you suggesting that there should be no politics in any songs, music, plays or artistic expression?  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re saying it’s okay for your government to push ideological issues as politics.  

Senator Green: No, that’s not what’s happening here.  

Senator ROBERTS: That is what’s happening.  

Senator Green: No. This is funding for artistic expression projects. I thought One Nation was the party of freedom of expression, so I’m a little confused about why you would want to stifle people’s views even if you don’t agree with them and even if you don’t agree with the art. You might not want to go to the poetry slam, but it doesn’t mean that art can’t be political in some way.  

Senator ROBERTS: We are not in favour of government funding government propaganda and government ideology.  

Senator Green: But you are in favour of freedom of expression, aren’t you?  

Senator ROBERTS: Correct, but not funded by government necessarily.  

Senator Green: Only when it suits you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Not funded by government.  

Senator Green: Only the freedom of expression that you—  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re defending propaganda from your own government.  

Senator Green: No, it’s not propaganda. The views of the artists might not support our government, but we don’t think that that is a reason why particular art shouldn’t be supported. To make my final point for your next question, the law that was passed in 2023 made it very clear that the government has no role in the funding decisions so that any type of government that might be in power can’t influence the independent funding decisions to alleviate the particular issues that you’re talking about.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s where I’m heading—accountability. Here’s an example. The registered person for this organisation—presumably, it’s registered with you. I don’t know who it’s registered with. The registered person for this organisation is Bilal Hafda, who said on social media that ‘any Australian who fails to support Palestinians who attacked Israel is a white supremacist’. Another registered person is Sara Saleh, who celebrated the Hamas terrorist aerial attack on Israel on her social media. Is there any rule in your grant guide that precludes grants from being used for political purposes?  

Mr Blackwell: In our funding agreements, we have conditions. If you give me a moment, I’ll find it. Our funding agreements have a condition that says that ‘it is a condition of your funding that you comply with all applicable state, territory and Commonwealth work, health and safety and antidiscrimination laws’.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s it?  

Mr Blackwell: And we refer them to Safe Work Australia and the Australian Human Rights Commission for more information on those applicable laws. So that is—  

Senator ROBERTS: So celebrating terrorists is okay?  

Mr Blackwell: I—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll go on. Ali Al Haj Hussein, who is also known as the Poetic Ninja, has won multiple awards at the Bankstown Poetry Slam. He has praised Hezbollah—declared terrorists—as ‘men of God’, praised the 7 October murders as ‘just the beginning’, promised to ‘drag the Israeli people to the deepest pits of hell’ and used an implicit threat of violence in a poem at the Sydney Writers Festival, where he called for the downfall of the western empire and all its debauchery, including in a general context the same 2SLGBTQQIPAA community your grants are advancing. Does this sound to you like a great day out for the family to listen to poetry? This isn’t art or free expression. It’s an incitement to violence against the Australian community. Why are you funding it? 

Mr Blackwell: I can tell you, in terms of the funding, the grant was $98,000—  

Senator ROBERTS: Nearly a hundred thousand dollars.  

Mr Blackwell: and the project summary, which was funded, was monthly themed poetry slam events; the grand slam championship, Real Talk; high-school poetry programs; the National Youth Poetry Slam; and the development of the Brave New Word Youth Poetry Festival at the Powerhouse Museum. That’s what we funded.  

Senator ROBERTS: You are funding multiple awards for someone praising a terrorist group and wanting to drag the Israeli people to the deepest pits of hell—an implicit threat of violence.  

Mr Blackwell: I’m not aware of that quotation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, you are now. Moving on to the artist Kait James and her Red Flags exhibition, this was partly funded by Creative Australia with a grant of $48,000 on 28 November 2023. As the title suggests, this exhibition decided certain people and events were red flags to the Aboriginal community and proceeded to insult these people and events using a series of pennants and tea towels. One Nation leader, Pauline Hanson, was mocked, and Captain Cook had his eyes crossed out and was called a c-u-n-t. This is kindergarten art. You talk about not being political, Minister. Why does everything you or Creative Australia fund which could be considered political aim to promote radical causes, including radical Islam, and attack conservatives and everyday Australians? Where’s the balance? This is divisive, and it’s pushing a Marxist ideology. Why are you funding only one side?  

Mr Blackwell: In regard to Kait James’s Red Flags, we funded it for $48,000 under an arts project grant for the development of the artwork. We weren’t involved in putting on that exhibition. The grant has been acquitted. Within that, there is content which we would say falls into freedom of artistic expression. It may offend some people, Senator, but not necessarily all people. There may be satire in it. All of these things form part of artistic expression.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts contributed $318,000 to the Red Flags exhibition, the same one I just raised. Was the criticism of a political rival the quid pro quo for making such a large grant, and what pot of taxpayer money did that grant come from? Where did the money come from?  

Senator Green: First of all, to make it clear, the funding was provided through Creative Australia. It’s not a decision of government; it’s a decision of Creative Australia. But I take your point. The art is not to my taste, but people are entitled to express their views in different ways. I note that viewers of the exhibition were provided a warning about the fact that the art depicted themes and images related to historical and ongoing systematic racism and discrimination and included critique of the artist’s perspectives and strong language. Viewer discretion was advised, so certainly people who wanted to view that art were given fair warning. As I said, it’s not something that I necessarily would consider. I wouldn’t have done it myself, and it probably isn’t something I would go to see, but people are entitled to respect the views of individuals and to present their views in different ways.  

Senator ROBERTS: Coming back to your answer, Creative Australia gave a grant of $48,000, which Mr Blackwell confirmed.  

Senator Green: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m advised that the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts contributed $318,000 to the Red Flags exhibition. That would seem to me to be outside the Creative Australia funds. So where did that money come from? What pot of gold in the department did that money come from?  

Senator Green: You are correct. Sorry; I thought you were talking about the grant from Creative Australia for the development of the exhibition.  

Senator ROBERTS: No—the $318,000.  

Senator Green: There was funding under the Office for the Arts, who were with us a bit earlier. Apologies; those officials have left. You won’t be able to ask them about the funding.  

Senator ROBERTS: I can ask you, though.  

Senator Green: Yes, but I’m not an official, so I will have to take it on notice if I don’t have enough information for you. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. When you come back with your answer on notice, could you tell us whether or not this was political quid pro quo for a political rival.  

Senator Green: Definitely not. I don’t need to take that on notice. I can tell you with 100 per cent confidence that we don’t fund art because we want to attack One Nation. We can do that if we just walk up to the press gallery.  

Senator ROBERTS: For ministers, it’s much cheaper to walk up to the press gallery, hey?  

Senator Green: You should go up to the press gallery! They can ask you some questions.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m used to it. Minister, everyday Australians are sick of taxpayers’ money being spent on insider projects and social engineering. We had embarrassment from your government yesterday on this. When will your government listen to them?  

Senator Green: We do listen to Australians. We’ve just finished consultation on the most recent cultural policy. It’ll be the first time Australia’s ever had two national cultural policies in a row. You will remember the release of the Revive cultural policy. So we do give Australians an opportunity to give us feedback on what our cultural policy should be. We’re making sure that that development of that policy takes into consideration all of those views.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why do you push ideologically driven, divisive policies that split the Australian community?  

Senator Green: I think that’s what you and One Nation do, Senator—respectfully—and unfortunately we’re seeing that more and more from the Liberal and National parties as they try to join you in that fight.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thanks, Minister. Thanks, Mr Blackwell.

/1 Comment/by

National Security Must Comes First

,

I questioned security authorities on the thoroughness of the screening processes for returning individuals and older children, ensuring ASIO and joint counter-terrorism teams are actively monitoring threats to keep our citizens safe.

I asked about the total costs of managing, monitoring and integrating these returnees. Taxpayers have a right to know where their money is going, yet officials refused to disclose specific resource allocations in a public forum.

I raised concerns about how risk assessment notices are followed up with state authorities, specifically questioning NSW Police decisions regarding security during heightened-risk periods prior to recent tragedies.

I will never stop asking the tough questions to ensure our national security comes first and the government remains accountable to the Australian people. Australians deserve no less!

Transcript:

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. Another group of ISIS concubines and their children arrived this week.  

Senator Shoebridge: I’m going to take a point of order: that kind of language is just pointlessly, gratuitously offensive, and I’d ask Senator Roberts to review his language and rephrase his question.  

CHAIR: Withdraw, please, Senator Roberts, and please refrain from that kind of— 

Senator ROBERTS: I withdraw ‘concubines’. ISIS terrorist wives, brides, partners: what security screening has been done on them to ensure the safety of Australian citizens, as a group and also individually?  

Mr Gilmore: As I said earlier this evening, ASIO has worked over many years to understand the threat posed by those Australians who chose to travel offshore and join ISIL. We’ve provided advice on this cohort and other cohorts previously, both overseas and in Australia, to government departments and agencies, consistent with our statutory functions and requirements, for many years.  

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me; were you watching them on the way out, while they were over there and on the way back?  

Mr Gilmore: ASIO will always be watching to identify threats. When information comes to our attention that requires action, we will act.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have they been screened individually and as a group? I guess what you’re saying is yes.  

Mr Gilmore: What I’ve said is that on any cohort that travels overseas—and I think I could characterise people travelling to join ISIL as a cohort that has been of interest to ASIO for many years, along with our partners, I must say, including in the JCTTs.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are older children to be screened for security risk? I understand that the eldest at the moment is 18 years of age.  

Mr Gilmore: That would be a question for the security authorities, AFP and others.  

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I’m sure you understand that there are limits to what ASIO is able to put in the public domain as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I understand there’s the New South Wales police, for example, or the AFP. Will ASIO have a role in ensuring national security after these and other returnees arrive and stay in Australia?  

Mr Gilmore: Absolutely. ASIO’s function is to protect Australia and Australians from threats to their security. That means that we will always be looking and, where we need to, we will act.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is all of the work relating to the return of the brides, wives, partners, costing? What are the future related costs?  

Mr Gilmore: ASIO receives a baseline allocation from government, as with any department or agency. We have a robust prioritisation and resource allocation process. The details of how those resources are allocated is not something that I could declare in this public forum.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking you to declare the detailed operational plans. I’m asking what the cost would be for these women that have recently come back. 

CHAIR: I think Mr Gilmore has indicated that the question you’re asking goes to the very thing that he’s just said he’s not willing to disclose in this forum.  

Senator ROBERTS: Don’t you think the taxpayers have a right to know?  

Mr Gilmore: I think the taxpayers would be expecting us to prioritise our resources against the highest threats and to be doing our job, which is what we’re doing.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have enough money to cover it?  

Mr Gilmore: We have allocations from government. We have a prioritisation process. We assess risk and we do our job.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have enough to do your job?  

Mr Gilmore: We have the resources allocated by budget. I think the director-general has been on the public record for successive years. If you want specific details that we might be able to offer this evening, we could go there, but we do.  

Senator ROBERTS: When ASIO provide heightened terrorist risk alert notices to the New South Wales police service, is there any expectation or follow-up by ASIO to check if there has been a suitable response from the New South Wales police?  

Mr Gilmore: You may be aware that we’re members of the joint counterterrorism teams around the country. They consist of ASIO, AFP and the state and territory police authorities in each state and territory. We share information through those forums. But it’s not just those forums; there are many other mechanisms. We work very closely with our partners in the states and territories.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you keep tabs on them formally or informally or both?  

Mr Gilmore: Could you just clarify ‘keep tabs on them’?  

Senator ROBERTS: Keep tabs on New South Wales police, for example—when you give them advice, you watch to make sure that they implement that advice.  

Mr Gilmore: We partner very closely. I think it would be reasonable to say we have a shared understanding through that habitual relationship that we’ve built over many, many years with our police partners.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is ASIO concerned to find that the New South Wales police service had actually wound back the police presence for Jewish festivals or events shortly before the Bondi atrocity, the murders, even though they had been warned of a heightened-risk assessment of terrorist activity?  

Mr Gilmore: I apologise, but that would go to matters being considered by the royal commission, and it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to comment on those this evening. Needless to say, resourcing decisions for police or for other agencies and departments are decisions are made by them, and they’re questions that should be directed to them.  

Senator ROBERTS: In the process of your relationship—it’s a close relationship, I’m concluding—would you comment if something were less than you expected?  

Mr Gilmore: We will always work closely with our partners. Nothing is achieved alone, and there are no truer words in the security and intelligence domain. We rely on close relationships with our partners to understand and respond to threats to Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: I assume it’s in both of your interests to do that?  

Mr Gilmore: It is.  

Senator ROBERTS: Was ASIO aware of the NSW Police Force winding back when you sent out the heightened-risk notice?  

Mr Gilmore: That’s not a question that I’m able to answer this evening.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice?  

Mr Gilmore: I think the question really starts to go to some of the questions that the royal commission will be exploring, and it would be inappropriate to say anything that might compromise that process.  

Senator ROBERTS: The last question was on the royal commission, so I don’t need to go there now. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair, for your accommodation again. 

/0 Comments/by

20 Bodyguards Said It All

,

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

Labor dodged the question and moralised instead.

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

Transcript

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

Senator Ayres: You should be ashamed. 

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

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

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

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

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

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

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

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

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

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

Honourable senators interjecting— 

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

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

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

/1 Comment/by

Did Agencies Fail to Do Their Job?

,

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

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

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

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

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts?  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms Sheehan: I don’t think so, no.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  

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

/by

Malcolm Roberts Sets Record Straight on Media Conspiracy Meltdown

,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shame on them.

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

I wager they don’t.

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

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

Of course not.

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

Are there concerns about Covid vaccine safety?

Definitely.

Is Net Zero a scam?

Absolutely. And you’re paying for it.

Was the origin of Covid originally covered up? Yes.

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

Is One Nation a threat to Labor? You bet.

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

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

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

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

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

Why won’t the Coalition shred the Paris Agreement?

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

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

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

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

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

And fraudulent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And who is going on this vacation?

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

The purpose?

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

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

Why is One Nation rising in the polls?

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

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

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

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

The arrogance is truly astonishing.

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

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

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

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

/7 Comments/by

Labor’s “Suicidal Empathy” on ISIS Brides

,

One Nation supports the private Senator’s Bill that was introduced in March by Senator Duniam.

This Bill finally forces transparency and accountability around the return of individuals linked to terrorism.

The Bill makes it an offence to organise or facilitate the entry of people who’ve engaged in terrorism-related conduct unless both key ministers sign off in writing.

This legislation exposes Labor’s role in repatriating women who travelled to ISIS territory as committed participants in a violent extremist organisation responsible for severe harm and human rights abuses.

Their return was quietly brokered through intermediaries, even though some had openly urged attacks on Australia and its allies. A true case of suicidal empathy.

To these female terrorists, One Nation says this: you got what you went over there for; you made your bed; now lie in.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I thank Senator Duniam for this bill, which One Nation will support. The Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026 amends the Criminal Code Act 1995—the Criminal Code. The bill inserts a new offence into part 5.5 of the Criminal Code to criminalise the organisation or facilitation of the entry into Australia of certain persons who have engaged in terrorism related conduct—unless these actions occur with the prior written permission of both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Home Affairs.

The offence applies where a person organises or facilitates the entry into Australia of another person from a foreign country and where, at the time of organising or facilitating the entry, the other person has engaged in conduct constituting an offence under subsection 119.2(1) of the Criminal Code—namely, entering or remaining in a declared area—or another terrorism offence as defined under the Crimes Act 1914; the first person knows that the other person intends to engage in conduct constituting an offence under subsection 119.2(1) or another terrorism offence before entering Australia; or the other person is or has been a member of a terrorist organisation. They’re the three criteria.

The offence does not apply to conduct in which a Commonwealth authority is engaged or to conduct on behalf of a Commonwealth authority, which lets Minister Burke off the hook for facilitating the return of ISIS brides. I’ll say that again: it lets Mr Burke off the hook for facilitating the return of ISIS brides.

The bill extends the sunset date for the declared areas regime in sections 119.2 and 119.3 of the Criminal Code from 7 September 2027 to 7 September 2030. These amendments are intended to ensure that decisions concerning the repatriation to Australia of persons who have entered or remain in declared areas, who have committed any other terrorism offences or who are members of terrorist organisations occurs with appropriate Commonwealth authorisation.

The return of the wrongly named ‘ISIS brides’ inspires this legislation. The term ‘ISIS brides’ is, of course, a misnomer. So-called Australian ISIS brides are women who travelled to Syria and Iraq, of their choice, to join or marry fighters for the Islamic State group, often referred to as the caliphate. These women were involved in hijrah—immigration to the Islamic State—as wives and mothers to ‘breed the cubs of the caliphate’ and to support jihad efforts. ISIS propaganda itself targeted Western women, with roles as supporters, militarised mothers and wives—or even, when needed, fighters. They are not brides; they’re Islamic terrorists who travelled to a war zone, a proscribed area, to fight against the West and fight against Australia. They encouraged their men to kill and do other unspeakable things. They brainwashed their own children. Yet we’re supposed to bring them back here—and what? Condone their behaviour? There can be no condoning of the treachery they’ve committed.

This bill will not stop the return per se. It will force their return into the open, where the voting public will be able to clearly see that the Labor government was responsible for their return, and the people will hold the Labor government accountable. That’s what we want—openness. For clarity, Labor did that, returned them, through an intermediary from the Muslim Brotherhood, a device that Minister Burke thought would insulate the government from the fallout coming from returning these terrorists. It did not.

Western countries allowing in, or back in, terrorists committed to overthrowing our way of life and installing sharia law has a name. It’s called suicidal empathy. Let’s quote one of Minister Burke’s ISIS terrorists, who, while in Syria, said this: ‘Attack the US, Australia, the UK. Kill them. Stab them. Poison their food.’ That’s charming—really charming. It’s suicidal empathy indeed.

These women went to a war zone in Syria to fight a war for the caliphate against Australia. Syria is now a caliphate. Their side won. So why do they want to come back to Australia? Are caliphates not as appealing as Australia? Now, that’s telling. Or do they aim to help make Australia a caliphate? As I said yesterday, Shady Alsuleiman is president of the Australian National Imams Council and mentor to Wissam Haddad, the ISIS cell leader who radicalised the Bondi terrorist Naveed Akram. Alsuleiman has released a video in which he promises, ‘Islam will enter every home in Australia.’ And he does not mean to do your dishes; he means to convert you to Islam—or else. Australians have every right to feel afraid of people this government is bringing in. The government is bringing these people in. To these female terrorists, we say this: you got you went over there for; you made your bed; now lie in it.

/1 Comment/by

Funding Hate: The Shocking Truth About Labor’s Grants

,

How can Tony Burke serve as the Minister for Home Affairs, responsible for our national security, authorise hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars in grants to pro-Palestinian activists?

Grant recipients going to groups who have publicly referred to Hezbollah terrorists as “men of God,” supported Intifada, and condemned Australians who stood with the Jewish community after the massacres in Israel.

When I asked how a minister can balance protecting our security on one hand while funding anti-Australian rhetoric on the other, the Labor government refused to answer, instead claiming arts grants weren’t a matter for Home Affairs and are handled at “arm’s length” by independent councils.

Taxpayer dollars should never be used to fund individuals who undermine our social cohesion and praise banned terrorist organisations.

Labor can try to hide behind bureaucratic red tape, but I won’t let this drop.

Australians deserve to know exactly where their hard-earned money is going.

— May | Senate Estimates

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Separately: Minister, I find it confusing that, as Minister for the Arts, Minister Tony Burke authorised hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to known pro-Palestinian activists. These recipients of Australian tax dollars publicly support anti-Australian activities; refer to the terrorists of Hezbollah as ‘men of God’; support Intifada, which is a holy war—the slaughter of non-Muslims; and condemn those Australians who support the Jewish community after the massacre in Israel. Why would he do that?  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I would suggest that any grants administered under Minister Burke’s portfolio in the arts is not a matter for the Home Affairs portfolio. You would need to take it to—  

Senator ROBERTS: But, Chair, I’m interested in this because he’s also Minister for Home Affairs.  

CHAIR: But the grants you’re talking about are administered under the arts, so if you have a question relating to the grants administered there then you need to ask your questions in that hearing.  

Senator ROBERTS: We will be, but isn’t that hypocrisy? Security and funding terrorists?  

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I do think that the chair is correct. There’s a whole other estimates session devoted to arts funding and grants. But I can tell you, in a general sense, that individual decisions about grants are made at arm’s length from the minister. In the arts portfolio there are groups like the Australia Council and other groups that determine who gets what grant. Those decisions are not made by this minister or have been by previous ministers.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair.  

CHAIR: Thank you for your assistance, Senator Roberts. 

 

/2 Comments/by

The Alarming Reality of ISIS Returnees

,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: And concern.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Watt: I’ll pass!  

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

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

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

Ms Foster: Yes.  

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

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

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

Ms Foster: I don’t.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: And that’s largely state?  

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

Senator ROBERTS: And they have been advising you?  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms Foster: Senator—  

Senator ROBERTS: Or allowing back into the country?  

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

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

Ms Foster: Thank you, Senator.  

/2 Comments/by

The Cost of Returned ISIS Wives

,

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

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

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

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

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts. 

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

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

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

Ms Jones: No. 

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

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

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

Ms Jones: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: Not at all? 

Ms Jones: No. 

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

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

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

Ms Jones: NZYQ? 

Senator ROBERTS: NZYQ; thank you. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms Chidgey: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: So you know nothing about monitoring? 

Ms Jones: No. 

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: How do you know that? 

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

Senator ROBERTS: And you take his word for it? 

Ms Jones: Yes. 

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: What about any subsidiary role? 

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

/by

Is the Refugee Program Changing Australia?

, ,

The Australian government is using the UN refugee visa program to intentionally bring radical Islam into the country.

25,000 migrants arrived under the UN refugee program last year, the vast majority coming from Muslim countries. Applications from Christian refugees in Nigeria and South Africa, as well as Syrian Alawites, were excluded.

The president of the Australian National Imams Council, Shadi Alsuleiman (and mentor to Wisam Haddad, the ISIS cell leader who radicalised the Bondi terrorist Naveed Akram) released a video in which he promises that “Islam will enter every home in Australia.”

Australians have a legitimate reason to fear the current government’s immigration policies.

Transcript

I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for the Environment and Water (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today. 

His government is pursuing a strategy of important radical Islam into our country, Australia, under the guise of the UN refugee visa program. Last year, 25,000 migrants arrived in Australia under this program, almost exclusively from Muslim countries. No places were provided for refugees from Islamic terror in Nigeria or Syria or for victims of black-on-white violence in South Africa, because those refugees are Christians and Syrian Alawites and not Islamists. Where is this UN policy taking Australia? Shadi Alsuleiman is the president of the Australian National Imams Council and mentor to Wisam Haddad, the ISIS cell leader who radicalised the Bondi terrorist Naveed Akram. Alsuleiman has released a video in which he promises, ‘Islam will enter every home in Australia’—and he doesn’t mean to do your dishes! He means to convert you to Islam, or else. Australians have every right to feel afraid of people this government is bringing in.  

Question agreed to. 

/1 Comment/by