censorship Archives - Page 2 of 4

Is the UK Sliding into Dystopia? Australia Could Be Next!

Watching the sad events currently underway in the United Kingdom, one might be forgiven for thinking we’ve descended into the dystopian world long foretold by classic literature. One Nation agrees with Milton – free circulation of ideas is essential to moral and intellectual growth. To attempt to preclude falsehoods underestimates the power of truth.

Originally intended to prevent incitement to violence, hate speech laws have now devolved to the point where criticising the government has become a criminal offense, leading to the imprisonment of citizens in the UK. At the same time, the UK Government is failing to ensure the safety of its own streets. The UK clearly has 2-tiered policing.

As we face the next manufactured social or medical crises, there is no doubt that Australia’s law enforcement will commit the same abuses of civil rights that we are currently witnessing in the UK. Only by voting wisely will prevent Australia from following the UK’s path – turning into a communist state.

To conclude, let me be clear: there is no justification for violence from either side of a protest. Equally, the actions of a few should not result in the stripping away of rights from the many.

Transcript

Watching the sad events currently unfolding and underway in the United Kingdom, one can be forgiven for thinking we’d descended into the dystopian world so long predicted in the classic literature. George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four is just one warning, which ironically appears to have been become an instruction manual for the political left. An interview with George Orwell recently surfaced in which Orwell thought there was a possibility Nineteen Eighty-Four could happen in the UK. He was right, again.

Orwell’s description of what looks like the UK under Labour’s Keir Starmer reads as follows:

In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement—

that’s porn and transgenderism by the way—

There will be no loyalty except loyalty to the Party. But always there will be the intoxication of power. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who’s helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever. The moral to be drawn from this dangerous nightmare situation is … don’t let it happen.

One Nation are doing everything we can to prevent this nightmare overtaking Australia. Sadly, the globalist Liberals, Labor, Greens, Nationals and teals intend to push ahead into hell.

Another futuristic story, written in 1961 and titled Harrison Bergeron, from American science fiction writer Kurt Vonnegut, predicted a future where human behaviour was controlled—physical movement and appearance and thought. High-IQ citizens were punished with earpieces that played loud sounds every 30 seconds to prevent them from thinking so they did not outshine low-IQ people. The strong were literally weighted down with ball bearings to reduce their strength to that of the worst weakling. The attractive were forced to wear ugly masks so nobody was made to feel uncomfortable gazing upon someone more attractive than themselves. A quote to explain his predication, which is often incorrectly attributed to Dostoevsky, simply reads, ‘Tolerance will reach such a level that intelligent people will be banned from thinking so as not to offend the imbeciles.’

Vonnegut’s view was mirrored in an interview with a former resident of the Soviet Union that was described to me. It consisted of the fellow drawing three stick figures on a piece of paper, two at the same height and one taller, then saying, ‘In the Soviet Union everyone is equal,’ before taking his pencil and drawing a line across the top of the two smaller figures thereby severing the head of the third. ‘Such is life in the Soviet Union,’ he said. Keir Starmer’s communism is the victory of those who have lost their humanity, morality and faith or, as Orwell describes them, ‘those who thrill in the delight of the kill’. Perhaps UK citizens would agree it’s time to add a footnote to the famous quote from Descartes, ‘I think therefore I am—arrested.’

It’s just like the young man in Belfast who was recently arrested for observing a protest, only to have District Judge Rafferty and the Belfast Magistrates Court decide that someone’s presence, including as a curious observer, involves them in such disorder as to justify the refusal of bail. And off to jail he went. That young man had never been in trouble with the police before and had even left when the event became violent. There’s no provision in common or statute law that reads, ‘Injustice is allowed if it exists to make an example of one to intimidate others into disobedience,’ yet here we are.

Similar behaviour was observed in Australia during COVID. The conversation around events in the UK has so far missed an important element. The United Kingdom has been here before. Former Queensland premier Campbell Newman reminded the internet last week of the Areopagitica, which carries the full title: A speech of Mr. John Milton for the Liberty of Unlicenc’d Printing, to the Parlament of England. This was a pamphlet published in 1644 to protest a parliamentary order of the previous year requiring government approval and licensing of all published works and pamphlets. This measure was introduced after Milton’s treatise in favour of divorce upset the king, Charles I. History appears to be repeating—the uniparty’s misinformation disinformation censorship bill.

In Areopagitica, Milton defends the free circulation of ideas as essential to moral and intellectual development. Furthermore, he asserts, to attempt to preclude falsehood is to underestimate the power of truth, a lesson for our eSafety Commissioner, who clearly believes the reverse is true. While the immediate objective of the Areopagitica repeal of licensing was not obtained for another 50 years, the tract has earned a permanent place in the literature of human rights.

Repeal took 50 years because, as it turned out, each new government kept that power in order to protect themselves from criticism. Power freely given is never freely surrendered. Here we are 380 years later and Australia is making exactly the same mistake, but One Nation isn’t. The rest of the parties in this place are. Keir Starmer famously took the knee during Black Lives Matter riots and now puts English lives matter
demonstrators on their knees. The start of the trouble was the murder of three young girls at the hands of a suspected Islamic terrorist. If you want to look for the cause of the frustration being demonstrated among everyday Brits, look no further than a failure to keep the public safe. It is basic. Fear used as a weapon of control during COVID has bitten the hand that created it. There is an opportunity cost to arresting citizens for thought crimes like: praying in public; watching—but not participating in—a protest; making posts on social media critical of the government— posts which do not incite violence or incite the breaking of a law; posting up first-hand stories of vaccine harm; and of course, criticising the religion that can’t be criticised using nothing but their own words.

That opportunity cost is the policing of real crime. Over the last 10 years, according to the UK’s statistics office: assault with grievous bodily harm is up 100 per cent—doubled; assault with an injury is up 80 per cent—almost doubled; rape of an adult female up 370 per cent—almost five times; rape of a minor is up 100 per cent. In fact, the conviction rate of rapists in the UK is currently five per cent and not all of those even go to jail. Only last week a migrant was given a suspended sentence for raping a 13-year-old British girl. The court accepted his defence that he did not know that an adult raping a child was against the law in the UK. Imagine being that child’s parents. Imagine being that child. Is it any wonder the Brits are demonstrating this two-tiered justice system? The commentariat, who are denying the right of people to protest peacefully, including many of the usual suspects in here in Australia, are commenting on a world their wealth and their elitist lifestyles insulate them from.

A Merseyside chief constable made a comment last week, apparently unaware this is the exact upside-down policing, the exact two-tier policing, the public are protesting about. They said, ‘What I would say to those people who think they have gotten away with being involved in disorder, we are coming for you. We have hours of social media and closed circuit TV footage. I have officers working around the clock to identify you. We know who you are and we know where you live and where you work.’

Why is this relevant to Australia? Because our law enforcement have been equipped with the powers to do exactly the same thing. The Identity Verification Services Act together with the Digital ID Act, which Labor minister Katy Gallagher passed through the parliament this year, allows law enforcement to obtain the image of any person anywhere any time from traffic cameras, security cameras, closed circuit TV and main roads, even in supermarkets.

All this with a spurious ‘suspected of a crime’ justification. It then allows law enforcement to go through the video, one frame at a time, to extract a photo of each attendee and run them through the national identity database, which currently contains data on 17 million Australians. Our police will indeed know your name; address; where you work, live and visit, and, once fully implemented, the system will be able to locate you from traffic cameras, payment scanners in shops and public transport touchpads in real time.

Welcome to your digital prison. One Nation warned you directly, loudly and often. During the next manufactured social and medical crisis, there’s no doubt our law enforcement will commit the same abuse of civil rights as we see happening in the UK right now. One Nation believes human rights should not be made subservient to the greed and hubris of those who would stamp on the face of their fellow citizens in the acquisition of wealth and power or, perversely, in the name of social justice. Measures to facilitate this censorship and destruction of human rights are winding our society back to the time of Milton, 380 years ago. The irony is this is the same Left who accused One Nation of wanting to wind the clock back!

As a closing remark, let me make it clear there’s no excuse for violence on either side of a protest. Equally, the actions of a few do not justify the removal of rights from the many. The actions of the few do not justify the removal of rights from the many. Human rights are universal, part of being human, inherent in each and all of us from birth.

August 19, 2024/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Digital ID, Independent Media and the Future of Conservatism in Australia

Media, National

I recently joined Melinda Richards on TNT Radio to discuss pressing issues facing Australia today. I emphasised the importance of independent media.

Our conversation turned to the Digital ID bill, which echoes the Australia Card proposal from the 1980’s—a proposal Australians firmly rejected.

We also discussed the erosion of conservative values within the Liberal Party and the urgent need for strong leadership to uphold these conservative principles.

Transcript

Melinda Richards: I’m joined by Senator Malcolm Roberts, one of the few politicians in Australia standing up for Australians and puts Australians first and his country first. Thank you again, Senator Roberts for joining me today.

Senator ROBERTS: You’re welcome and thank you for doing what you do on TNT because we need an independent news media. Part of the problem is that the governments are owned by major corporations who are in the media and that the messaging is false.

Melinda Richards: Yeah, it’s interesting. I just spoke about that this week that the government has now invested nearly $33 million into Channel 10 and had a little bit of a rant about that. And having government owned media is the worst idea that could possibly be put forward to a supposed free society. Senator Roberts, I wanted to talk to you about also the Australia card. You’re of the age, and I’m of the age, where we can remember the Australia card being proposed by Bob Hawke back in 1985 and he was intent on doing what the digital ID is going to do now. Of course, the digital ID would be 1000 times worse because we have the technology now, but back in the 80s, Australians said a resounding no to the Australia card and then they talked about it again a couple more times and Australians said a resounding no each time it came up. So of course, Australians probably would say a very loud, resounding no to the digital ID. Should this have gone to a referendum to the people? Because of course, this is going to be the biggest change that society’s going to have in the next coming decades.

Senator ROBERTS: Well, that’s one way certainly of doing it. We’ve got a One Nation policy – Citizens Initiated Referendum, which means that the people – it operates in some countries, Switzerland for example, and it brings accountability to the federal parliament. That’s where a citizen can say I don’t like a bill, he or she can make a petition, get sufficient signatures. Then the bill is put to, even if it’s been passed by the parliament, is put to the people and the people can say go to hell, remove the bill.
They can also hold politicians accountable and say we don’t like what you’re doing, Melinda, you’re out. You know that’s what we need, accountability. So yes, it should be put to the people. But the Australia card is a really important lesson because I didn’t pay much attention to it at the time. But as I understand it, Melinda, that was about making sure that people receiving welfare payments from the government, which is really from the taxpayer, were accountable and there’d be no cheating. And we see a lot of cheating on welfare these days. So that’s the intent. But even with that intent, the taxpayers say no, I’d rather lose my money than have the government watching over us.

Melinda Richards: We’d rather have people cheat then have people track US, have people follow, follow the ID number, have our ID number continuing to go through different aspects and parts of our society. The people of Australia at the time understood the implications. Are we a little bit more apathetic now or is it just that we are not really understanding what is being passed through parliament because it’s not being talked about much in the mainstream media?

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve, you’ve nailed it. The mouthpiece media, the legacy media, the Big Brother media, whatever you want to call it, do not talk about it because their masters are wanting this Digital ID to go through because they’ll be part of the corporations that it’ll be widened up to in the future.

Melinda Richards: I mean, we’re still looking at the money train then. We’re still looking at the people that are going to profit from this by controlling us and then pushing through different things and different subsidies and different parts of bills and ideas and things that we won’t even have a say in either.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s correct. Remember the three words, two points – control and wealth transfer. This is what it’s about. We’ve got the identity verification, which is a bill that went through earlier, a couple of months before, or a few months before the digital ID bill – that was about enabling biometric data to be used. Digital ID bill came up. The Misinformation-Disinformation bill was introduced by the Morrison Government, and it has been retracted or withdrawn – paused in its process through this parliament. So that’s coming up as well. That’s where they will control what you say and what you then do. So, this is all heading for control and enabling wealth transfer. Because we also know, thanks to my questioning at Senate estimates, that the Reserve Bank of Australia has been working on a digital currency and has been tying that up to work overseas on a global digital currency. I mean the Reserve Bank admitted it. So, this is putting everything in place for social credit score. And there were several amendments considered in the – it wasn’t a debate – in the passage of the bill through – the hijacking of the bill through the parliament. And not one word of debate was allowed on any of those amendments.

Melinda Richards: That’s incredible.

Senator ROBERTS: Yeah. And then the media doesn’t even report this going on. But this is typical of what the UNI party is doing. It’s not just the Labour Party. All of these bills, including the Digital ID bill, were introduced by the LNP, the Liberal National Party government.

Melinda Richards: I mean, do you think this is a really big problem for the conservative movement in Australia? I just had Andrew Cooper on earlier today talking about CPAC, talking about where the conservative movements going in Australia, particularly in light of what’s just happened in the UK election. I mean, the digital ID has got to be something, hasn’t it, that that the politicians, the conservative politicians in Australia and the conservative citizens of Australia should now be rallying behind almost as strongly as they did with the Voice referendum. I mean we know with the positive outcome that happened there that when we do rally, when we do understand things, when we look a little deeper into what’s going on, we can actually get a great result.

Senator ROBERTS: You’re absolutely correct. And there are a few conservatives, true conservatives in the Liberal Party, but most of them are in One Nation and Libertarians these days.

Melinda Richards: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Alex Antic, for example, he drafted a bill that’s called, I think the Repeal Digital ID Bill. He invited genuine conservatives to cosign it and co-sponsor it. So, he invited me, Pauline Hanson, Ralph Babet, Gerard Rennick and Matt Canavan. And so, the six of us are all co-sponsors of the bill. And the bill’s very simple. It just says repeal the Digital ID bill – that’s it. And then there’s the consequential amendments, which is repealing any changes of the digital ID caused in other legislation. So, it can be done. You look at the Liberal National Party, Gerard Rennick is one of the best senators and he’s been put in an unwinnable position pre-selection. You look at the true conservatives, Kevin Andrews from Victoria – gone, not pre-selected. You look at the senators they’ve appointed recently, they’ve been from the left wing of the Liberal Party. You see Connie Fierravanti-Wells, Eric Abetz – genuine conservatives sidelined and taken out of federal politics. So, what we see now is a Liberal Party that is a clone of the worst parts of the Labor Party. You’ve got factions now within the Liberal Party, you’ve got very, very few Conservatives and so what we’ve got now is a Uni-Party and we know that every major energy bill, for example, climate and energy policy was introduced by the Liberal National Party, not the Labor Party. The Labor Party came in and ramped it up and that’s what they’ve done across the board.

Melinda Richards: Yeah, that’s right. And it’s been a shocking revelation for a lot of conservatives over the last probably 15 years or so that the conservative movement is not being represented by the Liberal Party, the Liberal National Party and this has been a bit of a wake up call for the conservative movement in Australia and certainly in the UK – they’ve woken up. It took them 3 elections. I think we need a strong conservative leader in this country to bring us back to some of our core values. And there are things that the conservative movement is going to have to, as I said earlier, grab a hold of and fight back pretty strongly. And the group of politicians you mentioned, Senator Roberts, you are the true heroes of our political movement at the moment in Australia because you are putting Australians first.

Thank you so much for joining me today, Senator Roberts. I certainly hope we can talk again very soon. You’re listening to Melinda Richards on TNT.

August 13, 2024/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Trump Assassination Attempt Used to Exploit Misinformation and Disinformation Bill

Media, National

[17/07/24] I joined Alexandra Marshall on ADH TV to chat about the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump and how PM Albanese has exploited this situation to promote his Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023, which is completely inappropriate.

A true leader would use this opportunity to bring people together, denounce the violence, and call for calm and unity. I’m relieved though that Donald Trump emerged with only a minor injury.

August 1, 2024/4 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

The Triad of Tyranny is About Control

Media, National

I’ve just co-sponsored a Bill to repeal the Digital ID Bill passed by the government.

This is why it is so essential to get rid of this dictatorship tool.

June 24, 2024/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

The Tyranny of a National Digital Identity

National

Regarding the government’s not so voluntary National Digital Identity – you are not alone. We’ve been receiving many similar messages and emails from across Australia.

Three bills were rammed through the Senate, creating dangerous legislation for Australians who value their privacy, security, and civil liberties. The Identity Verification Services Bill, which permits the use of biometric data to locate and track citizens was passed into legislation. The Digital ID Bill was also passed in the Senate with almost no debate and was rubber-stamped in the House of Representatives. The Combatting Misinformation/Disinformation (Censorship) Bill received strong pushback and has gone quiet for now. Instead, we saw an attack on free speech from Australia’s eSafety Commissioner.

Labor is forging ahead in lockstep with other countries to implement the World Economic Forum’s digital economic agenda.

There have been many different digital identity systems floating around in the government. The Digital Identity Bill was designed to create one Digital Identity to rule them all. Among some last-minute concessions in the legislation, the government has said that its new Digital ID can be deactivated. That’s irrelevant however when banks and other institutions will make it mandatory. In fact, Section 74 of the bill states that Digital ID is voluntary, but sub-sections 2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8 list a series of exceptions. All of which means it can be mandated under the flimsy provision of “appropriate to do so”.

The Australian Government’s proposed ‘Trusted Digital Identity Framework’ (they actually used the word ‘trusted’ in the first draft of the bill) is not a stand-alone policy. It sits inside the extensive Digital Economy Strategy 2030 worth $1.2 billion at the time of the 2021-2022 Budget. It will be accessible and used both in government and private settings. This legislation relies on legacy identification mechanisms which guarantee a role for Big Tech companies in the Government’s proposed ‘identity ecosystem’.

Unfortunately, the interests of ‘Big Tech’ and ‘Big Government’ are becoming increasingly aligned. Both parties have a vested interest in pervasive surveillance, data mining and matching: one for profit and the other for control. This represents an unhealthy alignment of State and Corporate interests, with everything that entails.

The new raft of identity legislation creates a brand-new identity record for Australians, originated by Government and validated by Government, and commercial entities. This legislation goes much further than the MyGov digital ID. It puts all your identity eggs into one digital basket and will place more Australians at risk of being hacked.

A much better alternative would be an identity system based on the user owned and operated technologies developed by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) that rely on cryptographic tools and decentralised identifiers to prove ‘trustworthiness’ online, as well as identity – if that is what’s needed. These tools allow for direct, peer-to-peer proofs of trustworthiness and identity verification, without the need for Government or Big Tech involvement. So why is the Australian Government persevering with such a poor-quality identity solution? You might ask yourself, “Why do we need another digital identity system when we already have myGov ID?” The short answer is that this legislation is not designed to serve the interests of ordinary Australians. It’s been designed by foreign Big Tech firms and international governance bodies like the WHO, UN, IPCC and WEF to serve their interests. These organisations profit handsomely in terms of money and power from the capture and exploitation of personal data, and they don’t want that model to change.

The most serious risk associated with this legislation is scope creep. Like Australia, most developed nations around the world are implementing Government Digital Identity systems that are remarkably similar to those already operational in China and India. Over-identification is a feature of both the Chinese and Indian Digital ID legislation and there is a real risk that biometric mechanisms of identification will become a mandatory aspect of every transaction Australians make online and off.

I first drew Australia’s attention to this dangerous and dystopian legislation in 2021 “1984: the Bill” – The Trusted Digital Identity – Malcolm Roberts (malcolmrobertsqld.com.au). I’ve been opposed to the government’s digital identity since it was first proposed under the coalition, when Australia aligned with the World Economic Forum’s goals for a global digital economic strategy. This is the reason government-legislated Digital Identity was created in the first place. Read my article in the Spectator (click here) for more about the bureaucratic bungling behind this legislation.

The government did not come up with the Trusted Digital Identity on its own to solve the issue of outdated government databases. As stated by the policymakers in their accompanying documentation, the Trusted Digital Identity is the brainchild of the World Economic Forum and their global digital identity roadmap. Unlike the Voice, which sought to change the constitution, legislation can at least be undone with a change of government.

It’s important to keep pushing back against these authoritarian measures. The best remedy will be at the ballot box during the next federal election.

If One Nation had had just one more senator in parliament, many of those abhorrent, dystopian bills that were rammed through the Senate with little or no debate would not have been passed.

Make your vote count at the next election.

May 16, 2024/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

National Day of Protest: No Digital ID Rally

National, Queensland

A Triad of Tyranny

Three Bills are being rammed through the Senate to create legislation that will transform the UN-WEF plans for surveillance and control into a dystopian reality in Australia.

The first is the Identity Verification Services Bill 2023, which is designed to permit the use of biometric data to locate and track citizens and normalise it. The second, the Digital Identity Bill 2023, will ensure Australians have no choice but to succumb to setting up a digital ID. The third is the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill 2023. This is the censorship tool to make sure both the media and social media carries government sanctioned opinions only. The government in power is exempted and free to be the Ministry of Truth, spreading misinformation or disinformation. Remember how well that went during the COVID response?

The Driver’s Licence database is being upgraded to become the repository of your master identification record, which is already being used to establish your identity with a paper check and now with a facial scan.

I implored the Senate to vote against and to reject this Bill. This is the first of three Bills necessary to turn Australia into the world’s first World Economic Forum digital prison.

Transcript

One Nation strongly opposes the Identity Verification Services Bill 2023. Here’s why. The Albanese government’s great mate, Blackrock boss Larry Fink, and predatory billionaires at the World Economic Forum are fond of the phrase ‘you will own nothing and be happy’. What they really mean is that they will own everything and you will comply. Why would people voluntarily enslave themselves, give up their homes, cars and household goods and lose the right to travel freely, I hear you ask. The answer is that people will not be given a choice. They will be coerced—forced into it. That’s the purpose of this government’s triad of tyranny.

First is the Identity Verification Services Bill 2023, which will normalise and allow the use of biometric data to locate and track citizens. Second is the Digital ID Bill 2023, which will force every Australian into having a digital ID. Third is the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill 2023, which will ensure media and social media only carry government sanctioned opinions; the government will be exempted and can be free to spread misinformation and disinformation.

Biometric data is your face turned into a data file based on your physical characteristics. It allows for faster and more accurate identification. They will capture your face. The national drivers licence database is being upgraded to become the repository of your master identification record, which is already used to establish your identity with a paper check. Now it will have a facial scan.

Australians do not need to consent in a meaningful manner. The bill currently uses the word ‘consent’ without definition. Consent can be implied. Here’s an example. If a person sees a video of themselves on a self-service check-out at the supermarket and uses the check-out anyway, it’s considered implied consent. The government has accepted that implied consent is no consent at all and has upgraded the reference to ‘consent’ in their amendment on sheet UD100 to ‘explicit consent’. That isn’t good enough either. Explicit consent can be provided as blanket consent. An example would be MasterCard changing their terms and conditions to allow for facial recognition whenever their card is used. Once the card owner gets the email saying, ‘We have updated our terms and conditions. Click here to approve,’ and people click without reading it, one of those new terms could be permission for facial recognition. Did you give consent? No.

Banks currently record the image of anyone using their ATMs and then use that in the case of a fraudulent transaction. Banks will update their terms and conditions to give themselves the right to run your biometric
verification on each occasion before allowing access to your account. Refusing the new permission gives your bank or card company the right to refuse service. It’s that simple. It’s blackmail. This is why the government suggesting a digital ID or biometric data check will be voluntary is a complete lie. It’s compulsory, because not agreeing means you lose your bank account or payment card or service—just as those voluntary COVID injections were compulsory if you wanted to keep your job and your house and feed your family.

I foreshadow an amendment in the committee stage on sheet 2327 to change the definition of ‘explicit’ to ‘active’, meaning on each occasion your face is to be scanned they must ask permission before they scan it and make sure they get your permission each time. That’s active consent. This should be supported, because the government already says Australians will have to consent to their biometric data being used—unless, of course, that was misinformation.

This bill does not offer a direct link between the authentication action at a check-out, office, airport et cetera and the master file. A government hub receives a request and pulls the master file, meaning only the government has access to the master file. This seems to look acceptable, yet it means there’s a master file with 17 million records containing name, address, telephone, date of birth, drivers licence number, passport number and a biometric identification file all sitting in the same database. That’s all the information necessary to steal someone’s ID and impersonate them online—a hacker’s paradise.

Robodebt proved that our bureaucrats are incapable of even a simple one-to-one database match, and now they’re being trusted to pull this off. It’s impossible without a high level of compulsion and without completely ignoring victims of software or data-matching errors. If the look-up fails, then your purchase, travel, document, signing or whatever other use fails. If the purchase was for petrol, your family could be stranded late at night. We might as well start the royal commission now.

Downstream from the big government database are what I call intermediaries or entities with participating agreements. There are 20 of these so far. Their role is to take a request for authentication from a bank or card
processor, solicitor, real estate agent, airline—anyone needing you to prove you are who you say you are—and submit that to the national drivers licence database hub to run past the master database. In the original bill there were no effective checks and balances on those businesses. The government’s amendment of its own bill has added a few checks and balances to ensure that intermediaries must delete data received as part of the verification process.

Thank you, Minister Gallagher. That, taken together with my amendment to make the level of consent clear, takes some of the potential abuse out of the bill. A clear privacy statement would have helped. The government have promised they will do that later. There are trust issues around that promise.

Questions remain around the New South Wales government’s comment that this bill will allow them to verify that every person detected driving a car past a surveillance camera has a drivers licence.

The only way this can be achieved is if every driver is scanned every time they pass a detection camera and their image is compared to the national database. Does this mean those cameras going up around Australia are just the right height to scan the driver’s face and that the cameras will be used to scan and verify your identity each time you pass one? Yes, it does. Before they work out who you are and whether you have a licence, they have to scan and verify your biometrics. It’s the only explanation for the New South Wales government’s comment.

For those listening to this with incredulity, I remind you that this is exactly the system now in place in London, with Lord Mayor Khan’s ULEZ, Ultra Low Emission Zone, and in Birmingham, Manchester and other cities in Britain. It’s really the World Economic Forum’s 15-minute cities happening right now. Residents are locked into their zone and can only leave a certain number of times a year. This is happening in Britain. That depends on the make and model of the car you drive. If you drive a car they don’t like, you can’t move. Rich people who can afford electric cars can, of course, come and go as they please. Everyday citizens are locked in or, when they leave, the cameras detect them leaving and fine them on the spot. It’s a fine of 180 pounds a week for leaving over seven days.

That’s in Britain now. Already it has raised hundreds of millions of pounds because people will pay for freedom.

Look it up. Don’t just trust me: look it up. There are fines for not registering with the system and fines for breaching the 15-minute limits. It’s a virtual fence. It’s like an electric dog collar. It’s the foundation for a social credit system to completely control people’s lives. So don’t tell me this is a conspiracy theory. It’s real and it’s happening now in our mother country.

Cash is necessary to ensure these measures are ameliorated as much as possible, which is why the globalist wing of the Liberal Party tried to ban cash in the last parliament, which One Nation defeated. It should be obvious that predatory, parasitic billionaires and some of their lackeys in the Labor and Liberal Party are getting their ducks in a row because they want to be ready for the full implementation of their globalist masters’ control agenda, exactly as they promised. It’s not like they’re hiding any of this. When they tell us what they’re going to do, listen.

Remember this government’s triad of tyranny. Already entered into parliament is the Identity Verification Services Bill 2023 to normalise and allow the use of biometric data to locate and track citizens. Here it is. There’s the Digital ID Bill 2023 to force every Australian into having a digital ID. There’s the misinformation and disinformation bill 2023, which will ensure media and social media only carry government sanctioned opinions, and the government is exempted. I implore the Senate to vote against this bill and to reject this bill. This is the first of three bills necessary to turn Australia into the world’s first World Economic Forum digital prison.

May 2, 2024/14 Comments/by Sheenagh Langdon

Is ACMA Biased Towards the Left?

National, Senate Estimates

During recent Senate Estimates I checked with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) as to why it did not publicise complaints about the ABC, yet pushed out press releases for similar breaches by the Sky Network.

I also inquired into the Optus outage last year to see whether there is any new information around the failure of emergency 000 calls and whether Starlink (high speed satellite internet) was being considered as a backup in the future.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. On 26 April 2023, you issued a press release about the Sky News program Outsiders for breaches of industry codes. On 20 March 2023, in relation to the ABC, in response to Senator Henderson, you agreed that the ABC breached the codes during their coverage of a community meeting in Alice Springs. You endorsed the ABC Ombudsman’s finding that there were breaches of the code yet published no press release about that, from what we can see. Why does a conservative news service cop a full press release when you conclude they’ve breached the code but when the ABC breaches a code there’s barely a peep from you publicly?

Ms O’Loughlin: I might need to refer to my colleagues for the details of that circumstance.

Senator ROBERTS: Sure.

Ms O’Loughlin: I would have to say that we put out media releases for pretty much every breach that we look at under the Broadcasting Services Act, be it a national or a commercial broadcaster. I can take it on notice. There are certainly circumstances in the last year where we have put out media releases on the ABC. So it is not our practice to discriminate between types of broadcasters. We like to make transparent our decisions about breaches across the board. I might just see whether or not my colleagues have anything to add.

Ms Chapman: In the instance of the ABC Alice Springs issue, we didn’t undertake a full formal investigation. We fully considered the matter. We looked at the content. We considered the report by the ombudsman at the time. We didn’t find a formal breach in that instance. That was on the basis that the ABC themselves had found a breach. The ABC themselves conceded that there were issues with the broadcast and that there was considerablemedia attention at the time which highlighted the findings that the ABC made. So we didn’t put out a press release because we didn’t make a formal finding.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

Ms O’Loughlin: I will add to that. I just found something in my notes. For example, from the investigation we did on the ABC’s Four Corners program called The Big Lie, we did a media release for that on 21 December 2022 because we had found breach findings in that program.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I accept your answer from before. I refer to your letter, Ms O’Loughlin, to Senator Henderson on 20 March that is file reference BM11801. You mentioned in the second last paragraph the matter conducted by the ABC about the circumstances attaching to this matter, including any changes to its editorial processes. Did the ABC advise of any changes to its editorial processes?

Ms O’Loughlin: I don’t have the letter in front of me.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll read it.

Ms Chapman: We did seek a response from the ABC, but I think we need to take on notice whether we received a response.

Senator ROBERTS: I will read the second last paragraph. However, the ACMA has requested that the ABC keep it informed about the outcome of any further internal investigation conducted by the ABC about the circumstances attaching to this matter (including any changes to its editorial processes) and any additional steps that may be taken by the ABC as a result.

Ms O’Loughlin: Senator, we will take that on notice for you. I don’t have that in my pack.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What does it do to the trust of a media company when it has obvious bias?

Ms O’Loughlin: Senator, I don’t think that’s something on which I can express an opinion. I do think in our experiences broadcasters take very seriously their obligations under the various regulatory codes that they are subjected to, which do come to, in most cases, provisions around bias, impartiality and factual accuracy.

Senator ROBERTS: It would erode trust if it is done often?

Ms O’Loughlin: That would probably be a matter for the broadcasters to comment on, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I will ask some questions here briefly. If they’ve been covered, just tell me so. I’ve checked with Senator Cadell. He hasn’t covered this one. Could you briefly explain the obligation for carriers to allow network switching for Triple Zero calls and why this didn’t happen during the Optus outage? The second part you’ve already discussed at length, so I’m not interested in that. Could you please explain the obligation?

Ms O’Loughlin: Certainly, Senator. The obligation is usually referred to as the mobile camp-on provisions. That is a globally standardised arrangement. Where emergency call services can’t be delivered by a particular carrier for a particular reason, those networks allow those calls to camp on to their network for them to be delivered to the emergency call service. That’s what—

Senator ROBERTS: Free automatic switching?

Ms O’Loughlin: So it’s an automatic transfer of those particular calls going to emergency call services to camp on to another network. If I have that incorrect, my colleague will let me know.

Senator ROBERTS: She’s got it. Thank you. Are there any fines applicable for carriers failing to allow switching or failing to make switching work for Triple Zero calls? Would Optus be facing that?

Ms O’Loughlin: I think part of what we’ll be looking at in our investigation is what was the reason, if in fact that was the reason, some emergency calls didn’t get through. As I mentioned earlier, it’s still not very clear. We’re still in information gathering mode about why that didn’t work. I will ask Mr Fenton to go over some of the potential regulatory responses we may have, if we do, in fact, find any breaches. But it is early days.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

Mr Fenton: I will clarify again that these are enforcement options available to the ACMA if it does find breaches of the determination in question—the emergency call determination. The ACMA can issue a formal warning. It can issue a remedial direction to take action to comply. It can accept a court enforceable undertaking. There are infringement penalties available currently set at $18,780 per contravention. It is open to the ACMA to apply to the Federal Court for penalties as well.

Senator ROBERTS: This is an interesting quirk. Does per contravention mean each phone call?

Mr Fenton: It would depend on the construct of the particular obligation in question. But it can apply to a specific contravention. Once again, it comes back to the actual structure.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I understand. Thank you. Finally, it strikes me that there is the Starlink service, which covers almost everywhere in Australia. It can access the sky, and that’s pretty much everywhere. Would it be a good back-up for text messages and limited voice conversations and emergency calls to fit into that network?

Ms O’Loughlin: That’s a really interesting question. I think there’s a lot of interest in Starlink and, indeed, other satellite services, such as low earth orbit satellite services, that may be able to provide direct to handset text or, indeed, calls which are now starting to emerge. There is the potential for that to really benefit particularly people in regional or remote areas or areas of Australia that have trouble getting signals. I think the department is commencing to look at that in more depth to see what that potential is. There has been quite a lot of strong interest internationally as well, as you can imagine, from particularly countries who have the same sort of issues we have in trying to get signals into various areas. The United States recently, from my reading, had come to the conclusion that technology was just not quite mature enough at the moment to be a backstop for emergency calls but could be in the future. I think the department is going to be looking at whether that is a potential in the future. We think that’s a really exciting development in the satellite space.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I must say that I appreciate the direct answers.

February 28, 2024/2 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Goes to Davos!

National, Senate Estimates

At this year’s Davos, less government officials were present than usual, yet Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, was not only present, but she was also an agenda contributor, pushing for greater online safety.

I asked in what capacity Ms Julie Inman Grant was present at Davos for the World Economic Forum 2024 annual meeting, what was the cost to Australian taxpayers and whether staff travelled with her on this trip at public expense. As an independent statutory authority, Commissioner Inman Grant is planning to embrace global opportunities to help achieve the outcomes she perceives necessary for online safety. The Commissioner is seeking broader powers to achieve her agenda, for our own good of course, and once again this begs the question exactly who is deciding what is ‘good’?

Listening to her speak about online safety regulations, the one word conspicuous by its absence is censorship. The other missing words were freedom of expression.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here today. Did you attend the World Economic Forum planning session in Davos last month? If so, was that in your personal capacity or as the eSafety Commissioner?

Ms Inman Grant: I attended the world economic global summit as the eSafety Commissioner. I achieved more in four days than I could in four years because I was meeting with senior technology executives. I was talking directly to the people who are building AI and immersive technologies and asked directly the decision makers what they are doing to make their platforms safer. I was sharing really our leadership and our model in terms of how we’re tackling online safety.

Senator ROBERTS: Well, I think we’re the ones who should be assessing whether or not you’re justified. How many staff accompanied you? What was the cost to taxpayers?

Ms Inman Grant: I will take that on notice. I had one staff member accompany me. I supplemented that with trips to Brussels, where I met with European Commission officials, and to Dublin to meet with my fellow regulators in Ireland and the UK. So it was a very productive trip.

Senator ROBERTS: Now can I have the justification, please? What did taxpayers get for their money? How did attending help in the discharge of your duties?

Ms Inman Grant: Well, I had access to the presidents of most of the major technology companies, including the CEO of OpenAI. I was able to ask him what they were planning to do to build safety into this. Any time that we can influence the decision-makers at this level to make technology safer is better.

Senator ROBERTS: You run an online agency, right?

Ms Inman Grant: I run—

Senator ROBERTS: Couldn’t you have done this online?

Ms Inman Grant: I run a real agency that has real people and capital equipment. I couldn’t engage in this forum online and not have those kinds of meetings to make a real difference for Australians in terms of getting real change happening.

Senator ROBERTS: You are referencing your panel session at Davos. Your office has just sent Twitter a notice regarding them allowing hate on the Twitter platform, including allowing previously suspended users back on the platform.

Ms Inman Grant: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you give me examples of Australian accounts that X has allowed back on that your office objects to?

Ms Inman Grant: Well, the online hate notice looked at the range of trust and safety governance steps that they had taken, including firing 80 per cent of their safety engineers, more than half of their content moderators and 80 per cent of their public policy personnel—so the people who actually look after the safety. We did ask them. It was reported that there were 62,000 previously banned users. To be permanently banned on Twitter, you have to have violated the policies pretty egregiously a number of times. We asked them the question. They responded. We asked about the 62,000. They responded with 6,100. We assumed that meant they reinstated 6,100 previously banned Australian accounts, which wasn’t in the manner and form of the notice and the question that we asked them. They didn’t name what those specific ones were, but they did tell us that there are no additional safety provisions even though they have been permanently banned for online hate in some cases.

Senator ROBERTS: It seems to me, Ms Grant, that you’re assuming the previous bans were in order. Had you explored those previous bans before coming to that judgement?

Ms Inman Grant: Twitter, as the company, had a whole range of policies, including a hateful conduct policy. They remove or—

Senator ROBERTS: So you haven’t? What you’ve done is you’ve gone off their interpretation of their policy, even though we know they were biased.

Ms Inman Grant: That’s the only thing we can do, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you come back to my question—

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, please allow Ms Inman Grant to answer.

Senator ROBERTS: and give me examples of Australian accounts?

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I appreciate that you are somewhat agitated. Could you please respect the witnesses and allow them to answer the questions.

Senator ROBERTS: I would like the witness to give me examples of Australian accounts that X has allowed back that her office objects to. That’s my question and you haven’t answered it.

Ms Inman Grant: I didn’t ask them specific questions about which accounts they were. I asked for the quant the numbers.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are you setting yourself up as an arbiter of what should and should not be seen online?

Ms Inman Grant: No. I am not. I have been designated by the government to serve as the eSafety Commissioner and to remediate harms of online individuals who have experienced online abuse and, in most cases, have reported that abuse to the platform. The platform hasn’t enforced their terms of policy, so we are there as a safety net or a backstop to help remediate that harm.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Your remarks included this comment, and I quote: There are lots of different tools in the toolbox we’ll be using. What are those tools? Under what explicit power do you possess them? Who supervises how you use them?

Ms Inman Grant: All our powers are designated under the Online Safety Act. We have a range of complaints schemes that deal with youth based cyber bullying, image-based abuse, adult cyber abuse and the online content scheme. We have systems and process powers under the basic online safety expectations. We have now six codes registered and two standards that we’re working on. They are the primary tools.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Who supervises how you use them? Who assesses whether or not you’re being effective or overextending?

Ms Inman Grant: Well, we are held to account. We have lots of reporting and transparency and accountability measures ourselves. If there’s ever a question about any decision that is made, it can be challenged through internal review, the ombudsman, the AAT or the Federal Court. So we are accountable to the people and the government.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. At the World Economic Forum planning session in Davos, you said, and I quote: We have started something called the Global Online Safety Regulator. Who is ‘we’? Did you receive ministerial permission to involve Australia in another globalist power sink hole? You may laugh, but we are facing a big threat.

Ms Inman Grant: I am an independent statutory authority. The Internet is global. Most of our regulatory targets are based overseas. For more than seven years, we were the only online safety regulator in the world. Now, we use the tools we have and we can be effective, but we know we’re going to go much further when we work together with other like-minded independent statutory authorities around the globe. So with the UK, with Ireland and with Fiji in November 2022, we launched the global online safety regulators network. That has now grown to seven independent regulators, including France, South Korea and South Africa. A number of countries are serving as observers. That is so we can achieve a degree of regulatory coherence for the technology industry and make sure that we’re working together to achieve better safety outcomes for all of our citizens.

Senator ROBERTS: Did you get ministerial approval for that?

Ms Inman Grant: I don’t think it was required. Certainly the minister was aware.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This is a further remark you made—this is how it was reported:

We have reached a tipping point where technology is neither good nor bad. We need to be pushing towards the forces of good. That comment seems steeped in hubris. Who decides what the forces of good are? You?

Ms Inman Grant: Well, the Online Safety Act does define thresholds for harm. Certainly our research looks at the benefits and the drawbacks in terms of how people experience technology and whether it helps them to create, to connect, to work and to communicate versus the harms that they experience, whether it’s—

Senator ROBERTS: How do you listen to people?

Ms Inman Grant: How do I listen to people?

Senator ROBERTS: You just said it’s the people who decide.

Ms Inman Grant: I listen to people in many different ways. We have citizen facing complaints schemes. We’re out in forums all the time. We correspond. We also have about two million people who visit our website every year so they can access resources or report forms of online abuse.

Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question, Chair. Thank you for that. You state: Deepfakes are covered under our world leading image-based abuse scheme, which has close to a 90 per cent success rate. How do you measure 90 per cent objectively? This is your statement.

Ms Inman Grant: We look at the number of complaints that we receive. The 90 per cent success rate is because in the vast majority of cases people just want the intimate imagery and videos taken down, mostly through informal means. We measure the 90 per cent based on how many complaints we receive and how many we get down.

Senator ROBERTS: So the images reported and the images removed? Ninety per cent of them would be removed?

Mr Dagg: When we investigate a complaint about image-based abuse, for example, or any of the other harms set out in our complaint schemes, we measure the response to our requests for removal or our formal interventions. We find, as the commissioner said, requests to be far more efficient and produce a faster turnaround, so they constitute the bulk of our interventions. Ninety per cent of those in the case of image-based abuse succeed. That measure of success is whether or not the images are taken down.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

February 22, 2024/6 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

A Triad of Tyranny

Speeches