George Christensen's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Data Availability and Transparency Bill 2020, Data Availability and Transparency (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
It may surprise the member for Maribyrnong to know that I probably agreed with nearly 90 per cent of what he said there. We are in this brave new world where big data poses a grave threat to...
It may surprise the member for Maribyrnong to know that I probably agreed with nearly 90 per cent of what he said there. We are in this brave new world where big data poses a grave threat to individual rights and privacy, and big data collected by government that is enjoined with big business is probably the scariest situation that I can imagine arise for privacy and for our freedoms. The one thing that I didn't agree with the member for Maribyrnong on was the words that this work had achieved the right balance. Sure, I acknowledge that there has been a lot of discussion between the government and the opposition on this bill, which has taken out of the original bill a lot of the problematic areas. There have been Senate inquiries that have looked into this bill that have taken out a lot of the problematic areas of the bill. But being better doesn't necessarily make it good. There is a litmus test that we should have in this place when a bill comes before us: did any of your constituents ever email you about government sharing data with different departments or sharing data with state governments or sharing de-identified data with universities? Did anyone ever walk into your office and ask you, as an MP, to vote for this bill, or say that there was a problem they saw that necessitated this proposed act? Did anyone ever stop you in the street? Did anyone ever phone you or one of your staff members about it? I'd say by and large the answer for every single person who inhabits this chamber would be 'no' on this front. So why are we doing it? Where does it come from? I've heard from the government and now the opposition the argument that, if there's a natural disaster, an extreme event, we can easily get payments to people. If they don't have the data that they need to present to get that payment, we can look at Medicare or we can look at something else and get their data for that purpose. But there's an old saying that hard cases make bad law. That is an extreme situation. Sure, it happens from time to time, but it's still an extreme situation. I don't know that we need to up-end our privacy provisions in this country for that extreme situation. I actually haven't heard another argument beyond that for this bill. I have not heard one. If one exists, I'd love to know. What I would really love to know is an argument that exists for this bill that is actually for the benefit of the people rather than the benefit of government. Sure, as I said before, a lot of the problematic areas from how it was drafted originally have been knocked out of this bill through the process that it's gone through, but here are some questions. Apparently the data that's going to go to external organisations, which would be universities for research purposes, is going to be data that's de-identified. How is it going to be de-identified? Can it be re-identified? Is there the potential for that? I don't know. I'm told the data that's going to go inter governmental, whether it's between Commonwealth government departments or the Commonwealth and states, is only going to be for the benefit of individuals, and that that data sharing cannot be used for anything that is investigative, punitive or for any other negative measure against a citizen. But what happens if it is? Sure, there might be a smack on the wrist for someone, but what happens if it is. What happens if it is used in that fashion? Is the Commonwealth going to suddenly drop all proceedings against someone because the data was used in a way that it shouldn't have been? I don't know. I hope that the answer would be that, yes, all proceedings against that individual would be dropped. But the fact is that we've got data sharing, so it could potentially happen. I'm very worried about this bill and the trajectory that we're going down. This bill now has bipartisan support. It doesn't have my support. It might have bipartisan support, but it does not have my support. I fear that what's behind this is the digital identity push. I've got to tell my colleagues on all sides of this House: do not ever do that. Do not ever accept a national digital identity system in this nation. That will be the end, not the beginning, of privacy in this country. What it will be the beginning of is big government intruding into our lives far too much. I'm afraid that this legislation, having originally been crafted for the purpose of sharing data with private corporations, is also the beginning of something else. We can have all the protections in this bill right now, but 10 years down the track what's going to happen to those protections? Where is this going to lead? Are we going to have data sharing between big government and big corporations? I don't want to be part of that, and that's why I'm stating right now on the record that I do not support this bill.
Parliament House: Protests | Constituency Statements | House debates
You'll be pleased to know that, having had a wisdom tooth pulled yesterday, I'm going to be speaking a bit more slowly and a little less ferociously, but speaking nonetheless. There were tens of...
You'll be pleased to know that, having had a wisdom tooth pulled yesterday, I'm going to be speaking a bit more slowly and a little less ferociously, but speaking nonetheless. There were tens of thousands of people—perhaps even hundreds of thousands; I'm not sure—that were vilified in this place and in the press recently, and those were the people who participated in the Convoy to Canberra rally that we saw over the last couple of weeks. The media and power elites have done their best to try and trivialise that protest, and they've focused on the very, very few in the crowd who probably didn't do the right thing, whereas the vast majority did. They trivialised the size of the crowd. Having been there on both protest days, I can tell you: if that was an NRL game, it would've been a packed house; it would've been sold out, and there would've been people wanting more tickets. It was the biggest rally I've seen in this place in the 11 years that I've been here, and that was echoed by none other than Chris Uhlmann, who said it was the biggest rally that he had seen in Canberra in the past three decades. The media tried, on the one hand, to claim that there were about 4,000 people at the protest; on the other, they were blaming them for overflowing the EPIC grounds, where most of the protesters were camping. You can't have it both ways. Here in this place and in the media, the protesters were demonised and painted as fringe and violent, but the only violence that I saw was that committed against those protesters, with two instances of road rage, spurred on, I believe, by the biased reporting from the Canberra Times, which whipped up locals against those people. Those people were far from fringe. There were people from all walks of life, from brickies to graziers. There were occupations all over the place, and people had their tenure in those occupations written on their backs—doctors, nurses, teachers, firies and ambos who have lost their jobs due to 'no jab, no job' mandates. There were even policemen there. These people deserve to be heard, in this place and in state parliaments as well. Their message is loud and clear, and it's one that everyone should heed. They want an end to these mandates—the 'no jab, no job' mandates, the mask mandates and all the other restrictions. The data is in, and we find that they haven't worked. The vaccine mandates didn't work. The mask mandates didn't work. It all needs to come to a crashing halt.
COVID-19: Morrison Government | Private Members' Business | House debates
For the past two years state governments, with the assistance of the federal government, sadly, have imposed many regulations and restrictions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These measures...
For the past two years state governments, with the assistance of the federal government, sadly, have imposed many regulations and restrictions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These measures have eroded our freedoms, our human rights and our civil rights. Such infringements on our rights were introduced under the guise of public safety, but the oft-cited health advice on which they were allegedly based has never been held up for public scrutiny. States have introduced draconian measures, such as border closures, without having the validity of such measures tested in court. Governments have prevented doctors from prescribing medicines that were safe and effective, with a long history of safe use. Governments have mandated and coerced Australians to undertake a medical procedure that does not have long-term safety data. Substances that people are forced to inject into their body out of fear of losing their job are produced by big pharma companies that are getting very rich off these mandates while bearing no responsibility for any of the harm their products may cause, thanks to an indemnity granted by the government. We already know some of the harmful effects but we don't know all of them, because there is no long-term safety data. There's always going to be a section of the Australian community that for whatever reason is hesitant or totally opposed to these provisionally approved inoculations. The mainstream media are kidding themselves when they seek to demonise all pro-freedom people with the antivaxxer slur. There were tens of thousands of protesters on the lawns of parliament on Saturday. They were not all antivaxxers. Most of them were actually fully inoculated—I'd say many of them—but they were antimandate. They were hardworking people. Many of them lost their jobs due to workplace vaccine mandates. They were opposed to the discriminatory measures that are locking ordinary Australians out of polite society as well—locked out of cafes, locked out of restaurants, locked out of theatres, locked out of sporting venues and even locked out of hospitals. They are sick of being forced to comply with measures that just make no sense. In my home state we have mask mandates. We have vaccine mandates in the form of 'no jab, no job' policies. We've even had borders closed to people who weren't vaccinated. But still the omicron variant crossed the border, from the vaccinated, and swept through the state. The vaccinated caught the disease, the vaccinated passed on the disease, the vaccinated went to hospital with the disease, and the vaccinated, sadly, died with the disease. Ordinary Australians look at this data and ask the obvious question: why are we still pretending that masks, QR codes, vaccinations, lockouts, lockdowns and discrimination can stop the spread? The mainstream media has failed to actually ask that question, but it is a question that we can ask and it should be asked. As the pandemic transitions to the endemic phase, we need a royal commission to find out not only how we got into this situation but who is responsible. The devastating impacts of the pandemic response on millions of Australians cannot just be swept under the rug. To gloss over the rise of tyranny and authoritarianism in this country would only further embolden those who seek to coerce and control the Australian people. If we fail to examine how and why we were stripped of rights and freedoms, we will fail to learn the lessons of history and we will be doomed to repeat them at the next pandemic or the next opportunity to induce fear amongst the populace and then tyranny. That's why I have called for a royal commission or a similar commission of inquiry with sufficient powers to fully investigate the pandemic response from all levels of government—federal, state, local, Public Service institutions, departments and agencies. I'm asking people who believe in freedom, who believe in human rights, who believe that wrong was done over the course of this pandemic, to get on board with this. I've got a petition at georgechristensen.com.au/inquiry. I am calling for wide terms of reference in that, to include all aspects of the pandemic response that have eroded our freedoms, human rights and civil rights: lockdowns; border closures; mask mandates; vaccine efficacy and safety; vaccine passports; medical segregation and discrimination; transparency of medical advice; treatments and interference with GPs; misinformation and censorship; big tech and freedom-of-speech issues; quarantine facilities, rules and operations; restrictions on social gatherings such as weddings and funerals; access to hospitals and services; international travel and return; school closures; regulation enforcement and police overreach; PCR and rapid antigen tests—all of these issues. I urge anyone who has suffered under any instance of government overreach in the pandemic response to head to the website and support my call for a royal commission into the pandemic.
Social Media (Protecting Australians from Censorship) Bill 2022; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Firstly, can I thank the member for Kennedy for his enthusiasm in seconding it. Can I thank also the member for Wide Bay who seconds the notice...
I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Firstly, can I thank the member for Kennedy for his enthusiasm in seconding it. Can I thank also the member for Wide Bay who seconds the notice of motion and is also here in the hope that he would be the one rising to second it. Thanks to Senator Matt Canavan for his work on this issue and the Nationals backbench policy committee, who have been deliberating on this issue for some time. This bill really seeks to reinforce one of our commitments to civil and political rights, through the international convention on civil and political rights, and I particularly refer to article 19, which states: Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference— 'without interference'. It also states: Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice— or her choice. What we find today is that we have a grave problem with foreign social media services. We're talking about big tech. We're talking about outfits like Facebook, outfits like Twitter, outfits like Google and YouTube, outfits like Instagram, outfits like WeChat, outfits like TikTok which have become notoriously censorious of political discourse. In fact, in its biggest example, the then leader of the free world, the former President of the United States Donald Trump was taken down off a fair few of these platforms, particularly Facebook and Twitter. That was much to the delight of the Left across the world. But US venture capitalist Fred Wilson, one of the early investors in Twitter, who is Left leaning and who doesn't like Donald Trump said—and it behoves all of those who delighted about the former president being removed from social media to listen to these words: I think it is problematic that Twitter has this much power. Not only are they silencing Trump, they are taking away his tens of millions of followers, and they are prohibiting all of his followers from seeing his tweets. We should be careful what we wish for. This is a slippery slope we are heading down. … … … This should be a warning sign to everyone in DC; the Senators, the Representatives, the folks leaving the White House and the folks entering it. He who kills the king becomes the king. I'll repeat those words from Fred Wilson: He who kills the king becomes the king. We have now so much power invested in this big tech oligarchy. In fact, the American Civil Liberties Union are not known for their like for President Trump or their like for right wing political views, but their senior legislative counsel, Kate Ruane, said: … it should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions … That's where we're at: these platforms now form the public square; they form the place where ideas are debated, where ideas are put forward, where discussion ensues. We now have these big tech oligarchies controlling that space where political, philosophical, ideological, cultural and social discourse goes on all around the world, including in this nation. At least two members of parliament in this place have been removed, cancelled, by these big tech outfits—one of which is my friend the member for Hughes. Whatever you think of his views, he's an elected member of parliament. He wasn't saying anything that was illegal either on Facebook or on YouTube. He had a video of a speech given to this place removed from YouTube. Further than that, he had his entire profile taken off Facebook and Instagram. I can also refer to the member for Cook, the Prime Minister, who had his posts removed from WeChat. They were not particularly unlawful. They weren't particularly egregious. He was simply putting forward the views of the Australian government to people of Chinese ethnicity in this country, but he was taken off WeChat. We had a foreign social media service, ostensibly controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, silencing the Prime Minister of this country in his own country. If that does not ring alarm bells, I don't know what does in this place. The 1688 Bills of Rights, something that all parliamentarians should read up on, established modern democracy, and the Westminster democracy that we're a part of in this place. The Bill of Rights said: That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament. Yet we have big tech taking down from their platforms videos they don't like of parliamentary proceedings, debates and even quotes from debates. It extends from members of parliament to media organisations. Sky News had many videos removed from YouTube not for illegal things, again, but because they breached what these big tech outfits call their community standards. There's another term for community standards; it's call editorial guidelines, but these outfits pretend that they're not publishers, and by calling them community guidelines rather than editorial guidelines they gets away with it and they don't face defamation. They can't have it both ways. They can't be editors that are chopping and changing content on their platforms and not be liable for things that are said on those platforms. But I would prefer that free speech was let run unabated on these platforms, except for illegal speech or defamatory content. The fact is that foreign social media services are interfering with the political discourse in this country. I have outlined that already. In this parliament, we have protected big news media against foreign social media services, or, at least, we've put the money of big tech into the pockets of big news corporations in this country, but we have done nothing to protect the little people out there. My bill seeks to do that in two respects. It gives a terminology of protected persons, which forms the pillars of democracy in this country. It says that there should be no censorship against lawful content from politicians, political candidates, political parties, journalists and news organisations. At the same time, it would provide recourse for people who are censored for their philosophical discourse on social media, allow them a pathway to go to the Australian Communications and Media Authority to adjudicate whether it was right for that censorship to occur, and, if it doesn't, in both instances, there would be fines of over $1 million against these big tech outfits. This is very important. I will close with a large quote from Joel Kotkin. It explains everything. Read the book, The Coming of Neo-Feudalism: A Warning to the Global Middle Class. It reads: Not satisfied with controlling information pipelines, the tech oligarchs have been moving to shape content as well. Controllers like those at Facebook and Twitter seek to "curate" content on their sites, or even eliminate views they find objectionable, which tend to be conservative views, according to former employees. Algorithms intended to screen out "hate groups" often spread a wider net, notes one observer, since the programmers have trouble distinguishing between "hate groups" and those who might simply express views that conflict with the dominant culture of Silicon Valley. That managers of social media platforms aim to control content is not merely the perception of conservatives. Over 70 percent of Americans believe that social media platforms "censor political views" according to a recent Pew study. With their quasi-monopoly status, Facebook and Google don't have to worry about competing with anyone, as the tech entrepreneur Peter Thiel observes, so they can indulge their own prejudices to a greater extent than the businesses that might be concerned about alienating customers. With their tightening control over media content, the tech elite are now situated to exert a cultural predominance that is unprecedented in the modern era. It recalls the cultural influence of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, but with more advanced technology. This bill is important. It provides for no less than safeguarding of Australian democracy against the big tech oligarchy that threatens to remake the world, including our country, in their own woke image. We need to act before it's too late.
COVID-19: Vaccination | Grievance Debate | House debates
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your input there. Vaccine mandates in this country have been imposed on workers. They weren't part of their original employment contracts, but now they...
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your input there. Vaccine mandates in this country have been imposed on workers. They weren't part of their original employment contracts, but now they are. They have been abandoned all across the political spectrum, just left to go on the scrapheap of unemployment. That is a disgrace, and we wonder why there were, on the weekend just gone, and why there are going to be, on the weekend to come, thousands of people outside this place demanding that something be done about these mandates. They want their jobs back. They want their lives back. They want this nonsense to end, and end it should. End it could have already. Foreseeing this coming—foreseeing all of the restrictions that were coming down the line—I put in a request to the powers that be in this place late last year. I said that what we should do is mandate that the data from the Australian Immunisation Register that goes down the pipeline through the myGov app and My Health Record and all the rest of it not be able to be used for the purposes of discrimination. That wasn't done, and it could have been done. I'm very regretful that that wasn't done. Now, we could look at broadening the basis for exemptions that ATAGI can approve, and I think that ATAGI should actually be made to go and develop the criteria to enable conscientious objection to be a valid exemption for these workplace mandates. Why? It is because we know that, when we force someone to act against their will and when we force someone to go against their deeply held conscientious beliefs, there can be psychological, mental and emotional harm caused. That's reason enough to provide that exemption. There are so many people from all walks of life who have been harmed by this. I met some the other day, and I've got to tell you that most of them, I suspect, were Labor voters—'were' being the operative word. I'm not sure who they'll vote for, because no-one seems to be helping them this time round. There were about 60 port workers who all face losing their jobs by the end of this month simply because of vaccine mandates. They are not being imposed by government in this respect, but, just like what has happened with Qantas and BHP, affecting mine workers in my area, private businesses have decided to get on this bandwagon as well, even though they don't have to. Now, that has got to be a bridge too far. There is no government imposition, yet they themselves are deciding that they're going to sack workers because of this idea that unvaccinated people are somehow dirty and somehow pose this huge threat to their fellow workers. It's nonsense. It really is nonsense, but people's lives are being uprooted because of it. Their families are being affected by it. People's mortgages are being affected by it. People stand to lose everything because a fundamental principle that has always existed—bodily autotomy—is being completely and utterly eroded before our very eyes. It's not something that I'm just making up. It's not a right that I've suddenly created. It's a right that's enshrined in the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. It says that no-one should be forced to undergo a medical procedure and that, if they choose not to go through with it, there should be no undue penalty put on them—nothing. Losing your job is a pretty big penalty. So is restricting people from polite society, as is the case at the moment when you can't go to a pub, club, bar, restaurant or cafe. You can't even go to a hospital unless you're sick. Now, you might think, 'Well, that's not a problem,' except for the fact that I had a woman from Mackay who couldn't go to see her dying father in the local Mackay Base Hospital because he wasn't within 24 hours of death, according to the doctors. She couldn't go to see her dying father in the hospital. What a cruel society we have become because of this COVID-19 pandemic! What a cruel and divided society we have become! We are discarding people because of their own choices, as if they don't mean anything. We're even seeing other Australians turn on these people, through the fear porn that they're subjected to every night on their television sets and through the rhetoric of some politicians—that these antivaxxers are dirty and should be avoided. They're not antivaxxers. Most of these people have gotten every single vaccine up until this point. They're hesitant about it for their own personal reasons, one of which might be that there's just no long-term safety data. That's a fact; that's not me making it up. There is no long-term safety data, because the vaccines have been developed only in the last year. How could there be long-term safety data? But there doesn't actually need to be a reason to decide not to go down that route. There really should be no reason that people have to give for having a choice over what medicines or vaccines they take and what they don't take. They shouldn't be penalised for those choices, but they are. And someone in authority is going to have to act pretty soon to end this, or this country is going to be in very big trouble, because when people are pushed to the wall, when people have everything taken from them—their job, their ability to put food on the table, their ability to pay off their home loan—well, I guess you could say that those people could become completely and utterly justified in maintaining the rage— (Time expired)
It's a pleasure to rise in this grievance debate. There are plenty of grievances that people have. One that many people know that I have is with the vaccine mandates that have been rolled out...
It's a pleasure to rise in this grievance debate. There are plenty of grievances that people have. One that many people know that I have is with the vaccine mandates that have been rolled out around the nation, principally by state governments. Unfortunately, we haven't had any action from this place in dismantling those mandates. Lest people think it is a fringe issue, this is affecting real people—real mums and dads and real workers—out in my community and right around the country. I have met nurses who were unceremoniously sacked after decades of work with Queensland Health. Hospital administration workers have also been sacked. I'm aware that a senior Mackay Queensland Health official in a meeting with other Queensland Health officials and local GP clinics said words to the effect, 'We're glad we're rid of all of those people'—'those people'; those are the words she used. She meant those people who choose—and Australians are entitled to choose—not to get a medical procedure done that they feel isn't right for them. It doesn't matter what we think; that's their right. It's bodily autonomy. Emergency aircrew workers in Mackay have lost their jobs. People who have served in the defence forces and aged-care workers in Proserpine, Bowen, Mackay and Townsville have all been unceremoniously sacked. I know that there are issues with aged care, but surely to goodness there could have been something done to redeploy these people or appropriately compensate them. Teachers throughout Bowen, Mackay and elsewhere have approached me about having their jobs terminated as well. There are counsellors and psychologists also in Mackay. I've raised this before in this place. A psychologist who saw all of her patients by telehealth from her own house can't work in that field anymore. Apparently COVID is going to sneak down the internet. The NBN is not that good! Then there are police and administration workers in Mackay. I have had police in other parts of my electorate also contact me about the mandates that have come in in their workplaces. Then there are the doctors and GPs in Mackay, the Whitsundays and elsewhere. I know there was a surgeon who was stood down. There are GPs in Bowen. It's all because of these vaccine mandates. The Prime Minister said at the start of this whole pandemic, or at least when the vaccines were on their way, that there would not be mandatory vaccines in this country. But it's very strange, given all of these people—
Religious Discrimination Bill 2021, Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021, Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
It is with pleasure that I rise to speak on the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021. I want to address some of the remarks that we have just heard, because there was a lot of criticism around...
It is with pleasure that I rise to speak on the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021. I want to address some of the remarks that we have just heard, because there was a lot of criticism around clause 12 of the bill. Make no mistake, my view is that this bill is weak. This bill is watered down. This bill will do only a little bit of good. I support it because it will do a little bit of good, but it won't do much in the grand scheme of things. Clause 12 is actually where the rubber hits the road for this bill. People of faith wanted one thing from this parliament, they wanted one thing from this government, and that was a shield, not a sword. They want a shield to protect themselves from people who come after them because of what they believe—people who want to cancel them from society, who want to take their jobs, who want to strip them of titles. That's what we're talking about here. Let me give the exact example of where harm is done. Previous speakers were asking questions out loud: 'Well, what can't you say? What is it the government is saying here that people should be allowed to say?' Let me tell you about this rabid right-wing extremist from Tasmania. Not really—it is the Archbishop of Hobart. His name is Julian Porteous. He's a Catholic archbishop. He committed the heinous crime of sending out a missive to students within the Catholic school system, and the missive was about the Catholic Church's teaching on marriage. He sent it out to students in the Catholic school system—presumably mostly Catholics—to go home to their mostly Catholic parents, which you'd think would be just completely and utterly innocuous. A Catholic prelate was talking to his flock about the Catholic Church's teaching on a particular issue. As controversial as it might be for some, it shouldn't be controversial to note what is the church's teaching, particularly to people who are part of the Catholic Church system. For that heinous crime, he was dragged before an antidiscrimination tribunal for simply articulating to his flock what the Catholic Church's teaching on a particular subject was. Now, that should have rung alarm bells all those years ago. That actually shows you that in this country we are not free to say what we believe when it comes to articles of faith. If an archbishop of a church is not free to articulate his church's teachings to people who are within his church's system, then we have a very, very big problem indeed. That's why, and I have no qualms in actually saying this, I hounded the former Attorney-General, whose original view was that there should be no clause in this act that overrides state-based laws, to include this. I hounded him personally for this to be in the bill. Others did too. Thankfully, as a result, it's included in this bill. Clause 12 is the Porteous clause, which says that a statement of belief in itself should not be something that gets you hauled over the coals. There might be those that say, 'Yes, but Archbishop Porteous actually didn't get found guilty,' or whatever they do in these jumped-up kangaroo courts, which are called antidiscrimination tribunals, that the states run. He didn't, because the matter was dropped by the complainant because of political pressure. I have a distinct memory of the then commissioner that was overseeing this tribunal—this jumped-up kangaroo court—saying that she wished the complainant had kept that complaint going, because there was a case to answer. There was a case to answer of discrimination, because a Catholic archbishop told his flock what his church's teaching was with respect to marriage. That's what we are talking about here. That's what we are trying to protect: a Christian—or any other person of faith; a Buddhist—articulating a statement of belief, a genuinely held belief, from being hauled over the coals for that belief. That is wrong, and it just seems that I've entered this bizarre twilight zone where people don't get this. They don't get this argument. It's actually less Twilight Zone and more Orwell. It's Animal Farm, where everyone's endowed with rights, but some rights are lesser than others. The rights of Christians are certainly lesser than others in this country. I could point to Citipointe Christian College—another school, if you want to know what gets you cancelled in this country—and its principal, who sent out a statement of biblical beliefs that he asked parents and students to sign up to at this Christian school. No-one forces anyone to go to a Christian school. It's not like you're trapped into it and you don't have a choice to go to a grammar school, a state school, a Catholic school or any other school, for that matter. But they arced up because this Christian school sent out a statement of Christian beliefs that it wanted its students and parents to adhere to. Yes, there were statements in that about sexuality. There were statements in that about gender. For that, fire and brimstone rained down upon that college. The principal left his spot. Thanks very much to all the political and media elite that actually trampled upon the college and cost a person their job. You didn't think of that, did you? You didn't think about all of the abuse that the receptionists at that college copped. I phoned them up the next day, sadly after they'd made the decision to pull that statement of beliefs. I phoned them up and I apologised to them for the actions of people in this place on both sides, actions that led to all of that abuse and led to their principal standing down, actions like those we saw from the Queensland government that said that they would launch an investigation, presumably to take away some legal status or funding that the school had. This is where we've gotten to in this country. This is why this law is needed, as flawed as it is—and, boy, oh boy, it is flawed. It's flawed because it's watered down, and yet we have the Left screaming at us that this is somehow going to erode other people's rights. It's not. It's just going to, in a very dulled-down, watered-down, dampened way, ensure that, if people say something, they aren't ipso facto hauled before some tribunal to answer for their thought crimes. Very Orwellian, indeed. What we've dropped out of this bill, which should have been in it, are all sorts of other protections. The so-called Folau clause, which was in this but is now not in it, has basically given way because there's a view that permeates this place, I guess, that the almighty dollar and profits are more important than people's religious beliefs. We've sacrificed that protection for workers. I don't know; will there be people who, in future, are sacked from their jobs, sacked from their work or sacked from their position or their profession because they articulate some form of Christian or religious belief? Probably, because it's happened before. I could actually quote you many people other than just Israel Folau who've lost their jobs, lost their contracts, lost their professions. I can tell you about doctors who have lost their professions because they privately posted their religious beliefs on their private social media pages. They lost their professions. That's the state of the nation right now when it comes to religious freedom—to be quite honest, there's very little. For those jokers, which is the only thing I can call them, who say, 'You're free to read the Bible; you're free to go to church,' you have no idea what religious liberty truly is. You have no idea what real faith actually is. People who believe these things believe them innately. It forms part of their core. Belief is fundamental to human beings. When you believe in a religious system, in your creator, who has presented certain truths to you and to humanity, you take that in as a whole, not in bit parts that you can pick and choose and say, 'I'll flick that one off.' These people don't have the luxury of just saying, 'I won't believe that; I won't say that,' but when they do believe that they get in trouble for it in Australia. It's wrong. It's very, very wrong. I am very sad that this has been watered down this much—it really has been watered down so, so much—because it is the hill we should die on. Without religious liberty—and this is the problem: this bill is about religious discrimination. What we wanted was religious liberty, not religious discrimination. We wanted religious liberty. I could quote you the words of a book that a lot of people should read if they don't get it. The book is The Benedict Option by American columnist Rod Dreher. He bemoans the fact that in the public square there is no space now for Christians. They have been drowned out, essentially—pushed out. But he says there is one cause that should receive all the attention that Christians have left for national politics, and that is religious liberty. It is critically important, he says. Without a robust and successful defence of religious liberty, Christians will not be able to actually build communal institutions that are vital to maintaining their identity and values. They're pushed out of the public square, relegated to their own institutions. They won't even be able to live those values genuinely if they don't have true religious liberty. The fact is that, because we've watered this down—and I'm quoting Rod Dreher here—and we haven't acted decisively within the embattled zone of freedom we have now, we are wasting precious time, time that may run out faster than we think. I think the time ran out a while ago for true religious liberty in Australia. Again I quote Rod Dreher, from when he came to Australia. He came here just as the Folau situation burst forth, and he said: It is positively perverse, though, to watch victorious progressives frenetically bouncing the rubble— of the culture war being lost for Christian conservatives or religious conservatives. He wrote: From observing the heretic-hunting hysteria surrounding the Israel Folau case, you would think that theocratic tyranny was about to breach the city walls. You would be hard-pressed to find a demographic with less cultural and economic power than Pentecostals of Pacific Islander descent, yet the good and the great of Australia's elite have bravely―oh so bravely!―destroyed the career of just such a man because he hath blasphemed— against the zeitgeist. This is the problem with all of this. What we see here with the watering down of this bill, and the fervent opposition to this watered down bill, is the fact that we have moved from being a Liberal democracy in this country to a woke mob democracy. We really have. We've jumped the shark as a nation. If you have an belief—innately held, held for centuries—that is not in line with the zeitgeist of the times and you dare utter it, then you are not just cancelled; there is currently legal action that can be taken against you for expressing those beliefs. Let that sink in. I don't know how people can't see how wrong that is. As much as I'm critical of this bill—and I am, make no mistake—this is a wet lettuce. It will do a little bit of good in pushing back against this tide of rampant secularism that threatens to ride roughshod over every person of faith in this nation. So I'll take that little bit of good and hope so much more can be done in the future, although I doubt it. I have grave fears for the future of religious liberty in this country, very grave fears indeed.
Morant, Lieutenant Harry (Breaker), Handcock, Lieutenant Peter, Witton, Lieutenant George | Adjournment | House debates
Apart from the last sentence, I concur with the previous speaker. We should never have had lockdowns. If justice were a meal, it would be better served cold than not served at all, and in a...
Apart from the last sentence, I concur with the previous speaker. We should never have had lockdowns. If justice were a meal, it would be better served cold than not served at all, and in a country where belief in a fair go is in our DNA the quest for justice should never fade. That's why, 120 years after the fact, there remains a strong desire amongst many people, some of my parliamentary colleagues included, for one of our national legends to receive long-overdue justice. In February it will be 120 years since the execution of Harry Morant—better known as Breaker Morant—and Peter Handcock, as well as the sentencing of their colleague George Witton to life imprisonment. Their trials and execution have been the subject of great conjecture in Australian history as well as the subject of stories, books, ballads, a screenplay and the 1980 movie titled Breaker Morant. Harry Morant established himself as quite a character from very early on in life. He was undoubtedly an expert horseman, reportedly a womaniser and perhaps a little loose with the truth about his past and legendary exploits. Depending on which stories you believe, he may even have been a bit of a scoundrel. But being larger than life or, indeed, being a scoundrel does not make justice any less deserved. Even in times of conflict on foreign soil, everyone should be entitled to due process and equality before the law. Morant, Handcock and Witton were not tried in accordance with the military law of the time—1902 we're talking about. Their convictions were likely unlawful and their sentences likely illegal, as the men were not afforded an opportunity to appeal, which was a right enshrined in law in 1902. There was a failure to implement the courts martial recommendations of mercy, and there were denials of a proper opportunity to consult legal counsel before trial, the right to communicate with witnesses and next of kin and the right to communicate with the Australian government of 1902 to seek intervention and support. Australians have always held in high regard the men and women putting their lives on the line by defending our freedoms on foreign soil. But not all Australians show the same respect today that they once did. There are those in the media and amongst the elites who despise our nation and those who fight to protect it. In 2016 some rumours were enough to launch an investigation conducted by New South Wales Supreme Court judge Paul Brereton to answer questions of unlawful conduct concerning the Special Operations Task Group in Afghanistan. What followed was a media and antimilitary pile-on besmirching not only the subjects of the rumours but an entire class of people. You might recall that Chinese foreign ministry official Lijian Zhao posted to Twitter a photoshopped image depicting an Australian soldier holding a knife to the neck of an Afghani child. When the Brereton report was released the entire Special Air Service's second squadron was completely disbanded, tarnishing the reputation of every single member, whether they were a subject of that report or not. When you read the report, it found that the rumours, the allegations and the suspicions around 39 alleged incidents were 'not substantiated'. While the inquiry found 'credible information' about 23 incidents, it said about that credible information: There can of course be credible information of a matter warranting further investigation, even if there is also credible information to the contrary. A finding that there is credible information of a matter is not a finding that the matter is proved … But the trial by media and public persecution of our soldiers had already been conducted. A whole squadron was treated as if it were guilty and sentenced to a tarnished reputation, regardless of what outcomes may yet come out of any legal proceedings, so 120 years on we still have Australian soldiers being judged unfairly and not being afforded due process. But, as I said, justice is better served cold than never served at all. We can still afford Breaker Morant, Peter Handcock and George Witton the legal processes they deserved at that time. That's why I'm calling on the government to initiate an independent review into those allegations, the evidence, the trial and the legal processes to determine whether justice was properly served and whether those three Australian soldiers really were just scapegoats. I know many people have spoken about a pardon, and descendants of these men would be extremely happy to have their ancestors exonerated. At the very least we should give them the courtesy of proper due process and properly investigate the circumstances that led to the execution of Morant and Handcock. If an independent review finds grounds for an exoneration, then a pardon from the Australian government for those men who served their country in the Boer War would be the appropriate course of action.
Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021; Consideration in Detail | Bills | House debates
I want to commend the amendments that have been put to the House. There are many bioethical dilemmas with the bill that is before us. I, for one, have met with a sufferer of this horrific...
I want to commend the amendments that have been put to the House. There are many bioethical dilemmas with the bill that is before us. I, for one, have met with a sufferer of this horrific ailment, and I do feel massive sorrow around the fact that I cannot vote for the bill if the bill doesn't have these amendments. It is a serious affliction. I've spoken to this girl at length about that affliction and what it has caused for her life. I realise right here and now that those people do deserve some form of hope. There are two bioethical dilemmas, one being the issue of essentially three sets of DNA being in a new human being. I'm willing to put my concerns on that to the side. But where I can't put my concerns to the side is around the destruction of human life. I just do not believe that we can destroy human life to alleviate the suffering, or the potential suffering, of another human life. Knowing that this process, this treatment, hasn't resulted in anything that is successful as yet leads me to say that we probably shouldn't destroy human life. I do commend the amendments and I hope the amendments are supported, because if the amendments were supported, I would support the bill, and I suspect there might be other people that would support the bill.
COVID-19: Vaccination | Motions | House debates
I second the motion. I'll be very brief. I support this motion because of the heartache that I am hearing and the harm that I'm hearing from my constituents, people who have lost their jobs or...
I second the motion. I'll be very brief. I support this motion because of the heartache that I am hearing and the harm that I'm hearing from my constituents, people who have lost their jobs or are about to lose their jobs, all because they will not be part of, or do not wish to be part of, a provisionally approved medical procedure in this country. It is a provisionally approved medical procedure. There is no denying that fact; it's on the TGA's website. For governments to be saying to people—it is not, I appreciate, the Australian government; it is state governments that are saying it—that they must go and have this medical procedure done in order to keep their job is anathema. It is hurting people—a lot of people. To show the stupidity of it—I mentioned this last night in this place—a psychologist in Mackay who does home consults by telehealth has to be double vaccinated, or she loses her career of 30 years. Tell me: how is COVID going to crawl down the internet and infect one of her patients? It's absurd. But the whole thing is absolutely absurd. It's not just workers who are going to be hurt here. I know of small business owners—cafe owners—who don't want to partake in the medical procedure, and they are going to have to shut their doors. Perhaps even some of them will go bankrupt in Queensland from 17 December. We can do something about it here in this place. We should do something about it. We control the data that comes from the Australian Immunisation Register. It can be flicked off with a switch, and then no-one knows who's vaccinated and who's not. We should have that stance until the people who are imposing this medical segregation actually say they're going to stop it and not harm anyone anymore.
Mining | Statements by Members | House debates
The behaviour of anti-coal activists at Carmichael Mine in North Queensland has reached a dangerous level. They are putting their lives at risk and endangering the lives of mine workers who are...
The behaviour of anti-coal activists at Carmichael Mine in North Queensland has reached a dangerous level. They are putting their lives at risk and endangering the lives of mine workers who are just trying to do their job. The level of harassment, abuse and intimidation that workers are subjected to is illegal and disgusting. We recently had an aggressive high-speed off-road vehicle chase, with activists pursuing and swerving towards the vehicles of mineworkers. They circled a mineworker's ute in their own vehicle, accelerated and then slammed on the brakes right in front of that worker's ute. It's fine to protest. I support the right to free speech and the right to march peacefully in the streets. You all know I support the freedom protests. But it's interesting to juxtapose how an anti-coal activist behaving violently in North Queensland is dealt with by the law with how a freedom protester marching peacefully on the streets of Melbourne is dealt with. As I said, it's fine to protest, but it's not fine to put other people's lives at risk and it's not fine to trespass on private property. We've seen activists chaining themselves to railway lines, abusing railworkers just trying to do their jobs. The latest was this morning, with a serial offender suspending herself from equipment at the Abbot Point coal terminal. The problem is that these serial offenders get a slap on the wrist in court, and then they're back at it again. The law needs to be stronger. North Queensland workers need to be better protected from the illegal and dangerous behaviour of these serial offenders.
COVID-19: Vaccination | Statements | House debates
Philosopher Hannah Arendt, one of the greatest thinkers of our time, said: As citizens, we must prevent wrongdoing because the world in which we all live, wrong-doer, wrong sufferer and...
Philosopher Hannah Arendt, one of the greatest thinkers of our time, said: As citizens, we must prevent wrongdoing because the world in which we all live, wrong-doer, wrong sufferer and spectator, is at stake. That is why I want to talk about the harmful impacts of vaccine mandates. I have received over 100,000 emails about vaccine mandates. Some are from people who have lost their jobs. Some are from people who are vaccinated but are wanting to register their opposition to governments forcing other people to be vaccinated. Contrary to the mainstream media line, the vast majority of people opposing such mandates are not anti-vaxxers. They are people who have had adverse reactions; who have suffered vaccine injury; who have lost their jobs and, as a result, lost their families; or who have watched their friends, family members and colleagues suffer as a result of those mandates. They are hardworking Aussies who do not believe anyone should be forced to get the jab in order to work or to access basic and essential services, let alone be ostracised from the wider community. People from all over the country have contacted my office to tell me about their stories. These are real people who are scared and suffering. They are police officers, nurses, doctors, paramedics, teachers, miners, small-business owners, mums and dads. They are your sisters, your brothers, your neighbours and your family members, and I want to give them a voice in this chamber. One of my constituents from Mackay is pregnant. She has now lost her job due to a workplace vaccine mandate and is in significant distress because, she says, she can't access doctor and midwife appointments in person because she is unvaccinated. She is not anti vaccination; she just wants to be sure of the long-term effects of the vaccine before she has it. Then there are those on the verge of suicide or who have attempted suicide because of the stress of workplace vaccine mandates. I have had constituents tell my office they are seriously considering suicide, to the point where staff have had to refer people to Lifeline. I had a construction worker email my office from a hospital on a Sunday morning after he had attempted to take his own life. The week prior, he had lost his job because of a vaccine mandate, and as a result his wife had left him and taken the kids. He told my staffer that he had nothing left to live for. My office has been contacted by multiple local aviation firefighters who have raised concerns about the travelling public being placed at risk due to staff shortages because of impending vaccine mandates that have short-staffed airports of firefighters, including at my local airports in Mackay and Proserpine. I was also contacted by a Mackay psychologist who, despite having a blood clotting disorder, is unable to obtain a medical exemption. She wanted to continue working and support her clients of 30 via telehealth, but some bureaucrat has decided she should be vaccinated in order to sit in her own study and treat people over a computer screen. So now she is going to have to change careers after 30 years of service. I have also received emails from constituents who have had adverse reactions to vaccines. Yes, while they are rare, the fact is that they may happen. A young mum had heart palpitations and chest pains after the first dose of Pfizer and is now so scared get the second, but she has to if she wants to keep her job. How is that not coercion? She has to choose between paying her mortgage and putting food on the table for her kids or risking another adverse reaction which could be worse for her. These mandates are putting people under undue stress. These stories, these cries and these pleas for help are simply not being listened to. We should be listening. It is clearly state governments and private corporations in the main causing this harm, but it is Commonwealth data from the Australian Immunisation Register that is enabling that harm, as that data shows who is vaccinated or not. State governments and private corporations might not be listening, but I am not in state parliament or on a private corporation board; I'm in the federal parliament. So I want the Australian government to listen by not allowing its data to be misused to cause such harm. Until we do, I am no longer listening to the government whips on how I should vote in this place. Instead, I'm voting with my own conscience on every bill. I'm not doing this to be difficult; I'm doing my job. I'm representing views of my constituents, serving the people and standing up for the vulnerable, and I call on all of us to listen. Listen to the pleas for help, the distress and the suffering. Vaccine mandates are unnecessary, they're cruel, and I fear they're causing a tear in the social fabric that will take many, many years to repair.
Blackburn, Ms Shandee | Statements by Members | House debates
In February 2013, a young Mackay woman, 23-year-old Shandee Blackburn, was brutally stabbed to death on her way home from work. It was an horrific crime that rocked our community, and it remains...
In February 2013, a young Mackay woman, 23-year-old Shandee Blackburn, was brutally stabbed to death on her way home from work. It was an horrific crime that rocked our community, and it remains unsolved. In the last few days, however, as a result of an investigative podcast by the Australian's Hedley Thomas, we have learnt there are some very serious questions being raised about the DNA testing at Queensland's government-run laboratory. Samples sent to that lab have not been fully tested and, on a number of occasions, DNA could not be detected—not even in a sample of Shandee's own blood. One of this country 's most respected forensic scientists, Dr Kirsty Wright, has looked into the case and has grave concerns. Dr Wright is calling for testing at the lab to be suspended and an inquiry conducted. She has said: … we need a public inquiry because I don't believe the police and the courts can trust any of the DNA results coming out of this lab … Doctor Wright also said: … this has the potential to be the biggest forensic disaster in Australia's history. And yet the Queensland health minister has refused to consider an inquiry or the retesting of the evidence. The family of Shandee Blackburn—and I spoke with Vicki Blackburn, Shandee's mother, earlier today—have called that response a disgrace. They do deserve better. I'm calling on the Queensland government to take action to immediately investigate that forensics facility and see what can be done to have justice for Shandee.
China: 2022 Winter Olympic Games | Statements by Members | House debates
I rise to call for a boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympic Games in Beijing. To go ahead with these games without formally registering our concerns about crimes against humanity occurring at the...
I rise to call for a boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympic Games in Beijing. To go ahead with these games without formally registering our concerns about crimes against humanity occurring at the hands of the Chinese Communist Party sends a very strong message to the victims that we actually turn a blind eye to their suffering. So I, for one, will not turn a blind eye and will never forget their anguish. We, as a nation that respects human rights and dignity, must not let this happen. In a few months time the best athletes in the world will converge on Beijing for the Winter Olympic Games and, whilst sport does unite us and brings out the best in humanity, it is also crucial that the world unites to respect the humanity of those who suffer human rights atrocities occurring at the hands of the CCP. We refused to turn a blind eye to the rapidly-deteriorating human rights situation in Hong Kong and the Tibet autonomous region. Tibet and the Xinjiang Uighur autonomous region are where Tibetans, Uighurs and other minority groups are subject to widespread religious and cultural repression, forced labour, sterilisation, political indoctrination, arbitrary detention, torture and death. Make no mistake: the Tibetans, the Uighurs and other minority groups in those regions are victims of genocide, crimes against humanity and cultural genocide. This is happening now. Whilst the International Olympic Committee has made it clear that it is not in the business of politics, the Olympic Charter's principles of solidarity and nondiscrimination are hard to reconcile with holding the 2022 games in a country whose government stands credibly accused of perpetrating crimes against humanity and genocide. We know what's going on and it would be a betrayal of our common humanity to stand in silence. So I say to the House and to members of the International Olympic Committee that the desire to stay above politics does not mean turning a blind eye to mass atrocity. There's still time to urgently postpone the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing and initiate an emergency search process for suitable replacement facilities outside China for the 2022 Winter Olympic Games, to make a strong stand for human rights. There's time for us here in this country to register our protest against crimes against humanity. We must decline invitations for state officials to attend the games as long as Beijing remains the host, and discourage companies operating in Australia from acting as commercial sponsors for those games. We must work multilaterally with our allies through all available forums, including the Five Eyes alliance, to urge the IOC to move the games from Beijing to a suitable host outside China. I also urge individual athletes competing to think carefully about whether they should take part and consider a personal boycott should those games remain in China. Their boycott would possibly send the strongest message that human rights abuses are not okay in any part of the world.
National Health Amendment (Enhancing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2021; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Debate adjourned.
Illegal Detention of Australian Journalists (Free Julian Assange) Bill 2021; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I move: That this bill be now read a second time. In moving the Illegal Detention of Australian Journalists (Free Julian Assange) Bill 2021 to the House, I note that it seeks to enshrine an...
I move: That this bill be now read a second time. In moving the Illegal Detention of Australian Journalists (Free Julian Assange) Bill 2021 to the House, I note that it seeks to enshrine an offence of seven years imprisonment for a head of a foreign government if the head of state detains an Australian journalist or requests another foreign government to detain an Australian journalist in the course of undertaking legitimate journalistic activity. Mr Speaker, I have to tell you, it gives me no pleasure in having to put this bill before the House today, because by introducing this bill it is a recognition that we are failing to protect the rights and freedoms of our own citizens. And I, for one, think this is an absolute disgrace. Regardless of what you think of Julian Assange, who this bill focuses on, the bottom line is that he is an Australian journalist being detained—there are those people who dispute that; you could say 100 per cent that he is an Australian publisher—and punished for exposing the corruption of the powerful. The Biden administration, which has continued on the case against Julian Assange, is using one of our own to intimidate other journalists who even think about exposing secrets and war crimes. They don't care about an Australian citizen—in this case—he is dispensable. But at the end of the day, this is not about him. I am not asking anyone in this chamber to like Assange—you don't have to put him on your Christmas card list—and no one has to agree with what he says or the way he carries out his business. But you don't have to like someone to stand up and say that the way they are being treated is plain wrong. An Australian journalist is potentially facing 175 years in jail—an effective death sentence—for exposing crimes against humanity, corruption and shedding a light on the plight of the weak and vulnerable. As the Editor in Chief of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange did not commit a crime, he simply reported the truth. Now, I understand you and many others may have heard things about Assange, so before I outline the substantive parts of the bill let's get a few facts straight. None of the WikiLeaks publications resulted in Defence Force deaths. In August 2010, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell confirmed: 'There was no evidence that anyone had been killed because of the leaks.' Another Pentagon official had confirmed: 'The military still has no evidence that the leaks have led to any deaths.' In 2010 our own Australian defence department task force concluded, in the words of the then minister, John Faulkner: 'Overall, the content published by WikiLeaks does not reveal any significant details about operational incidents involving Australians beyond that already publicly released.' So there we have the first myth busted. Secondly, Assange did not hack anything—it was Chelsea Manning who accessed the information in question and passed it on to Assange. The Biden administration, in continuing with the appeal to extradite Julian Assange, is now in effect prosecuting Assange for carrying out regular journalistic activity such as passively receiving information. Not hacking—journalism. He should not be in prison. He was not even on US soil when he published the cables in question. If the Biden administration is successful, it will establish a dangerous precedent of extraterritorial prosecutions for the alleged crime of journalism. That means that any Australian journalist in any part of the world can be prosecuted for their work. We need to seriously think about the implications of this. Extraterritorial prosecutions are dangerous. We should not allow one of our own citizens to become the Biden administration's test case. But Assange has never been treated as a regular accused. When he was detained in the Ecuadorian embassy, he and his lawyers were spied upon by Spanish firm UC Global, violating basic due process rights. It was revealed after his arrest that two of his manuscripts, as well as his legal papers, medical records and electronic equipment, were handed to US officials by Ecuadorian embassy staff. This is not the weekend newspaper we're talking about here—they stole his legal papers, medical records and personal notes, and handed them straight to those prosecuting him. It is an affront to the principles of natural justice that the Australian government has raised zero concerns about this clear violation of his privacy, as far as I'm aware. If this goes without condemnation, the implication is that any foreign country can do the same. Could you imagine if an Australian journalist was detained and spied upon by the then KGB, and the then Kremlin sought to use evidence against them? Would we have stayed silent, back in Cold War times? I don't think so. That's why we need legislation like this. Another fact that is overlooked is that a fair trial for Julian Assange is in effect impossible. If the Biden administration is successful in appealing the extradition he will not be taken to a normal court where evidence is open, like we have here in Australia. He will be tried in the east district court of Virginia, otherwise known as 'the spy court'. The judge handling the case will be Leonie Brinkema. She is known for her hard-line stance on issues of national security, and the use of secret evidence, that we don't know about, will be allowed. No defendant has ever won in that court. This is an affront to justice. This is not a fair go. This is un-Australian. And that's if he even makes it to that court. If Assange is extradited, he will be subject to 'special administrative measures' and detained in the Alexandria facility. If convicted, the notorious ADX Colorado, where people were buried alive—they have no contact with the outside world, and they go slowly insane. There is a significant and grave risk of serious human rights violations if Assange is transferred to US custody. UK courts have recognised this. They blocked the extradition earlier this year because they know he is at risk of suicide if he ends up in the US. He is one of our own, and the implications of his prosecution are serious. The precedent it will set will open the floodgates. And that's why we need to remember the broader global context in which this is happening and the urgent need for this bill. The fourth estate is under sustained attack globally. Democracy and freedom are on the line. In an increasingly volatile world, the role of the media in holding authorities to account has never been more vital. A world devoid of freedom of speech and freedom of the press creates a democratic abyss and undermines the liberal democratic values Australia holds dear. Journalists and publishers play a crucial role in shining a light on human rights abuses, holding oppressive authorities to account and independently reporting facts, including allegations of corruption, civil unrest, conflict and war. That's when they're doing their job properly rather than focusing on sideline issues, as some do. The rise of authoritarianism and the inclination of oppressive regimes to censor, harass, detain, torture and engage in the extrajudicial assassination of journalists under the guise of national security or espionage offences has become an increasingly troubling phenomenon. The brutal killing of Jamal Khashoggi exemplifies this dangerous reality for journalists in all parts of the world. The Committee to Protect Journalists estimates that between 1992 and 2021, 1,418 journalists were killed in the course of undertaking regular journalistic activity. In 2021 alone, 274 journalists have been imprisoned globally, and a further 66 are confirmed as missing. Censorship and methods of intimidation are also commonly used, such as threats of prosecution and detaining family members. This bill therefore seeks to protect Australian journalists from politically motivated detention and prosecution by foreign powers, such as those which engage in hostage diplomacy and/or political persecutions in order to impede transparency, hide potential misconduct and/or human rights abuses, and engage in prosecutions that subsequently result in a chilling effect for freedom of the press, thereby threatening undermining democratic values. It seeks to act as a deterrent. The bill seeks to clearly define 'journalism' to include conduct engaged in the regular course of legitimate journalism, such as publishing and passively receiving information. Not conduct that would be subject to criminal prosecution, but journalistic activity. The core of this bill is section 4, which seeks to enshrine an offence of seven years imprisonment for a head of a foreign government if the head of that government detains an Australian journalist, or requests another foreign government to detain an Australian journalist, in the course of undertaking legitimate journalistic activity. Section 5 of the bill addresses conduct engaged in by agents of a foreign government. For example, if the head of a foreign government has contracted out the detention of the Australian citizen undertaking journalism, they would still be liable still for prosecution. This would include security contractors and intelligence agencies. The bill also covers journalistic conduct that is alleged to have occurred in any jurisdiction, due to the recent move of the Biden administration seeking the extraterritorial prosecution of Assange. Numerous reports suggest foreign governments charge journalists with offences such as sedition, national security and espionage related breaches of respective criminal codes in an attempt to cloak and 'legitimise' politically motivated prosecutions. This is the current situation faced by several Australian journalists, including Assange but also Cheng Lei, who is being held at the behest of the Chinese Communist Party. That's why section 4 provides a clause pertaining to the real and underlying cause of the detention, such as politically motivated persecutions. I present the bill. I note there may not be a seconder, Mr Speaker. That is fine. The bill is there for all to see, as is Assange's plight.
Personal Explanation | Statements | House debates
Thank you very much for that. This is just to refer to reports and claims that I directly compared state premiers to Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot. I wish to inform the House I did not. I said the...
Thank you very much for that. This is just to refer to reports and claims that I directly compared state premiers to Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot. I wish to inform the House I did not. I said the path they were on was troubling. If there is concern over any misrepresentation that I did say that, then that's regrettable. Further, there have been false claims in the Senate, on the social media and elsewhere that I called for and/or incited violence. I did no such thing. I never did and never would. I abhor violence.
CHRISTENSEN () (): I wish to make a personal explanation.
Fuel | Matters of Public Importance | House debates
It is my pleasure to rise on this matter of public importance raised by the member for Kennedy, my electoral neighbour and good friend. I should say we're talking about fuel security here in...
It is my pleasure to rise on this matter of public importance raised by the member for Kennedy, my electoral neighbour and good friend. I should say we're talking about fuel security here in Australia, and I want to begin by acknowledging some of the recent things that have happened in this space in Australia under the Morrison government, such as the minimum onshore stock holding obligation to safeguard key transport fuels, including increasing diesel stocks by 40 per cent. It's a very good start, a long way from where we were under previous policy. I also note the investment of over a quarter of a billion dollars in constructing new diesel storage to create about a thousand new jobs, but more importantly to increase diesel storage in strategic key locations across the nation, and also locking in our remaining refineries; they were dwindling and threatening to go by the wayside. Locking them in also gives us a level of security that we didn't have before. But it is probably an understatement to say that that's just a good start. There is a lot more that needs to be done, because we are well short of international obligations of around 90 days of fuel security, which is considered what is needed by any sovereign nation to get through some crisis. If there were a situation where our shipping lines were cut and we were reliant on fuel coming in from another nation, we would be in a lot of trouble, which is why other avenues need to be explored, such as biofuels. The member for Kennedy and I have been long-time supporters of the idea of expanding the ethanol industry through a mandate. I drive on ethanol just about all the time. When I go to a bowser that has an E10 option, I use that. It's clean, it's efficient, it drives very well, and, on top of that, it is a green fuel. So we could do more by boosting that. There is so much more that could be done in that space. In my remaining time, I want to respond to the first part of the member for Kennedy's matter of public importance, and that is the response to Glasgow COP26, and I have a response to Glasgow COP26. All of these international experts and politicians and all the rest of it flew into the home city of my mother, actually, God bless her. They flew into Glasgow, a place that, because of my grandparents and my mother, I thought was a place of common sense, but it seems a lot of uncommon sense flew in—nonsense, actually. They flew in on a cornucopia of different gas-guzzling jets, producing goodness knows how much in terms of emissions. And I've got to tell you that the summary of those proceedings was given by none other than climate activist Greta Thunberg at the beginning, where she said the words 'blah, blah, blah'. That's basically all that came out of COP26, apart from some personal emissions by the President of the United States in front of Camilla. We had Joe Biden falling asleep—again, a great summary of the proceedings of that event; Prince Charles doing a bit of stumbling; Obama thinking he was in the Emerald Isle; and CNN reporting that the conference was held in Edinburgh. How could you say that, as a son of a Glaswegian? But this is what it amounted to. Absolutely nothing over there. There were 140 countries getting together and voting on things like halting and reversing forest loss and land degradation by 2030, when most of them actually don't even have forests to speak of or have any that are in any danger of being whittled away. So that was Glasgow—a complete and utter waste of time for the entire world, one of the talkfests again that will just go down in the annals of history as complete stupidity. But what's going to come out of it, or what people are going to say is going to come out of it, are things that are going to affect our lives here in Australia, things that are going to affect our industries—the push for net zero, the push for closing down the coal industry by 2030. All of these things will be of great detriment to Australia and great detriment to the workers and businesses of Australia. So I think my response to Glasgow COP26, for the member for Kennedy's benefit, is that it wasn't just a waste of time; it was a dangerous waste of time.
COVID-19: Vaccination | Statements by Members | House debates
The totalitarian regimes responsible for the most heinous atrocities in the 20th century—think Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot—didn't get there overnight. They used fear to control. They...
The totalitarian regimes responsible for the most heinous atrocities in the 20th century—think Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot—didn't get there overnight. They used fear to control. They excluded the dirty people, softly at first. They justified the exclusion. They moved to harder exclusions and eventually eliminated people either socially or physically. In 21st century Australia state premiers are racing down that familiar path, trying to out-tyrant each other, drunk on power, setting up their own biosecurity police states complete with medical apartheid. Sadly, we have enabled it, refusing to rein them in and, worse, supplying the Australian Immunisation Register data that underpins this medical apartheid. Fear is a justification of choice for coercion and control, with non-vaccinated Australians increasingly demonised, ostracised and socially eradicated. In Queensland the Premier tweeted that people not vaccinated raise red flags—not just one, but 22 of them. In the media politicians and health bureaucrats all claim COVID-19 is now a pandemic of the unvaccinated, but there is no justification for such demonisation. In a German study 55 per cent of symptomatic patients over 60 were fully vaccinated. Gibraltar, where all 34,000 residents are fully vaccinated, is recording 60 new cases a day. The totalitarian path we are unquestionably on has never ended well. The solution is a rediscovery of human dignity, along with—and I don't say this lightly—civil disobedience. (Time expired)