Posts

The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 is important for families and parental responsibility, yet we were given only one hour to debate it. It’s another Labor-Liberal stitch-up to control everyone through digital identity and misinformation bills.   

We support the Greens in this, because parents should be the ones to supervise their children, not the government. Age verification and facial recognition have failed globally. We should instead, make device management easier for parents. 

This bill will lead to constant surveillance and push children into unsafe online spaces. We must stop the Uniparty’s globalist agenda and work for our country. We support the referral.

Transcript

Well, isn’t this a wonderful day! The Greens are normally helping the government to truncate debate, to guillotine debate. Now they’re talking about adding more time for debating—and we agree with them this time, because we agree with debate. Debate is the way to truth. We agree with their amendment and we will be supporting their amendment. 

This is a vital bill, an absolutely crucial bill. It has serious consequences, and not just for people under 16 years of age. It has serious consequences for the Australian family and who has responsibility for children in this country. Is it the government, or is it going to remain the parents? Parents have already had their responsibility, their authority, whittled away at state and federal level. We need to enshrine responsibility for children with parents. That’s critical. It’s fundamental. This bill has important social and family consequences, and we’ve been given one hour! 

This is a stitch-up between the Labor-Liberal uniparty, yet again. Digital identity; identity verification bill; misinformation/disinformation bill; working on digital currency; children under 16 banned from the internet—these are all working together to capture everyone in this country; we’ve said it for the last four years. We were the first cab off the rank with regard to the Morrison government’s misinformation/disinformation bill and the same with the digital identity bill. Oh, sorry; they called it the Trusted Digital Identity Bill! It’s a stitch-up. 

We need scrutiny, and we will be supporting the Greens on this. Let me tell you why I’m saying this. Parents must be the ones supervising their children in their own home. It is a parent’s responsibility, a parent’s duty, a parent’s right, and you are affecting those things—parental responsibilities, duties and rights. You’re undermining parents. 

Age verification software and facial recognition must be used in every device, whether it be a phone or a computer. Why do we know that? Because this banning of children under 16 years of age has failed in every country, because the bureaucrats can’t control it. So, as to what you’ve set up with your bills, one of the earliest in this parliament from the Labor Party government was identity verification software. We will need the cameras on all the time. What we should be doing, instead of sidelining parents, is making device management easier. Apple, Microsoft and Android could make parental locks easier and more powerful. 

I want to acknowledge Senator Rennick’s comment a couple of days ago when he said that you can already get apps—some free, some for a price—that enable parents to control the apps that are downloaded onto a child’s phone. They’re already there. We don’t need this bill at all. We notice that opposition leader Peter Dutton has joined in supporting the need for this bill, but there’s no need for it. As I said, no country has made age limits work because bureaucrats cannot see us using the device. That’s what you need and that’s what this bill gives you with your preceding bills. We see Mr Littleproud speaking on Sky News in support of this and a huge backlash—devastating comments against Mr Littleproud. If the bill goes through, parents allowing children to watch cartoons on YouTube will be breaking the law. It will need facial recognition and monitoring of key strokes for content to police this. Hackers and burglars will be in paradise. They will be able to come in and watch your activities in the house through your camera 24 hours a day and find out when you are going to be out of the house. Parents watching a cooking video with their child on their lap will be locked out because the child is under 16. Children will be forced into the dark corners of the web—peer-to-peer messaging—with no protections against illegal material, hate, phishing, sextortion and hacking. 

We have already seen these bills being introduced in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and other countries simultaneously. This goes beyond the uniparty in this country; it goes globally. We have seen in the United Kingdom police raiding journalists and commentators who have been criticising the Starmer government and jailed. That is where this is heading. We have seen the digital ID, misinformation and disinformation bill, identity verification started and introduced by the LNP—the Liberal-Nationals. Stop working as the uniparty for globalists and start working for our country. We will support the referral.  

Today, the Senate held a Committee Hearing on the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024. This expedited inquiry was scheduled with just one day’s notice, as the Liberal and Labor parties want to rush this legislation through. The first witness, Ms. Lucy Thomas OAM, CEO of Project Rockit, delivered six minutes of the most relevant, heartfelt, and inspirational testimony on the issue of censoring social media for those under 16. Her insights demonstrated the benefit of lived experience.

Before taking a position on this bill, take the time to listen to her testimony.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here. Ms Thomas, there are harms and benefits at school, and there are harms and benefits in life generally. Claude Mellins, professor of medical psychology in the Departments of Psychiatry and Sociomedical Sciences at Columbia University, stated: ‘For young people, social media provides a platform to help them figure out who they are. For very shy or introverted young people, it can be a way to meet others with similar interests.’ She added: ‘Social support and socializing are critical influences on coping and resilience.’ They provide an important point of connection. She then said in relation to Covid: ‘On the other hand, fewer opportunities for in-person interactions with friends and family meant less of a real-world check on some of the negative influences of social media.’ Isn’t the professor making an important point? It’s not about stopping real-world interactions it’s about balancing social media with real-world interactions. Isn’t it about a balance, not about prohibition? Isn’t it also the fact that parents and not governments are best placed to decide how their children develop?

Ms Thomas: Thank you for the question. I think you’re speaking to that idea of balance that a lot of us have been trying to refer to. We are acutely aware of the harms, and I think they’re beautifully captured in that quote, and acutely aware of the risk that we may create new harms by cutting young people off. I think this is a really important point, and I’d like to give you one example, a quote from a young person, Rhys from Tamworth, who commented: ‘Social media has helped me figure out and become comfortable with my sense of self, as there is a large community that is able to connect me with people all over the world. Living in a regional area, it’s difficult to find people dealing with the same personal developments, and social media really helped.’ This is beyond just direct mental health intervention; this is about finding other people like you. This is about finding spaces where we can affirm ourselves, use our voices and mobilise around actions that we care about, just like we’re doing here today. I’d love to point out that the Office of the eSafety Commissioner has done some fantastic research into the experiences of specific groups—those who are First Nations, LGBTQIA+ Australians, and disabled and neurodivergent young people. All of these group face greater hate speech online. Actually belonging to one of those communities, I can say that we also face greater hate speech offline. What was really important is they also found that young people in these communities that already face marginalisation are more likely to seek emotional support—not just mental health support, but connection, news and information, including information about themselves and the world around them. So I take your point.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I have another quote from Deborah Glasofer, Associate Professor of Clinical Medical Psychology at Stanford University:

Whether it’s social media or in person, a good peer group makes the difference. A group of friends that connects over shared interests like art or music, and is balanced in their outlook on eating and appearance, is a positive. In fact, a good peer group online may be protective against negative or in-person influences.

Is this bill throwing out the good with the bad, instead of trying to improve support in digital media skills to allow children and parents to handle these trials better?

Ms Thomas: I think there is a risk of that, yes. I think we really need to, in a much longer and more thorough timeframe, interrogate and weigh up all of these risks and unintended possible impacts. I’d like to draw another quote from Lamisa from Western Sydney University. You spoke about influencers; we tend to imagine those being solely negative. Lamisa says: ‘Social media has given me creators who are people of colour, and I think it has really allowed me to learn that I don’t have to justify my existence, that I am allowed to have an opinion and that I am allowed to have a voice about who I am.’ So I absolutely think that there is a risk that we’ll throw out these experiences; in our desire to protect people, we create unintended harms that they have to live with.

Senator ROBERTS: I just received a text message from someone in this building, a fairly intelligent person, and he said: ‘I was born with a rare disorder. I spent more than four decades feeling isolated until I discovered people with the same disorder on social media. This legislation would prevent people under 16 from linking with the communities online that can provide them with shared lived experience.’ What do you say?

Ms Thomas: I’m going to give you one more quote. I’m aware that young people aren’t in the room, so I’m sorry I’m citing these references. Hannah from Sydney says: ‘Where I struggled in the physical world thanks to a lack of physically accessible design and foresight by those responsible for building our society, I have thrived online.’ The digital world has created so much opportunity for young people to participate and fully realise their opportunities. We just need to be very careful.

I know in talking about all these benefits, I’m probably going to receive an immediate response about some of the harms. I’m not here to say that harms don’t exist. They do. If anyone is aware of them, it’s me. I’ve been working in this space for 20 years. I started Project Rockit because I wanted to tackle these issues as a young person fresh out of school. We know they’re there, but we have to be very careful not to impact these positive benefits young people face.

Senator ROBERTS: Ms Thomas, isn’t there very important access to parents and grandparents on social media for their support and experiential interaction. A lot of children interact with their parents and grandparents through social media?

Ms Thomas: Am I allowed to answer this one?

CHAIR: Yes.

Ms Thomas: I think one of the big, grave concerns around implementation and enforcement is that it won’t just be young people who need to verify their ages online; it will be every Australian. The methods available, every Australian sharing their biometric data or presenting a government issued ID, are going to pose challenges for those Australians that you are talking about—older Australians who are already facing higher rates of digital exclusion and those from marginalised communities. Absolutely, this is a vital tool for grandparents and kids, for intergenerational play and learning, and we risk cutting young people off but also cutting older people off.

It’s often said that success has many parents and failure is an orphan. In that case, I’d like a paternity test on the vote that removed the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill from the Senate Notice Paper. Some Senators now being credited with this move only solidified their opposition last week. Meanwhile, One Nation has stood firmly against this bill since its first iteration was released under the Morrison Liberal Government in 2019.  

One Nation has been the only party consistently campaigning against this bill since 2019. A vote for One Nation is a vote for freedom of speech.   In my remarks, I’ll outline the reasons why One Nation opposed this bill.

Transcript

To the people of Australia, congratulations—you’ve won. You put so much pressure on the ‘uniparty’ that you won; they folded. Four years ago I came out against the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, and it’s been a slog ever since. That’s when the Morrison-Joyce Liberal-National government introduced it. I’ll just make some comments there. This is a part of five components—the mis- and disinformation bill; the Digital ID Act; identity verification bill; under-16s banned from social media; Reserve Bank of Australia working on a digital currency that’ll be connected to a global digital currency—of a package towards social credit. The second point is that that package is being put by the major parties—Liberals, Nationals and Labor. The third point is that it’s connected to implementation of a similar package around the world in many other nations right now. It’s led to the arrest of 150 people in the United Kingdom, with jail for some, simply for making comments dissenting against the British government. 

This misinformation and disinformation bill had some worthy sections on regulating the tech giants, but it was primarily about censorship and censoring the Australian people. One Nation supports a referendum to enshrine freedom of speech in our Constitution. One Nation supports legislation to mandate and enable free speech and to make free speech sacrosanct so that no state can trump it. One Nation wants to appeal 18C. This has come out of 18C, which is scandalous. They’re some of the basics. I will read part of my dissenting report on the Senate’s inquiry into this bill. It began: 

1.1 I thank the witnesses for their submissions and for attending the hearings. 

There were many, many witnesses. Thank you, Australia. 

1.2 The committee report— 

as it was originally drafted— 

into the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 flies in the face of the expert evidence the committee has received across three days of hearings into the bill. 

That evidence just completely smashed it and reversed it. But, with the tidal wave of views from across Australia, the committee changed its view—wonderful. 

1.3 A committee inquiry should not perform the function of gift wrapping a decision which has already been taken. A committee inquiry should have the role of deciding if the decisions taken in the bill are correct. 

The first report did not do that fundamental thing. 

1.4 For three days, the committee heard from human rights advocates and stakeholders who all criticised this bill on human rights grounds, and added warnings the bill would backfire. 

That’s what the committee heard almost unanimously. 

1.5 It is extraordinary the committee would choose to ignore the recommendations of the very people who they invited to attend to advise them on this matter. 

Only when the public turned savagely against the government was the committee report changed at the last minute to reflect today’s motion. The action of the committee to that point would have made it harder: 

… for any Senate inquiry in the future to attract the quality of witnesses this inquiry attracted. 

Censorship was the purpose of this bill. Censorship was the purpose of the committee report. The criticism of the bill was well placed. My comments continued: 

1.7 The Australian Human Rights Commission questioned a basic foundation of the bill—the definition of ‘information’. In the Explanatory Memorandum the term ‘is intended to include opinions, claims, commentary and invective’. 

1.8 The Australian Human Rights Commission stated ‘considerable caution should be exercised before including opinions and commentary within the scope of “information” as this significantly broadens the potential reach of this legislation and increases the risk of it being used to censor legitimate debate about matters of public importance. 

That is profound. That is the bedrock of a democracy.  

1.9 One Nation agrees with this concern. The bill misconstrues human rights as relative, indeed as subordinate to the need of government to suppress opinions they don’t like. 

That’s what you tried to do. 

1.10 The Human Rights Law Centre recommended Clause 11(e) should be amended to reflect a broader commitment to human rights in the bill’s objectives. It also recommended the Australian Human Rights Commission should be consulted on the development of codes. 

‘Consultation’—that’d be nice. 

1.11 Several submissions related to the specific areas of misinformation. The Australian Medical Professional Society submitted: 

By centralising control over what constitutes medical ‘truth’ in the hands of government regulators, we risk creating an even more Orwellian twist in a system that is already subject to manipulation by powerful interests, to further suppress inconvenient facts and legitimate debate. This would be disastrous not only for free speech and democracy, but for public health as well. 

People’s lives depend on this. And you wanted to stop it. 

1.12 The report failed to address a critical failing in the debate around COVID. Namely that information presented as medical truth at the time has been proven to be wrong— 

not only wrong but completely contradicting the truth— 

and information banned as misinformation has now been proven to be true. 

Repeatedly, repeatedly and repeatedly. 

1.13 On the issue of COVID messaging, One Nation has maintained a contrary position to the Government of the day since 2020. This followed expert testimony from multiple specialists, research doctors and whistle blowers which contradicted the official narrative. 

1.14 The implication is simple—what is misinformation one day is truth the next. This is the danger in the Government deciding what is and is not misinformation. The bias will always be in favour of the government’s ‘truth’. 

I asked every witness a fundamental question on the last day of the hearing: who is the arbiter of truth? No-one could say who is specified as the arbiter of truth in the bill. They all said that it would default to ACMA. Other provisions in my additional comments included: religious freedom, inauthentic behaviour and media literacy. But the fundamental thing is this was an attempt by the Labor Party to build on the Liberal Party’s previous attempts at censorship by corralling misinformation under their definition, and then driving the social media organisations, the big tech companies, to ram it down people’s throats. That was what you were doing. I’m pleased to see that the people of Australia have put the brake on you. Now I appeal to the people of Australia to keep a foot on their throat because we must stop the banning of under-16-year-old people from social media. 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator O’Sullivan): Senator McKenzie, you have 10 seconds. 

This is the third and final session on the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 — aka U16’s Social Media Ban – an important piece of legislation being waved through by the Liberal and Labor parties with minimal debate. The Department was called to explain the bill, which of course they defended with responses that would not hold up under closer scrutiny.  If only Senators had time to do this.

Several serious revelations emerged during the Department’s testimony, including this little pearl: it’s better for foreign-owned multinational tech platforms to control children’s internet use than for parents to supervise or manage their children’s social media and online interactions. One Nation strongly disagrees.  

I also raised concerns about the YouTube exemption, which is worded in such a way that it could apply to any video streaming site, including pornographic sites. The Department’s response was to point to other regulations and codes that “supposedly” protect children from accessing porn.   What utter nonsense! Any child in this country without a parental lock can access Pornhub by simply clicking the “Are you over 18?” box. Teachers nationwide report that even primary school students are being exposed to and influenced by pornography. If this bill accomplishes anything good, it should be to prevent children from accessing pornography, which it deliberately avoids doing.  

This bill claims to be about many things – keeping children safe is not one of them.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. Could you please explain the provisions around exemptions for sites that do not require a person to have an account, meaning they can simply arrive and watch? An example would be children watching cartoons on YouTube. What’s the definition here of a site that can be viewed without an account?

Mr Irwin: I guess it goes to the obligation around holding an account, or having an account, which relates to the creation or the holding of an account. So if there is any process—

Senator ROBERTS: Is it the creator’s responsibility?

Mr Irwin: Sorry?

Senator ROBERTS: Is it the creator’s responsibility? Is the account the creator’s responsibility?

Mr Irwin: No, all responsibility is on the platform. If a platform under this definition has the facility to create an account and/or has under 16s who have an account on there already, then they will have to take reasonable steps.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the functional difference in your definition between YouTube and Porn Hub?

Mr Chisholm: One contains content that is restricted content that is prohibited to be accessed by children under law. Porn Hub is a pornographic website.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that.

Mr Chisholm: YouTube has a whole range of information, including educational content and a range of information that doesn’t really match up with a site like Porn Hub.

Mr Irwin: That was the second limb of the age-assurance trial: looking at technologies for 18 or over, looking at pornographic material for age assurance. That also goes to the matter of the codes that DIGI were talking about before. Those codes relate to access to particular types of content including pornographic content.

Senator ROBERTS: Let me try and understand—

Mr Chisholm: The design of Pornhub is to provide pornographic material to people who are permitted to watch it. That’s the difference.

Senator ROBERTS: I guessed that, but I asked for the functional difference. Pornhub is 18-plus, but apparently you don’t have to prove it. Could you show me where in the legislation, in this child protection bill, you’re actually including porn sites?

Mr Chisholm: There are separate laws in relation to pornographic material, which we can step you through. This bill is more about age limits for digital platforms, imposing a 16-year age limit for digital platforms. There are other laws that prohibit access to pornographic material online including the codes process and classification system.

Mr Irwin: That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s required for someone aged 16 or 17 to get access to Pornhub?

Mr Irwin: That’s subject to the codes that industry is developing right now, which DIGI talked about, in terms of what specifically is required. There is also a whole system of classification laws that are designed to prevent access to adult content by children. On top of that, there’s the eSafety Commissioner’s administration of things like basic online safety expectations and the phase 2 codes that are under development.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m glad you raised that because I was going to raise it. You exempt gaming sites because they already carry age recommendations. In fact, some video game sites are MA 15+; they’re not 16-plus. What will have to change? Will it be your bill or the MA 15+ rating?

Mr Chisholm: The bill doesn’t require them to change—

Ms Vandenbroek: Nothing will change.

Mr Chisholm: because gaming isn’t caught by the new definition. There’s nothing that requires gaming systems to change.

Senator ROBERTS: So social media is 16-plus, but video games are 15-plus.

Mr Chisholm: The policy here is to treat games as different to social media. For some of the reasons we talked about before, they are seen as a different form of content consumption and engagement to social media.

Senator ROBERTS: Doesn’t this indicate to people that this bill’s intent is not about what the government says?

Mr Chisholm: No, the bill is definitely about what the government says. It imposes a firm age limit of 16 on account creation for social media for all of the concerns and reasons outlined about the damage that’s being done to under-16s through exposure to social media. Games are also subject to classification rules, so they have their own regime they have to comply with now.

Mr Irwin: They’re subject to the broader Online Safety Act as well.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’ll get you to wrap up.

Senator ROBERTS: I have a last question. I understand that there are parental controls that parents can buy—they’re sometimes free—in the form of apps that watch over what children are watching. What alternatives are already available for parents to control children’s social media and control their exposure? Did you evaluate them, and why don’t you just hand the authority back to where it belongs—to parents—because they can do a better job of parenting their child than government can?

Mr Chisholm: The very strong feedback that we received from parents during this consultation is that they do not want to bear the burden or responsibility of making decisions that should be better reflected in the law. At the moment, parents often refer to the 13-year age limit that’s part of the US terms of service—

Mr Irwin: For privacy reasons.

Mr Chisholm: for privacy reasons, that apply in Australia. That’s often used for parents to say to their children, ‘You can’t have a social media account until you’re 13.’ It’s really important for parents to point to a standard law, an age limit, that will apply to everybody. It’s also feedback we’ve received from a lot of children. They would rather have a universal law that applies to all children under the age of 16 instead of a situation where some children have it and some children don’t, and where all of the harms that we’re aware of from exposure to social media continue to magnify. We also don’t want a situation where there is any question the parents have some legal responsibility in relation to an age limit. The very strong view of the government is that that responsibility should be borne by the platforms, not parents.

Senator ROBERTS: We’re not going to have—

Mr Chisholm: The platforms are in a much better position to control their services than parents are.

Senator ROBERTS: So we want to put parenting in the hands of social media platforms?

Mr Chisholm: The parents have said to us that they have a very strong view that they want a 16-year age limit, and that the platforms are better placed to enforce that because it is their platforms.

Senator ROBERTS: How much notice did the parents get to give their comments? Because we got 24 hours notice of the closing of submissions.

Mr Irwin: We’ve been consulting, and I will add we do have evidence that 58 per cent of parents were not aware of social media parental monitoring, and only 36 per cent actually searched for online safety information.

Senator ROBERTS: So wouldn’t it be better to educate the parents?

Mr Chisholm: We are educating parents, too. That’s part of the digital literacy and other measures we are undertaking. Education is important, but it’s not enough.

Senator ROBERTS: I meant educating parents about the controls already available to keep the control over their children in parents’ hands, not usurping it and putting it in the government’s hands.

Mr Chisholm: I think it comes back to the point that we’ve made that the very strong view here is that platforms should bear the responsibility for imposing or following an age limit, not parents, who don’t have as much information about how these platforms operate as the platforms themselves.

We all know the real intent of the Digital ID agenda. The United Kingdom, with laws similar to ours, has shown alarming developments. In the last two weeks, British police have visited and advised hundreds of journalists and commentators to stop criticising the Starmer government’s policies. Some have even been arrested and imprisoned merely for expressing their opinions.  

The Digital ID, misinformation laws and facial verification systems are all part of the control mechanism that facilitates government surveillance and tyranny. The mask has come off quickly. Only recently, Minister Gallagher reassured Australians that digital IDs would not be compulsory. Yet, without one, life will become impossible.  

Now, there is a proposal to introduce age verification for social media. This would require every user—not just adults, as initially told to us, but also children—to have a digital ID.  

Age verification has never been successfully implemented anywhere in the world. The only way it can function is through a Digital ID with facial recognition, which would require constant re-scanning of the user’s face, potentially every minute, to confirm identity. This setup would necessitate keeping the computer camera permanently on, exposing children to significant privacy risks, including hacking.  

One Nation firmly believes that the best person to oversee internet use is the one present in the room with the children: their parents. We oppose intrusive government and support the primacy of the family in raising and protecting their children.

Transcript: Question Time

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Senator McAllister. During Senate estimates on 5 November, the age assurance verification trial and social media age verification proposals were examined. For those who missed it, let me see if I have this correct. The system the government is considering will require two things: firstly, a digital ID to access social media for all users and, then, to make sure nobody is using a dodgy digital ID, age verification assurance technology, which will scan the user’s face, monitor their key strokes for content and technique and calculate their age. If it finds the person might be underage, it will compare it back to the biometric data in the person’s digital ID and check their identity and date of birth. Is that an accurate, concise explanation of the system being examined? 

Senator McALLISTER: No. I suppose I could sit down, but, no, that is not accurate. We are obviously engaged in an important policy reform process to protect children from some of the harms that they are exposed to on social media. I would be really surprised, Senator Roberts, if you hadn’t heard about this amongst the people that you talk to in your constituency. I think every senator in this place has had a conversation with a parent or perhaps with a teacher who was concerned about the kind of information that children are seeing online and accessing online and the inability of parents to actually engage and protect their children from some of those harms. 

We want Australian parents to actually know that we’ve got their backs. That is the underlying motivation for embarking on the reform. It’s, of course, about protecting kids. We still want them to be connected. We don’t want to punish children. We don’t want to isolate them. But we do want them to operate in an environment that is safe, and that’s the reason that we have committed to bringing forward legislation for a minimum age limit for social media this fortnight. We have worked with a pretty wide range of stakeholders, and we’re very grateful for the support that we’ve received in doing this work. Obviously, the National Cabinet has taken a very strong interest in this, and first ministers in that forum have agreed that the Commonwealth will legislate a minimum age of 16. 

I think one of the implications of your question and the way that you framed it was a concern around privacy, and that’s a legitimate question to ask. We will not put at risk the personal information of Australians, and the regulations will include robust privacy protections for personal information with significant penalties for platforms that breach— (Time expired) 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

I predicted during the digital ID debate that one person could sign a younger person into social media, and the only solution is keeping the device camera on permanently, which is an outrageous breach of trust and privacy. While you’re peeping into the camera feed of all social media users, hackers will have an easy hack to spy on families in their bedrooms, to learn daily routines and to work out when the home can be safely burgled. Minister, in the name of supposedly keeping children safe, are you building a surveillance apparatus for perverts and thieves? 

Senator McALLISTER: No. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

The government’s solution still requires a camera to be permanently on. There will be continuous surveillance of the computer user in their own home by the government. If a parent has a child on their knee watching a children’s video or a cooking video on social media, will the system lock them out because the child is under 16? Minister, in your brave new world of internet regulation, do parents have any rights over their children’s lives or is the Albanese government cancelling parents? 

Senator McALLISTER: Almost nothing in the set of propositions put forward by Senator Roberts in his question to me were accurate, true or based on anything that has been said publicly by the minister or anyone in the government, and I want to make that very, very clear. Our focus is, in fact, on protecting children from an environment that has not been designed to secure their safety, and the reason that we know that is we hear that all the time from the parents that speak to us. 

Our interest, in fact, is in creating an environment that is supportive of parents who are trying to engage in a constructive way to deal with the information that their children are exposed to. Our interest is in supporting those parents who say, ‘We wish to do better in terms of the harms our kids are experiencing, but we don’t have the tools.’ That is the focus of our legislative— (Time expired) 

Transcript: Take Note of Answers to Question Time

I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Emergency Management and Minister for Cities (Senator McAllister) to a question without notice I asked today relating to age verification on social media: 

We all know the real intent of the digital ID agenda. The United Kingdom has almost the same laws that we have here, and in the last two weeks the British police have visited and advised hundreds of journalists and commentators that they should stop criticising the Starmer government’s policies. Some were arrested and imprisoned for nothing more than an opinion. The digital ID, misinformation laws and facial verification laws are all part of the control mechanism that facilitates government surveillance and tyranny. The mask has come off quickly. Only recently, Minister Gallagher reassured Australians that the digital ID was not compulsory, yet, without it, life will be impossible. 

The digital ID started life under the Morrison Liberal government. As recently as April, the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, championed the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, and the Liberals support social media age verification. Age verification means the government forcing the digital ID on everyone, paired with frequent facial scans from the camera on your device. That means the camera on your internet enabled device will be on permanently. One Nation opposes a world where children become hackers and subversives before they’re old enough to drive, just so they can keep in contact with their friends and relatives on social media. Children will be forced into the dark corners of the web like peer-to-peer messaging, where no protections exist against illegal material, hate, phishing, hacking and sextortion. Adults will no longer express their opinions for fear of that 4 am United Kingdom-style raid from the thought police. Australians should have the option of a regulated private verification service if they see fit, because mandating digital ID is an unacceptable infringement of personal sovereignty. The government running the scheme and having all your data in real time is absolutely terrifying. 

Senator Hanson and I tried to move a Senate inquiry into the referendum to enshrine freedom of speech in our Constitution—it was opposed. One Nation will repeal the digital ID and related bills. We will protect free speech, protect the rights of parents and defend the human rights of all Australians. 

The eSafety Commissioner has the power to issue takedown notices on various types of material, with exploitation material being the most common. One Nation supports these powers being used for this purpose. A small portion of their work involves removing material that is deemed “violent or distressing.” This was the power used in the case of the Bishop Mari Mari Emmanuel video. One Nation is concerned that these powers could be misused, as they are subject to political interpretation regarding what is and is not “violent or distressing.”

I asked the eSafety Commissioner if her department had a transparency portal where Senators and the public could see the material being taken down. The Commissioner responded by including exploitation material in her count, to show why such a portal was not feasible, yet I did not ask about exploitation material; my question specifically concerned material categorised as “violent or distressing.”

It is my belief that social media platforms primarily use AI to remove most of this material and that the department has only had to issue a small number of notices. I want to know what those notices were issued for and I will continue this inquiry during the next estimates session.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending. My first question is about your newsroom statement from 4 October about the social media platform X and a transparency notice on the measures it’s taking to combat child sexual exploitation material. Is this the only transparency notice that has not been complied with?

Ms Inman Grant: Thus far, yes. Where we issued an infringement notice, we issued something called a service provider notification to Google for the same set of child sexual abuse material.

Senator ROBERTS: The only other platform is Google, and that hasn’t been issued with a transparency notice. Are there any others like Telegram or Facebook? Telegram does a lot of work in that area.

Ms Inman Grant: We are in the midst of a process around a series of very complex transparency notices in relation to terrorist and violent extremist material. Telegram is amongst them, and we’re engaging with them.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This thread asks about a subset of your work—material that is violent or distressing. Do you have a transparency portal where your instructions to social media platforms to take down such material are registered in as close to real time as possible so we can see what you’re censoring?

Ms Inman Grant: We weren’t set up as a censor, Senator. We have frameworks provided through complaint schemes. Members of the public report content to us, particularly when the social media platform or messaging platform hasn’t responded. With respect to illegal and harmful online content, we also have very well legally defined requirements. We have both notice powers under the Criminal Code and then removal notices under the Online Safety Act and formal removal notices, which we exercised against both X and Meta during the Wakeley terrorist incident.

Mr Dagg: Can I just explain how we achieve the objective of transparency in terms of our actions. You may know that the Online Safety Act requires us to publish, under section 183, actions that we’ve taken in relation to a variety of harms. Our annual report has been published. You can find all of the information—

Senator ROBERTS: Your report has been published?

Mr Dagg: The annual report has been published, and we are required to report all of that information in the annual report. You can find that from page 223 in the appendices that relate to the eSafety Commissioner. That will show you all of the actions that we took for the financial year 2023-24.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you give us a bit of background on each one?

Mr Dagg: No—these are aggregated figures, so there’s no specific breakdown of each individual matter.

Senator ROBERTS: So there’s no breakdown and no opportunity for people to see how you’re doing it?

Mr Dagg: It would not be operationally feasible for us to report in real time the actions that we’re taking. Parliament expected us to report on an aggregated basis about the actions that we’ve taken, including requests, but we haven’t broken them down—

Senator ROBERTS: It’s just the aggregate numbers—

Mr Dagg: The aggregate numbers for a range of operational purposes, including security and operational feasibility.

Senator ROBERTS: So the platforms have to be transparent, and you don’t?

Mr Dagg: Well, the platforms report on things in an aggregated way, too, Senator. They’re not reporting on each individual specific matter that they deal with. They deal with millions of matters on a yearly basis. So, again, that just wouldn’t be feasible for them to do.

Senator ROBERTS: But the platforms have to be transparent to you.

Mr Dagg: Through the exercise of our compulsory transparency powers under the basic online safety expectations. But it’s important to note, Senator, that those transparency powers are around how the platforms are meeting the expectations. We’re not extracting from them specific information about how they’re dealing with this matter or that matter that might be reported to them. We’re interested in understanding how they take user reports, for example—if they’ve got reporting schemes in place, how their terms, services and policies are developed to meet the objects of the basic online safety expectations. The most recent determination includes some measures in relation to generative AI and how the companies are ensuring that these technologies aren’t being used, for example, to produce child sexual abuse material on a synthetic basis. That’s the kind of information that we’re drawing from the companies. We’re not drawing information about how they’re dealing with individual complaints.

Senator ROBERTS: The police force has long had transparency to the public through the court system. Whether you agree that the court system is perfect or not, that’s not the point. Who do you go through to provide transparency? How can we assess what you’re doing, rather than just in the aggregate?

Mr Dagg: When it comes to the principles of open justice, as a former police officer myself, the matters that make their way to court represent a tiny fraction of all matters that are reported to police. The matters that are reported to police are not reported on an individual basis. There are strict privacy concerns, for example, that ensure the protection of complainants’ identities and the specific matters that are reported to police forces. The Wakeley matter—the section 109 notice that we issued to Twitter X—is a good example of how that principle of transparency plays out in the Federal Court. The online file, for example, includes all of the evidence that the eSafety Commissioner relied on to make the case that the interlocutory measures ought to be accepted by the court.

Senator ROBERTS: The Senate is the house of review. What facility exists for the Senate to review your take-down notices of material? Where’s the supervision of your activity? Who oversees you?

Ms Inman Grant: There are a few different ways. One is through FOI, which you’ve exercised yourself, Senator. We’ve had a 2,288 per cent increase in FOIs over the past year. We are held accountable. We have reporting requirements that include any informal actions we take. Of course, we can be challenged in the Federal Court. We can be challenged at the AAT, or now the ART. We can be challenged by the Ombudsman, and a complainant can ask for an internal review to be done. So there are a number of different ways that we can provide transparency when it is asked for or required.
But, as Mr Dagg said, with 41,000 reports this year—and I think Mr Downey, who is now running the investigations branch, is expecting at least 60,000 reports next year—it would operationally be infeasible, and it would violate the privacy of the complainants. As I said before, that confidentiality is important. Even young people understand that one of the reasons children don’t report cyberbullying is they don’t want to be the dobber or the snitch, and they fear retribution. If we were to not treat some of these complaints as personal information—and the Information Commissioner agrees with us—I think it would undermine trust in us as an organisation.

Senator ROBERTS: I get that. Did you say that there was a 2,000 per cent increase in FOIs?

Ms Inman Grant: Yes, 2,288 per cent.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s a huge increase. It tells me that people are hungry to learn more.

Ms Inman Grant: Yes, and there have been some campaigns that have also encouraged people to put in FOIs, which we respond to.

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve used the defence of having so many infringements to take care of. That’s a big workload. What I’m interested in is not so much that but how you’re being held accountable. How can we see transparently what you’re doing?

Senator McAllister: Here we all are, Senator. What is the question that you seek to ask?

CHAIR: We call it estimates.

Senator McAllister: We are at estimates. The commissioner is here to answer your questions. If there are particular things that you’re interested in, you really should ask her.

Senator ROBERTS: What about the public? They need to know.

Senator McAllister: You are their representative, as you so often remind us.

CHAIR: You can send them the video of this.

Senator McAllister: You are a humble servant of the people of Queensland.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to go to freedom of information 24118, which asked for any guidelines you have with regard to the implied right to political communication to make sure you aren’t infringing on it as you issue take-down notices. I note that your freedom of information decision says: ‘There are no dedicated guides or policies with respect to the interaction of the implied right of political communication in use by the eSafety Commissioner or personnel who implement the various schemes under the OSA.’ There are no dedicated guides or policies?

Mr Dagg: We would need to assess each and every action we take through the lens of whether or not the implied constitutional right to political communication is infringed. That’s just operationally infeasible.

Senator ROBERTS: So are you saying, ‘To hell with the Constitution’?

Mr Dagg: No, not at all. The concern that a particular person’s interests may have been infringed in such a way as to raise a claim that the operation of the Online Safety Act is invalid is absolutely a matter that can be pursued through merits review or judicial review. But, to the commissioner’s point, we are going to be dealing with 60,000 complained URLs this year, which produces a significant percentage of actions we take. I’m sure you can understand that rigorously assessing whether or not they raise any specific issues in relation to the implied constitutional right makes it very difficult for us to make rapid decisions in line with the threshold set by the act. I think it’s important to note that the act contains very clear thresholds and very clear parameters for us to apply in terms of operational decision-making. The act itself, as you would have seen, is supported by a bill which was subject to exhaustive human rights review in its construction. We believe that, by properly administering the act on behalf of the commissioner, we’re taking actions which are in line with parliament’s expectations. If a person believes that their constitutional right—the implied right—has been infringed, there are avenues for review of that decision.

Senator ROBERTS: I can’t see how bypassing the Constitution or not including it as a consideration is in any way okay. The eSafety Commissioner and the delegates ordinarily—this is the quote: ‘The eSafety Commissioner and the delegates ordinarily proceed on the basis that the powers given to them under the OSA by the Australian Parliament are reasonably appropriate and adapted’. So you don’t turn your mind to whether you’re acting constitutionally at all; you just assume you are. How can this Senate be convinced that you are able to act within the Constitution when you don’t even have a document outlining the fundamental right of Australians to communicate in political matters? If you infringe on someone’s constitutional rights, then they complain? That’s it?

Senator McAllister: As you know, the constitutionality of any piece of legislation that comes before the parliament—

Senator ROBERTS: Not the legislation—

Senator McAllister: is quite frequently a matter of some discussion. Unless you seek to challenge it, we can assume that the legislative framework within which the commissioner and her staff operates is constitutional.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s a misrepresentation of what I said, Minister. I’m not saying that the act is unconstitutional; I’m saying that the consideration to take someone down needs to maintain constitutional rights—particularly political.

Senator McAllister: I think the two things are interconnected, Senator, because the powers that are exercised by the commissioner and the staff that work with her are enabled by the parliament and by the legislation.

Senator ROBERTS: I get that.

Senator McAllister: As I have indicated to you already, that is quite often subject to a discussion among senators about constitutional arrangements.

Senator ROBERTS: That still doesn’t answer the question—the right to political communication.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I am going to move on.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

I joined Alex Jones of Infowars to talk about the same agenda that is being seen across Australia, the US, Britain, Canada, New Zealand—all nations of the British Commonwealth. Each of these countries is dominated by what I call the Uni-Party, the red and blue teams pushing the same agenda. Behind them are internationalists, unelected globalists,and corporate fronts controlled by a powerful few.

Transcript

Alex Jones: All right. I wanted to get this guy on for years. I know it’s the middle of the night. We really appreciate him joining us from Queensland, Australia. He is the main guy, the most prominent one of great people in Australia that are battling the Great Reset, the globalist takeover, and they are one of the main testing grounds, so is the UK, so are places like Italy and Germany and Canada, and everything you see done there is going to happen here. I know most of our audience cares about everybody in the world. Some people say, “Well, why are you covering Australia so much?” Hypothetically, if Martians blew up Paris, I’d be against it because obviously we’re next. I mean, we need to understand this. They’re fighting the same global corporate BlackRock, ESG social credit score programme that we are slowing down and stopping and he has been charging ahead. 

He’s an Australian leader. He’s a member of the One Nation party and has been a senator for Queensland since 2019. He also served in the Senate from 2016, 2017, and he’s been through a lot. He exposes the carbon tax fraud and the manmade climate change garbage. Find him on X, @MRobertsQLD, and we’ll put that on screen for you. You need to follow what he’s saying because whatever he’s talking about is about two years ahead of us on average. So, he joins us. He sent us a lot of topics, a lot of clips. He’s really prepared. We appreciate him getting up in the middle of the night or early morning to do this. We’re going to cover the waterfront here, and he sent us a lot of documents as well. 

So, Senator, it’s great to have you here, and we’re all together in solidarity against the same enemy. We share a lot of the same culture, so we’re in this together. I mean, I’ll jump in some and bring in some clips and topics, but to kind of give you the floor here to start where you think is most important. Thanks so much for being here. 

Malcolm Roberts: You’re welcome, Alex, and thank you so much for what you’re doing. You’ve been fighting a line battle until fairly recently, and now people recognise that your credibility is very, very high. So, thank you so much for what you’re doing. But essentially, what’s happening is your country, Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, all descendants from the British Commonwealth, are all ruled by a red and a blue team, what I call the UniParty, and they’re all the same… They’re pushing the same basic policies. It’s driven by these internationalists, these globalists, these unelected parasites who are fronts for big corporations, who are fronts for a few people that own them and control them. 

Alex Jones: If they could convince us we’re bad and that we have no life force and that we have no survival instinct, then we’ll all roll over and be slaves and be sterilised and basically just phased out. I mean, that’s it. The decision’s been made by The Limits to Growth, the Club of Rome, the World Economic Forum to build a post-human future, and it’s a mad scientist project and we have to get people to face it. It sounds crazy, but now the WEF is very public about it. The New York Times has headlines looking forward to the end of humanity. I’ve been in the grocery store, I’ve seen magazines, “Humans are bad. Looking forward to the end of humans.” They want us to hate ourselves, so we get rid of that empathy and then accept their globalist, anti-human programme. It’s really, for me, simple. 

Malcolm Roberts: You’re absolutely correct. They want us to hate ourselves. They want us to hate each other. They want division. They want fear. During COVID, we saw the same things, fear and isolation and separation, making us feel as though we’re alone and individual and vulnerable, and nothing can be further from the truth. 

Video: It’s become clear that people in this country and globally have been steamrolled. It is also clear that it has been coordinated globally. It is also clear that it has been integrated not just over six months, not just over two and a half years, but it has been planned over decades. The changes to legislation in this country were done so that they could control doctors and people. But the people are waking, and it’s thanks to people like Dr. Altman and all the presenters here today, thanks to people like Senator Babet and Craig Kelly. We know and we knew that this is all bullshit and that we’ve been had. 

Malcolm Roberts: Both parties are pushing this agenda. They stole farmers’ property rights, which is fundamental, they’re destroying family, they’re controlling speech, they’re destroying religion, bad-mouthing Christianity, which gave us our Western Civilization, the fundamentals of our Western Civilization, our values, and they’re putting controls in place like this social media control that you’re talking about. They’re doing all the things that a communist party would do because they are communist in their approach. I mean, I’m very proud of my country, but I loved America. I mean, America, and I’ve got to put a caveat on that, has been decimated in the last 30 years thanks to- 

Alex Jones: I want to ask- 

Malcolm Roberts: … both the Obamas, the Clintons. I mean, you’ve been ruled by criminals. 

Where do you start, Alex? It’s pervasive. We’re in the middle of an indoctrination war, an information war, which is the title of your show. We’ve been saying that for years. But essentially, what’s happening is your country, Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, all descendants from the British Commonwealth, are all ruled by a red and a blue team, what I call the UniParty, and they’re all the same… They’re pushing the same basic policies. They’re pretending to be different. And some of the people in the Liberal Party in Australia, for example, the blue party in Australia, are different, but the majority are following like sheep. And what we’re seeing is the same globalist policies, the United Nations, the World Health Organisation, the World Economic Forum, and the policies that’ll make BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, First State all rich. They’re pushing what’s happening in our country. The agenda is driven by these internationalists, these globalists, these unelected parasites who are fronts for big corporations who are fronts for a few people that own them and control them. 

Alex Jones: Absolutely. And of course, the jewel in their crown has been climate change, carbon taxes, the global corporate rules, the regimens, and now they’re bringing in COVID as their lockdown excuse, which they admit are training rules for it. Let’s talk about then your awakening and what’s happening in Australia, because it’s happening everywhere, and then walk through the stratagems that are involved in and then how we dismantle this, how we stop it. 

Malcolm Roberts: Well, I first became involved… I didn’t know anything about this. What you would’ve been saying in 2009, I would’ve probably laughed at. And then I got involved in the climate fraud, exposing the climate fraud. I’m a mining engineer by training. I’ve worked in leadership and management at corporate levels and at mine sites, and I’ve been trained as a mining engineer to keep people alive underground. That means I have to understand atmospheric gases. So, I just knew that carbon dioxide cannot do what they’re saying it can do, “It’ll boil the planet.” It’s not going to boil the bloody planet. It’s nature’s essential fertiliser for plants. So, when they started demonising carbon dioxide… I worked in New Zealand for a client over there for a year. Our family went over there. When we came back, I saw it was a rage in this country, and so I said, “This is bullshit.” 

So, I started researching it and I found out the science is absolute crap. There is no science backing it up whatsoever. So, I then started exploring further. I explored the people who were pushing it. That was the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. I found out that the whole thing was rigged. And then I found out who was driving it and the motives, and it’s just for the same things that globalists do everywhere, control and wealth transfer. There’s a bigger and nastier thing going on. We had a wonderful scientist here called Bob Carter. Professor Bob Carter was an eminent climatologist. He understood the science, and he and I were speaking around the country in various places, all voluntary. He did a marvellous job. 

Anyway, one day he said to me, Alex, “This climate change stuff must be the biggest fraud ever,” and I said, “Bob, it’s not even close,” and he said, “What do you mean?” And I said, “Well, look at the monetary system. Look at the way they issue currency, make it out of thin air,” and he said, “You’ve got a point, okay,” and I said, “But that’s not the worst. The worst is the anti-human scam.” Alex, as you know, and many of your listeners probably know, the fundamental problem is an anti-human problem. They’re portraying humans as uncaring, greedy, rapacious, unkind. We just don’t give a damn about the planet. Nothing could be further from the truth. 

When a foal is given birth from the mare, within 20 minutes, it’s up and about on spindly legs, awkward and it’s trotting and then it sidles up to its mother and has a drink. And then within a few months, it’s eating grass and moving with the herd, completely alone, completely independent. But a human baby, when you and I were born, we were about so long and we were completely helpless for years, and that shows that humans… The fact that you are here, the fact that I’m here, the fact that people are watching this, shows that someone cared for each of us because that is the fundamental trait. The human traits that set us apart are love, care, and reason, although I sometimes wonder about the reasoning skills, but you know what I’m getting at, and that sets us apart. But we are vulnerable, we are dependent for many, many years and the fact that humans actually care about us- 

Alex Jones: Empathy. 

Malcolm Roberts: … is evidence that we are here. 

Alex Jones: Well, absolutely. The real studies show, in most cases, humans make the environment better and not worse. There’s obviously some issues, but we’re cleaning those up. But you hit the nail on the head here. And Elon Musk, after they basically kidnapped his son and sterilised him and his brother almost died in a poison shot, he’s now fully awake and says, “Look, I know the globalist,” and he went back decades ago to the founders of Google saying, “We need to get rid of the people and don’t be pro-human.” He explains it’s a death cult. 

If they could convince us we’re bad and that we have no life force and that we have no survival instinct, then we’ll all roll over and be slaves and be sterilised and basically just phased out. I mean, that’s it. The decision’s been made by the Limits to Growth, the Club of Rome, the World Economic Forum to build a post-human future, and it’s a mad scientist project and we have to get people to face it. It sounds crazy, but now the WEF is very public about it. The New York Times has headlines looking forward to the end of humanity. I’ve been in the grocery store, I’ve seen magazines, “Humans are bad. Looking forward to the end of humans.” They want us to hate ourselves, so we get rid of that empathy and then accept their globalist, anti-human programme. It’s really, for me, simple. 

Malcolm Roberts: You’re absolutely correct. They want us to hate ourselves. They want us to hate each other. They want division. They want fear. During COVID, we saw the same things, fear and isolation and separation, making us feel as though we’re alone and individual and vulnerable, and nothing could be further from the truth. When people stand up, we have very strong care, reasoning ability, and love. But at the same time, Alex, Maria Montessori, the world’s greatest studier of human behaviour and human development, she’s dead now, she died in the ’50s I think, wonderful woman, highly objective, and a huge volume of work and very, very accurate. We go through planes of development when we grow. In the first six years… Well, she said the critical years for the formation of both character and intellect are birth to six. We don’t form ourselves until we’re around about six, and then we don’t start getting intellectual ability reasoning skills until about nine. 

So what that means, Alex, is that you and I and every human on this planet created ourselves, fabricated ourselves before we could intellectually reason. That means it wasn’t God who made me. God created me, but I fabricated my ego. So, what we’ve got is we’ve got these parasitic globalist billionaires, parasitic globalist corporation run by the billionaires who are basically evil and separate from the rest of humanity in that they think they’re superior because they fabricated that. Underneath all of that is fear. Always, Alex, these people are after control. They’re after wealth transfer and, from us to them, they want to make us serfs. Christiana Figueres who used to lead the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and other senior bureaucrats in the UN have admitted. I mean we don’t need to make this stuff up. They’ve admitted that their agenda is a new world order, a new economic order. 

What’s his name? Maurice Strong, who fabricated global climate change, he said he had two aims in life. One was to put in place an unelected socialist global governance, his words, and the other one was to de-industrialise Western Civilization. No more of these things and no more lights, no more electricity, no more power, no more roads. They want us back in the Dark Ages, back in the cave. That’s how inhuman these people are, but they want the good life. They want us to be serfs to look after them. I mean, we are looking at their own words. They’re telling us with their own words and they’ve told it repeatedly, World Economic Forum, United Nations. 

Alex Jones: And you stand up, we’ve got some of these clips coming up, we play them almost every week, in the Senate and you look them right in the eyes and expose their operations, and I know they’ve come after you, but let’s talk about the censorship systems. I see the policies. Without even votes, they’re trying to enforce where the government can break in your social media and even poses you and then put you in jail for what they’ve done. We see other senators calling for Elon Musk’s arrest. We see similar things in the EU and Brazil. So, again, you guys are really the test case, along with New Zealand, with the WEF minion [inaudible 00:14:17] and Australian leaders saying, “Don’t look at the sunset. Don’t talk to your neighbours.” I mean, this is a wild cult. Your current leader saying he wants to arrest people for memes. Tell us about the WEF, UN push legislation that they’re trying to bring into Australia to silence the people. 

Malcolm Roberts: Well, you’re hitting the nail on the head, Alex, because we have a red party, which is the Labour Party. It’s supposed to be socialist, and we have a blue party, which is the Liberal Party and is in coalition with the National Party that’s supposed to be free enterprise capitalist, and they’re both bullshit. Their policies are almost identical. When you look at it fundamentally, their policies are identical. There’re slight variations in extremity. Every major climate and energy policy, which has been destroying our country since 1996, has been introduced by the liberal nationalists, the capitalists, the conservatives. This is the way they parade themselves. And then each time, Labour comes in and ramps it up. 

Now, when we look at the suite of policies that you are talking about with the control policies, the media control policies, we are looking at the Digital Identity Bill, for example, which enables the government to sell our data, sell it to corporations overseas. That’s the next step in what they’ll be doing. Their current status is they make one massive database with all the other departmental databases filtered into one now. That’s going to be hacker’s paradise and also enable control. Then the next step, and they’ve said this, both liberals and the Labour Party in their draught bills have said this, they want to sell it off to corporations. So, for me to go and get my health data, I will have to access a private corporation and pay them for my data, pay them to access my data. 

Then the next part is the misinformation, disinformation bill. When they don’t define disinformation, they don’t define misinformation accurately in detail, specifics rather, and they also make it a crime to say certain things that go against the government narrative. Now, the government will decide what is misinformation, what is disinformation, and what is serious harm. I was one of the senators in the Senate inquiry yesterday, and no one could… I asked several people, several witnesses, “What’s the definition of serious harm?” and they said they don’t know. 

So, what they’re setting us up for is… Both parties are setting it. The liberals introduced this bill, the Labour Party is now bringing it to a vote. We’ve also got the identity verification data bill, which is about setting up biometric surveillance cameras so that they can see who you’re driving with, who you’re mixing with, who you’re travelling with, who you’re engaging with. These are the sorts of things that they’re setting up, but they’ve already got 15 major cities, as you well know better than anyone else on the planet, in Oxford and other places in Britain. 

The other thing, Alex, is what we’re seeing in Australia is happening in the other British colonies, former British colonies, America, Canada, New Zealand, Britain itself, and Australia. So, this is coordinated globally. It’s coordinated globally, and we don’t even need the evidence now of what Maurice Strong and others are saying to put in place a global governance, unelected socialist global governance. It’s there and it’s coming, and the best thing to do is to stand up and tell them to go to hell, and that’s what we’ve been doing. 

Alex Jones: Well, that’s right. Again, you mentioned the same things here. The Democrats are not trying to take over big tech, it’s one conglomerate, so they can get direct control. Same thing’s happening in Europe. But when they get all the data and the government, quote, “controls” the data, they then have an internet ID. They always do it in the name of protecting children in the US and Australia, it’s all the same. And then once they have all that data, they use that to punish you when you don’t behave the way they want. 

Malcolm Roberts: That’s exactly it, a social credit system. That’s what we can see coming. 

Alex Jones: What is the climate in Australia? I mean, it looks to me like people really woke up during COVID and it seems like they’ve got major opposition. What’s happening? 

Malcolm Roberts: That’s correct, but majority of people are still asleep, Alex. We’ve got a long, long way to go. The climate fraud, as I call it, that was starting to get somewhere. But then on Instagram, for example, just before COVID arrived, we had very slow growth on Instagram. And then COVID arrived, and we took a very strong stance, I mean, just natural stance, doing what is right and protecting people. We saw a lot of young people join us and start following us on Instagram until we got to about 45,000 followers and then it was capped. We didn’t move above that because it was controlled by Meta. But then what we noticed was that initially my posts about COVID and standing up against the government’s regime we’re drawing a lot of favourable comments, but climate, my posts about climate fraud, we’re not drawing mainly comments. 

And then over the ensuing years, bit by bit, people started realising that… They said this to me, younger people in their 20s and 30s said, “We looked at COVID. We could see the fraud that was going on there and the control mechanisms being put in place. And then we looked at climate in new eyes and we started seeing the same traits, the same characteristics in that.” And then they realised climate fraud is just a control mechanism as well. What they’re wanting, Alex, is they’re wanting to control our food supply, and they’ve made that clear. They’re wanting to control our energy, they already control the money. They’re wanting to get rid of cash so that we become totally dependent on a digital ID, a digital currency and social credit. They want to control our movements, our transport. They want to surveil us. So, that’s what they’re trying to do, and what we’ve been doing is just telling them to go to hell and just exposing it because we’ve got to get people away. 

In a totalitarian state, as you well know as you’ve said many times, the people are afraid of the government. In a true democracy, a true democracy… and I don’t believe we live in a true democracy. In a true democracy, the government is afraid of the people because the people are in charge. And our country was the first in the world and the only country in the world in which the people had a vote on the Constitution before it came into play. The people are the only people who can change our Constitution, Alex. So, we are in charge. We are the top level of sovereignty in our country, and what we’ve been doing is we’ve been sleeping and taking everything for granted, and now we’ve got to stand up for our country and fight for it. 

Alex Jones: Absolutely. We have Australian National Senator Malcolm Roberts. He is our guest here, and I want to start playing a few clips. We’re going to go to break and come back and cover more of this. I want to play clip number one. Roberts, the plan of the Great Reset is that you will die with nothing, and that’s their public plan. Everything will be rented and you can’t rent it unless you’ve got good favorability with a social credit score, and they’ll always be raising the bar. Let’s play that clip, then back to back with clip two about COVID. Here it is. 

Video: Instead of working together to push Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum plan based on United Nations’ policies, work together instead for our country. Klaus Schwab’s “life by subscription”, quote, is really serfdom. It’s slavery. Billionaire globalist corporations will own everything, homes, factories, farms, cars, furniture, and everyday citizens will rent what they need if their social credit score allows. The plan of the Great Reset is that you will die with nothing. To pull off this evil plan, Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum will need to take more than just material possessions from Australians. Senators in this very chamber today who support the Great Reset threaten our privacy, freedom, and dignity. Yes, they’re in this Senate Chamber. One Nation vehemently opposes the Great Reset, the Digital Identity Bill, theft of agricultural land use, forcing farmers off their land, and all of the Great Reset. One Nation has a comprehensive plan to bring our beautiful country back to sustainable prosperity, and in the months ahead, we will be rolling that plan out. 

Instead of Lib-Lab pushing Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset with the tagline, “You’ll own nothing and be happy,” One Nation advocates the Great Resist. We stand for a world where individuals and communities have primacy over predatory globalist billionaires and their quisling bureaucrats, politicians, and mouthpiece media. One Nation accepts the challenge to provide a better future for everyday Australians. We have one flag. We are one community, and we are one nation. 

It’s become clear that people in this country and globally have been steamrolled. It is also clear that it has been coordinated globally. It is also clear that it has been integrated not just over six months, not just over two and a half years, but it has been planned over decades. The changes to legislation in this country were done so that they could control doctors and people. But the people are waking, and it’s thanks to people like Dr. Altman and all the presenters here today, thanks to people like Senator Babet and Craig Kelly. We know and we knew that this is all bullshit and that we’ve been had. But we are going to hound you down, the people that are guilty, we are going to hound you down and hold you accountable and we will expose your global agenda so that the people of Australia can be free in the future, because I love my kids and I’m looking forward to my grandkids, and we are going to save this country. 

Alex Jones: That’s Senator Malcolm Roberts. We’re going to go on a break here in a few minutes and come back and get a whole bunch of topics and documents he sent. But look, we’re under attack. They’re giving us poison shots. They’re cutting off our energy. They’re literally saying they want to get rid of most of the farms. They’re saying big corporations will own everything. This is tyranny and you have to get aggressive and you have to realise it’s a new type of war. It’s economic war, and that’s not a new type, but the way they’re deploying it is new. 

And what Malcolm Roberts is doing, the senator, is exposing that this is global. We all have the same enemies with Klaus Schwab saying, bragging with David Gergen famously, “We penetrates the cabinets. We controls the cabinets,” and then you’ve got his… They say, “Well, who’s your best minion? Trudeau is the best, and what does Trudeau say? “I want a basic dictatorship. I admire Xi Jinping.” Hillary’s on TV twice the last two weeks saying, “Ban free speech.” New York Times says, “Time to get rid of the Constitution.” I mean, these people aren’t even hiding it anymore. And whereas Australia is ahead on the tyranny and behind on the awakening, because I followed it closely, it’s explosive and you see it going straight up here. It’s starting to go straight up in Australia and Europe, and it’s exciting. Elon Musk is full in. All the top talk show hosts are full in. Populists are winning elections everywhere. It’s happening. 

We’ll be right back with Senator Malcolm Roberts straight ahead, and we’ll tell you about their party and more and how you get involved in their organisation. We’re all one nation, the human nation, against the new world order. 

Video: At thealexjonesstore.com, we don’t just sell products and t-shirts, we empower patriots to stay strong in the fight for freedom. Our best selling items like Ultimate Sea Moss and our amazing fundraiser t-shirts help keep Americans fighting for freedom outwardly and inwardly as they support the InfoWars broadcast and the Alex Jones broadcast as well. Conspiracies are no longer conspiracies, they’re truths. We love the shirts, and not only that, I just wish more people would get wise. Elect Donald Trump, baby. That’s right. That’s what I’m voting for, and I’m Hispanic. We hear stories like this every day. Real Americans, just like you, reclaiming their freedom with our cutting-edge supplements and t-shirts available right now at thealexjonesstore.com. Everyone, I wanted to recommend the AJ store. This is my first time buying. Obviously, it won’t be my last. I’m going after the, “Alex Jones was right.” That will be my next purchase. And the gummies, I really want those gummies. At thealexjonesstore.com, we stand behind every product with rigorous testing in unparalleled quality. But don’t just take our word for it, see what thousands of satisfied customers are saying and experience the benefits for yourself. I stand for Alex Jones, the AJ store, and all of us patriots, and God bless my new shirt and God bless you all. America will rise again. Head to thealexjonesstore.com today, read the reviews, and join the movement of informed empowered patriots taking their health and style into their own hands. Don’t wait. Stack up now because your freedom and future depend on it. Visit thealexjonesstore.com right now. We’re now winning. 

Alex Jones: We’re about to recapture the whole country when we get Trump elected. They already tried to kill him twice. There’s other assassinations public doesn’t know about. I want to quantify something before we go back to Senator Malcolm Roberts in Australia, and I don’t tell the stories that’s about me, it’s about understanding and giving people a lot of hope because they have the facts. I’ve been on the air 30 years and we were already number one on Shoutcast and internet streaming ahead of music 23, 24 years ago. There was almost no news about the new world order and the globalist and the unelected EU, and nobody really knew who Nigel Farage was, but he had his new party with only a few members and we would get him on. Decade later, and you can find the clips, he came on without me even asking. He was, “I am on as a guest about something else,” and he said, “Half the support in UKIP came from your show,” because we were number 45 at times, biggest website in the UK according to Alexa tracking. 

So, we were in the 40s for years, and we had millions of people just in the UK alone tuning in every week via 14-bit streams that we were streaming out and paying for ourselves. It sounded like a tin can, but people were listening and that just shows how infectious, in a good way, the truth is because I was showing documents, I was showing reality, and they had Brexit and the globalist came in and manipulated that and tried to block it. Now, there’s all these EU countries trying to leave, but it’s unelected at the top with the EU Commission. It’s hard to do, but we’re not going to take things back right away. They’ve got a lot of tricks up their sleeve. But just look what this show did with my guests and everybody in the UK and Nigel Farage saying, “UKIP blew up because of this show.” He’d go to people’s doors and at first they know who he was. He’d talk to them, they go, “Oh, I saw you and Alex Jones. Yeah, I’m going to support the party.” 

So, it’s like fire. We can burn down tyranny, I mean that as a non-violent analogy, with this. And you don’t just need Alex Jones, you’ve got Malcolm Roberts, you’ve got tens of thousands of prominent men and women around the world fighting this. But then you’ve got Elon Musk converting to reality because he’s seen the tyranny for himself, and now he’s as, quote, “hardcore” as I am. So, Malcolm, I wanted to ask you about Elon Musk and just how big a game changer you think he is on this because he’s exposing the climate power grab, the depopulation plan, the COVID power grab, the ESG scores. At the world government conference of the WEF last year, he told them their face they’re a global tyranny. I mean, Elon Musk I think in many ways is more important than Trump. What’s your view on him? 

Malcolm Roberts: He is very, very important. I don’t know him too much in detail, and I don’t talk about things I don’t know a lot about. But I do know one thing about him for sure, and that is that our eSafety commissar in this country, Julie Inman Grant… She’s a bureaucrat looking to censor people. She was appointed by the liberals, and she’s now getting her powers enhanced by the Labour Party. She’s an American, and she’s come over here and she’s head of our eSafety division, which is an internet censorship. She took him on. She used to be employed by Twitter when it was called Twitter, then he bought it out. She recently took him to court, and she lost. She absolutely got smashed. 

Alex Jones: Beautiful. 

Malcolm Roberts: Anybody who takes on the eSafety commissar is a good guy to me. I look at what people do, not what they say, and I look at what he’s done on X and now he’s opened that up. We used to get suppressed and heavily censored on X, or Twitter as it was. Now, we’re free again and we’re saying whatever we want to say. The best way to protect truth and to determine the truth, Alex, as you know, is to have free speech debate, open debate, that’s the best way, and what we’ve got is a bureaucrat wanting to control that. So, Elon’s standing up against that, and that is fundamental to human progress. 

The number one trade, number one key to human progress is freedom. Because one thing humans are doing, we’re very, very creative. You might come up with an idea, you might share it with someone else. That second person blows it out of the water. Then third person gets the idea and makes a wonderful product or service out of it. That’s the beauty of humans, that we communicate and we travel. That’s the essence of humans, and we do so with good motives, most of us, that Elon Musk is lighting that up again, allowing that to happen. 

When I was first elected into the Senate, I just barely squeaked in. Our party boss said, “Let’s go up to the park, and we’ll have a media conference.” And there, I was asked the usual. I had about 20 journalists in front of me and my wife and my son. The journalists were asking all the nice questions like, “How many kids you got? What are your hobbies? Blah, blah, blah.” And then one guy was off to the side and I noticed him off to the side, and he stood up and he said after a while, in words that were inoffensive but the tone was basically, “You are that wanker who thinks that this global climate change is all about global governance.” Most politicians in that position would’ve said, “That’s not what I went… That’s not…” But I just looked at him and said, “Yes, that’s correct. Next question.” He didn’t know what to do. My point is that we need to stand up together, all of us, with Elon Musk and speak the truth. That’s the fundamental thing we need to do. 

Alex Jones: What you just said, Senator, is the key. Stop apologising for telling the truth. Stop acting like the establishment has the authority, they’re losing it, the people are turning against it, and own being the black sheep, the rebel against tyranny, being the Robin Hood. You raised that. I noticed you sent me some key articles here. They’re doing the same thing here. “Oh, we’re going to create an internet ID. It’s in Canada, Australia, the US, Europe, it’s just for the kids.” But then they admit this internet ID is for everybody to bring in the social credit score, the ESG, just like they tried to use vaccine passports as that. Bill Gates, the UN admits it. So, this is critical to their total control to get this in. They’re so close all over the world. Describe what’s happening, “Australia plans to bar young children from social media.” Sounds nice, but what’s really happening? 

Malcolm Roberts: That’s just a way of putting something in place for rolling it out to everyone, just giving themselves the power to do it, to control everyone. Alex, take a step back and look at what’s going on. They stole farmers’ property rights. The fundamental trait in human civilizations is secure property rights. That drives our initiative. It drives our sense of responsibility, drives innovation. That, they stole, and it was the right wing who supposedly, right-wing government… I don’t like using left and right. It’s bullshit. It’s just a fabrication. But our conservative, our liberal government, stole farmers’ property rights in 1996 to 2007 under John Howard’s governance. Now, he was supposed to be one of the best prime ministers. When I look into some of the things he’s done, many people don’t realise it. So, what I’m saying is, they’re wolves in sheep’s clothing. 

Both parties are pushing this agenda. They stole farmers’ property rights, which is fundamental, they’re destroying family, there’s controlling speech, they’re destroying religion, bad-mouthing Christianity, which gave us our Western Civilization, the fundamentals of Western Civilization, our values, and they’re putting controls in place like this social media control that you’re talking about. They’re doing all the things that a communist party would do because they are communist in their approach. What I’m saying is that the blue party here, the liberals, the so-called free enterprise party, and the red party, the Labour Party, the supposedly socialist party are pushing this, but the Socialist Party is not doing things for workers. I’ve had to take on the Socialist Government over wage theft of workers losing up to $41,000 per year per person, and they’re wanting to cover it up and we are still fighting on that. 

Alex Jones: Oh, that’s just like the unions selling out workers here. Next topic you sent, and this is happening in the United States very quietly. I have two people, 20 years ago, was in the documents. Now, they’re doing it in California, they’re doing it in Oregon, they’re doing it in Colorado, New York. In your country, Energex, that’s a big company, remotely cuts power to 170,000 air conditioners six times in a month, and now they’re giving people notices on their digital thermostats that they’ve taken control of it for climate change, and again just like Enron was caught scamming people and charging more. This is technocracy. Explain what this is, Senator. 

Malcolm Roberts: This is control of energy. Because once you have control, as Kissinger himself have said, one of the most evil globalists of all, “If you can control energy, food, and money, you have control of the country.” And then that’s what they’re doing here. It’s technocracy. They also have encouraged people through massive subsidies that we pay for. I won’t fall for the scam, so I have refused to have solar panels put on my roof. What they’ve done now is they’re wanting to turn off your solar panels from feeding energy into the grid because the grid is unstable. We used to have the world’s cheapest electricity in the world because of our coal-fired power stations. Now, we’ve got amongst the most expensive because we’ve got the highest level of subsidies. There’s so many things, Alex. 

What they’re trying to do now is put smart metres to not only control air conditioners and when you’ll use your power and how you’ll use it, but to actually control the supply from the house solar panels into the grid. And also when they shut it down, you won’t be able to use the power generated on your own bloody solar panels. That’s what they’re trying to do. They’re trying to control the whole way we live. Look at it, they’re destroying it. 

Alex Jones: Same thing being done here. Same thing in Europe. They put in the solar panels, get you to pay for it, claim there’s a rebate, and then turn around later and say, “Oh, it isn’t working in the grid.” And then now they’re trying to pass laws in some areas where you can’t have your own independent solar panels. 

Malcolm Roberts: Right. So, what we’re also doing, Alex, is we are paying subsidies which drive up the cost of our electricity. We’re paying subsidies to parasitic billionaires, parasitic corporations, mostly foreign-owned, many of them from China, to instal solar and wind here, which is driving up the cost of electricity. The number one cost component in manufacturing today, it’s not labour, it’s electricity. Labour is based out of manufacturing because of the mechanisation and the control automation. So, electricity. Now, what happens is we buy our bloody solar panels and our wind turbines from China. China imports some of our coal for them to make those things. So, we’re sending them our resources. We’re a bigger supplier of iron ore for their steel, which goes into turbines. So, we’re supplying the resources to China. China is then turning that into coal-fired power at 8 cents a kilowatt hour. We’re using the same power here with no transport costs, and we’re selling it at 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt hour. Our manufacturing is going broke and being shipped to China. Our factories and work and jobs- 

Alex Jones: Absolutely… 

Malcolm Roberts: … are being shipped to China. So, we are supplying them with that. We are the world’s largest exporters of hydrocarbon fuels. That’s coal, oil, and natural gas. We’ve got huge exports of coal and natural gas. The largest exporter, we can’t use the stuff here, but we can send it to China and let them generate cheap electricity out of it and smash us. And then [inaudible 00:39:33]. 

Alex Jones: And that’s because the globalists have made a deal with them. They made a deal to do that that Trump was trying to kill. 

Malcolm Roberts: Correct. 

Alex Jones: Talking about coal, we have clean burning coal plants, so they put out carbon dioxide and water vapour. So, they list carbon dioxide as toxic, as you said. It’s one of the four keys of life, water, sunlight, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and they are shutting it down all over the West and moving it all to China and India and Mexico that have dirty plants. It’s totally insane. But, again, it centralises power. 

Malcolm Roberts: Exactly. It gives them control over us. That’s what they’re wanting to do. We also know that what they’re wanting to do is smash down private enterprise, private initiative, private ownership. That’s what I mentioned in my speech about the Great Reset. They’re wanting to smash private ownership and then you’ll become dependent on them. So, whether you get your food, whether you get your electricity, you’ll depend on your social credit score. This has all been done. It’s being done in China. They want to turn us. Alex, before the Industrial Revolution, there was basically feudalism, and we were serfs on land that the baron or the lord of the manor controlled and he gave us the use of enough land to sustain ourselves, but he took most of our work results. He took most of the product, the fruits of our labour. 

What they’re wanting to do now… And then we had the Industrial Revolution, we had the development of science, and science is wonderful because it’s the basis of freedom. Because up until science, someone with the strongest religious fear, someone with the biggest army, the financial power, the property ownership, they controlled what we said, what we did, how we lived, whether or not we lived at times in the so-called civilised countries at the time. They lost all of that when science came out and started making decisions based on our objective data, but they also lost it with the Industrial Revolution. We had a huge middle-class burgeon across the western world that freed slaves. So, we had slavery abolished, we had a middle-class rising, we had the people having the power through choice through private enterprise and the philosophy- 

Alex Jones: Instead, they’re teaching us to hate the West because the globalists have written their own books. We’ve covered it here that if the world aspires to the civil wars and the things that happened in what is England today, in Scotland, Ireland that then develop the freedoms that spread to America and the rest of the world, the flower or the Renaissance, if the world aspires to the ideas that we promoted in a middle-class and freedom, that makes globalism look terrible and no one’s going to want it. But if they can discredit and de-industrialise and culturally destroy the West, then everyone will fall to this new corporate world government hellhole. 

Malcolm Roberts: Exactly. I’ve been in all 50 of yours American states. I went over there when I was 24, and I fell in love with [inaudible 00:42:28]. I mean, I’m very proud of my country, but I loved America. I mean, America, and I’ve got to put a caveat on that, has been decimated in the last 30 years thanks to- 

Alex Jones: I want to ask- 

Malcolm Roberts: … both the Obamas, the Clintons. I mean, you’ve been ruled by criminals and literally ruled. But I was fascinated by America, all 50 states. It was nothing to just be driving through some place in bankrupt black box of Idaho or Iowa and see a massive building constructed by someone and across the top of the portal would be dedicated to people of the world, and it was genuine. I felt the energy. I arrived just before Reagan took over and I was there when he took over, and I felt the energy. He picked up the whole damn country and said, “Stop being embarrassed and stop being ashamed of your country and be proud.” I’ve never seen so many people lifted up by one person trying to bring back freedom, and that’s the fundamental thing. We’ve got to be free because that’s the key to human prosperity, human civilization. 

What they’re wanting, Alex, to get back to what I was saying before, they’re wanting to take us back to serfdom, and this time it’ll be a digitally-imposed serfdom with restrictions. So, what they’re wanting us to be is producers against serfs and happy little consumers that’ll buy only the products that they want to sell us, which will be drugs and diseases that keep us in disease. They don’t want to kill us, they want to keep us just on the edge of death so that we become lifetime subscribers to big pharma. 

I mean, big pharma controls 75% of the advertising revenue in your country, not in your show, that’s for sure. Defence, they create wars, and your country has turned into… Instead of being the beacon of the world, it is now… It’s got wonderful people still. Americans are just beautiful. I’m married to an American. Our kids are dual citizens because… So, I love Americans, but the government of America has now become a terrorist organisation, willy-nilly just invading any country it will, and that is infected in some of our countries around the world as well because we just madly follow you into war. I mean, it’s just insane, but the people are starting to wake up. 

Alex Jones: Well, let’s talk about that. Senator Malcolm Roberts from Australia, one of the main voices fighting tyranny over there for all of us. And if Australia follows the new order completely, it’s going to be bad for everybody. Looking at the situation of the Russia, Ukraine, looking at the kleptocracy, attempts to kill Trump, what is your view on the war going on there, the Middle East? And then what’s your view on President Trump, and what would’ve happened if Trump would’ve been killed? 

Malcolm Roberts: Well, I don’t know what would’ve happened if Trump had been killed. But I’ll tell you something I do know, and that is what Pauline Hanson, the leader of our party, and I did in the forecourt of Parliament House in Canberra here in Australia, when Donald Trump was elected in 2016, we popped the bottle of champagne to celebrate it. Now, I don’t drink, but we had to show our support. 

If America is free, the world has a better chance of being free. The only way America can be free again is if Trump gets elected. The globalists are terrified. The media, the mouthpiece, media, the Big Brother media, they’re terrified. He got them eating themselves. I mean, he just stood up to them. The man is amazing. So, Donald Trump is essential for the whole damn planet because he is essential, just like Reagan lifted up America. I get goosebumps just thinking about it. Anyway, I won’t get back to the details there. But just like Reagan lifted America up again and revitalised America, Trump can. America is extremely important to the world. We’ve got to get America back on track, and the only person who can get America back on track is Donald Trump. That’s our best hope for the future. 

Alex Jones: Senator Roberts, we’ve only got about three minutes left. There I am having champagne with Roger Stone, election night, 2016. I hope to be doing that again, coming up here in 24 days. We’ve got about three minutes. Very impressive what you’re doing. You’re fighting for all of us. I want everybody out there to share this interview everywhere and get more Australians awake. Every person we wake up is key in this fight. People are ready to be awoken. Three minute closing comments, Sir. 

Malcolm Roberts: I’m fiercely pro-human, Alex. First of all, I want to thank you for what you’re doing. You’re a beacon of hope around the world. I mean, just amazing. I’m fiercely pro-human because humans are wonderful. We’ve got some who are parasites, some who are control freaks, who want to keep us in fear, but we need to remember, always beneath control, there is fear. The parasitic globalists are afraid of us. Tucker Carlson came over here and spoke so wonderfully. He spoke for 50 minutes. And at the end of his show, his call to action was one word, “Speak.” So, everyone around the world start to realise just how wonderful humans are, how caring we are, how loving we are. We’re the only ones with the ability to reason. 

The globalists have been telling us that human civilization and the environment are not compatible. That is complete bullshit. The human civilization, if you go to civilised countries around the world, the higher the development, the lesser the impact on the environment. The future of our civilization depends upon having a healthy environment. The future of the environment depends upon having a healthy civilization because the higher developed our civilization is, the lesser our impact on the environment. That is around the world. Go to a poor country in Africa, and you’ll find them shitting in the creek because they can’t afford any services and they’re too busy scratching for the next meal for their kids. So, look at us here in Australia, in America, civilised, developed countries. We have lower impact on the environment. But our number one goal, they’re telling us, the globalists are telling us, should be to protect the environment. That is complete horse shit. What our number one goal should be is to have our species flourishing, our species to be flourishing. 

So, just remember that what they’re telling us about our human race is lies. What they’re trying to do is set us down for control, keep us under fear. And what we need to do is to recognise just how wonderful we are. Sure, we’ve got people who go off the rails now and then. That’s part of their natural variation, but we’ve got ways of dealing with that. So, just remember that humans are… The future of our planet depends upon humans being humans and flourishing. I believe every human should have one goal, and that is for the human species to flourish. And that means peace, it means cooperation, it means work, it means free markets, it means free thought, it means free speech, free movement, free travel, free association, free exchange. All the things these parasitic bastards of the globalists are trying to get rid of, Alex, is what we need to stand up and fight for. 

Freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of travel, freedom of association, freedom of initiative, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, these are the things, fundamental. It’s like they say, “If you’re a doctor at a hospital and they bring in some regime like COVID shots, mandated them, and you stand up alone, then you’ve got a problem. But if the doctors stand up, say 9 out of the 20 doctors at a regional hospital, stand up, the hospital has a problem.” In a totalitarian government, totalitarian country, the people are controlled by the government. In a true democracy, the government is controlled by the people, and that’s what we need to get back to. 

Alex Jones: Absolutely. 

Malcolm Roberts: But it’ll only come back if we speak amongst each other and spread the word, spread what’s going on. So, thank you so much. I’ve got to finish with thanks to you, Alex, because you have been under the pump for years and years and years and you’ve been saying the same thing, and now there are many people around the world waking up. So, thank you and keep going. 

Alex Jones: We salute all of you there in Australia. A lot of great listeners there. God bless you, Sir. We’ll talk soon. 

Malcolm Roberts: Thanks, Alex. 

Alex Jones: All right, Dr. Stella Immanuel is [inaudible 00:50:37] bear on all the different news and all the different medical news coming up, and I want to show her in one hour. I can’t do this without you. I need your support. Support our sponsors, drjonesnaturals.com. You want Next Level Foundational Energy. It’s not a stimulant, but it does it naturally and it feels like a stimulant. It’s got the methylfolate. Look into that. The multivitamin, whole food, all the other products, the Kava Chill is amazing, the Rocket Rest sleep aid. The Top Brain nootropic, that is an amazing natural stimulant formulation. It’s all at drjonesnaturals.com. Critical to support that sponsor to keep us on air one way or another. Plus, we are also building an infrastructure with folks if they do shut us down in 31 days. Drjonesnaturals.com, go there now. Next Level Foundational Energy, Kava Chill, Rocket Rest, Top Brain, the whole food multivitamin, check it all out, take action, drjonesnaturals.com. The Colloidal Silver, highest quality, it’s all there… and thealexjonesstore.com. 

Video: I’ve talked about this over the years quite a bit. I know supplements are great. It’s a huge market. People buy them because they work. That’s why it’s one of the fastest growing markets, not just in America, but in the world. In fact, supplements are the fastest growing overall industry and market, except for AI. It’s the second fastest continually growing market because it works. That’s why people produce good supplements because people use them, they like the results, and then they continue to buy them. So, one of the hottest items for decades on the market is super green foods, and there’s hundreds of different brands out there. Some are okay, some are amazing, some are incredible. 

Ladies and gentlemen, the top one on the market, cost almost $100 a canister because it has over 90 ingredients and it’s superfood and it really works and it’s expensive to make. Well, we have a sponsor, Optimal Human, available at thealexjonesstore.com, that is just as good or even better with the same ingredients and even more at a price, on average, $40 less than the top competitor. And when it’s discounted as it is right now exclusively at thealexjonesstore.com, it’s even more than $40 off. Optimal Human is amazing. You can buy a canister of it by itself or the welcoming pack. It’s got some notes, some information, and the mixing bottle, which is really easy to use. But you can also just put it in water and stir it with a spoon, but it just takes longer. Go to thealexjonesstore.com and get Optimal Human today and some of the other great supplements that are game-changing like the Sea Moss that has a key form of iodine and a bunch of other incredible minerals and nutrients that do, again, game-changing things to your body. 

But let me just read to you some of the things in Optimal Human available at thealexjonesstore.com, the lowest price you’re going to find it, “Organic reishi mushroom for brain health, it’s a nootropic, no letdown, amazing. Turmeric root for joint health and beyond, destroys inflammation.” It is, again, simply imperative that you get turmeric. This is a high quality source of it. “Beet root for cardiovascular health. CoQ10 for cellular health.” Everybody knows about CoQ10. It has organic, really high quality form of CoQ10 in it. “Probiotics for gut health, so your body absorbs it better, and over 90 other ingredients that are almost impossible to get through the average American diet.” 

Even if you’re eating organic crops, the soils have been played out. That’s why people have to eat so much to feel like they’re full because you’ve got to get more of the food to get the same nutrients. So, I want to encourage everybody to visit thealexjonesstore.com today. Get amazing supplements like Optimal Health and of course the Sea Moss and great t-shirts, all caps and hoodies. All of this will keep us on the air. They’re amazing products. So, it’s a 360 win. Please visit the thealexjonesstore.com today, and I thank you humbly for your support. 

The government is trying to rush through the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill at all costs. It seems they’ve seen this week what happens to their side of politics when voters are presented with the facts and are allowed to make their own decisions.

Despite the government’s claims, it’s not out of the ordinary to talk about Bills at Senate Estimates. I’ll be at the hearing on Monday with my questions.

(And Heston Russell hasn’t received an apology from the ABC for their misinformation).

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: ACMA is appearing in the committee hearing on Monday?

Ms O’Loughlin: With my colleagues on Monday, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll do it then. That’s fine. I want to look at a particular case study. It is the case of special forces veteran Heston Russell. The ABC said it was inadvertent and that it wasn’t a calculated, deliberate manipulation. They deny manipulating a video to make it look like multiple gunshots were fired at a person. Heston Russell was a victim of disinformation from the ABC. Under the proposed misinformation and disinformation laws, the ABC would be exempt from punishment by spreading disinformation. Correct?

Ms O’Loughlin: I don’t think I can form a view on that, Senator.

Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, I think this goes to the point Senator Grogan was making. You are really asking how the bill will operate in practice. This is a question that has been referred to this committee. You have scheduled hearings to deal with it on Monday.

Senator ROBERTS: I think that is drawing a long bow, Minister, but I’m happy to leave it until Monday.

Senator McAllister: It is an unusual Senate rule, but it is a very longstanding one, Senator. It has been like this the whole time we’ve been here together.

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that. As I’ve said, I will comply with it for the other questions. I didn’t think that one was about—

Ms O’Loughlin: The only thing I would add to that is that obviously the ABC needs to comply with its own code of practice around things like factual accuracy.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. And we’ve seen how that goes. This is my final question. It is about the digital restack. I looked through your annual work program report and found this comment regarding the digital television channel restack. I quote:

Exploring possible parameters and solutions for channel planning relevant to possible new shared multiplex arrangements. This work will provide evidence to inform any future restack—

The restack was to be a closing up of digital TV channels. This sounds like you have something else in mind for the sixth channel, the gap between each station. What is the plan for the restack now?

Ms O’Loughlin: The Minister for Communications gave a speech a couple of weeks ago at our RadComms conference. They were talking about a program of work that needed to be done around the future of television. Her emphasis in that was that free-to-air television is incredibly important in Australia because it reaches 99 per cent of the population. It is free to air. How is that going to evolve over the next 10 years? Will it be terrestrially driven or will some of it go online? The minister was talking about a managed and staged process of thinking about the future of broadcasting, including the broadcasters, ourselves, the department and the audiences for those programs. It is looking at how that future state of broadcasting can be managed. A small part of that is what happens to the spectrum that may be freed up over that process. Part of our job is what that might be and when that might occur. The annual report says that requires channel planning. A whole lot of spectrum planning would have to be done to facilitate any movement of the broadcasters and the freeing up of that spectrum over time.

Senator ROBERTS: What does that mean in English, so that people can understand? What is the reality? You have said managed and staged, which indicates to me that it is more than just a premonition of an idea that something might happen. Something is happening.

Ms O’Loughlin: The minister’s announcement was about some things that have happened recently. For example, in Mildura, the Channel 10 services were turned off because the local providers who provided that service didn’t think it was financially feasible to continue it. It has an impact on consumers. WIN has made some changes to its arrangements in other parts of the country, where it is sharing its own infrastructure. That has an implication. That has actually not affected those audiences very well. I think what the minister is saying is that if there is going to be an end state where broadcasting wants to go, we need to think about all the steps that have to take place for that to get there effectively. That is what is alluded to. There is what is called a future broadcasting working group, which the minister has asked to be reinvigorated, to start thinking about these issues for the next 10 or 15 years, not the next two or three.

I joined Efrat Fenigson on her podcast where we discussed the anti-human agenda and how it has manifested in Australia over the last several years. We discuss the climate change fraud, COVID injections, economic changes needed, Digital ID, and lots more.

Efrat’s Introduction

My guest today is Senator Malcolm Roberts, an Australian politician from Queensland and a member of the Australian Senate. With a background in engineering, mining, business and economics, Senator Roberts is a climate realist, challenging mainstream climate science and exposing lies in this field. Unlike most politicians these days, Senator Roberts is a Truth teller and does not shy away from any topic: public health, Covid, immigration, finance, economics, sexual education for children and more.

In this episode we talk about the anti-human globalist agenda and how it manifested in Australia over the past few years. We cover the Senator’s fight against climate fraud, his efforts to help Covid-19 jabs injured, to expose excess deaths and more, while holding politicians accountable, encouraging people to reclaim their power. The Senator criticizes the centralization of government and the media by globalists, introducing new levels of censorship on Australians. The conversation concludes with monetary and economic changes in Australia, including the move to a cashless society, CBDC, digital IDs, 15-minute cities and more.

The senator highlights the importance of simplicity and the power of individual responsibility in creating positive change and waking people up to the truth. He concludes with a message of hope, urging individuals to be proud of their humanity and to share information to help others become informed.

Chapters

00:00:00 Coming Up…
00:01:06 Introduction to Senator Roberts
00:03:19 Politicians in Today’s Reality
00:11:06 Ad Break: Trezor, Bitcoin Nashville, BTC Prague
00:13:03 Why Politics?
00:16:56 About Human Progress
00:23:04 Australian Politics & Activism
00:25:02 Political Structure in Australia
00:28:47 Balancing the Exaggerated Power of the State
00:30:38 Truth Telling, Simplicity & Education
00:35:02 Efrat’s Resistance to Green Pass During Covid
00:38:01 Senator’s Climate Fraud Views
00:44:30 How To Break The Narrative?
00:49:21 Admitting Being Fooled About Covid
00:55:40 Excess Death & Vaxx Injuries in Australia
01:03:08 Australia’s During Covid & Bigger Picture
01:12:46 Compensation Plan For Vaxx Injured
01:14:24 Media, Censorship & Fear in Australia
01:22:04 Role of Regulation, Legislation, Censorship
01:26:53 CBDC & Digital IDs in Australia
01:32:29 Globalists Vision For Useless Eaters
01:33:58 Money Agenda, Cashless Society & How To Fight Back
01:44:05 Protecting Your Wealth & Family
01:48:04 Bitcoin & Nation States
01:50:01 Globalists Control & A Message Of Hope

Links

Free TV Australia

Reset Tech Australia

Institute of Public Affairs

Digital Rights Watch

Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance

Program: 11 October 2024

Submissions