Alex Antic's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Australian Society | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
The science has weighed in, and it turns out that the right of politics is the more pleasing to the eye. Research in Politics and the Life Sciences journal has now found that the more attractive...
The science has weighed in, and it turns out that the right of politics is the more pleasing to the eye. Research in Politics and the Life Sciences journal has now found that the more attractive crowd leans conservative. It's not just your imagination: physically strong men, especially those with serious upper body muscle, are generally more conservative. Broad chest? You've got yourself a right-winger. Weak, doughy dudes? Well, they're apparently more into wealth redistribution, largely because they need help carrying their own groceries. Why the pattern? Well, it's called the halo effect. The good-looking, fit people get more opportunities; that's why. More opportunities, bigger pay cheques, fewer excuses, and their wives don't have boyfriends—you get it. That's the way it works. Success breeds success; that's classic conservative energy. Fitness itself screams discipline, delayed gratification and personal responsibility. Progressives? Well, they're often spotted clutching their oat milk lattes while protesting. But, of course, exceptions exist. Beauty is subjective and politics isn't just a bodybuilding competition. But the data keeps flexing in one direction, and that is that commonsense right-wingers show up looking as if they skip the excuses and hit the weight pile. So there you go. Trust the science. The right's better looking—sorry, lefties! I'll leave you with this: may your reps be high and your taxes be low.
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Amendment (No Jab No Pay Repeal) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. Leave granted. I table an explanatory memorandum, and I seek leave to have...
I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. Leave granted. I table an explanatory memorandum, and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— This Bill seeks to restore freedom of choice for concerned parents while addressing the financial pressures placed on conscientious objectors from lower socio-economic backgrounds by repealing the 2015 No Jab, No Pay changes to family assistance immunisation requirements. In 2015, conscientious objection and religious exemptions were removed from the immunisation requirements for eligibility for the Family Tax Benefit-A supplement, Child Care Benefit and Child Care Rebate—now the Child Care subsidy. The removal of these exemptions, and a new requirement for children of all ages to meet immunisation requirements for the FTB-A supplement—including older children—were included in the 2015-16 Budget as part of a package of measures aimed at boosting rates of immunisation—the policy was known as No Jab, No Pay. Through the Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Act 2015 the changes commenced from 1 January 2016, and included free catch-up vaccinations for older children who had not received all the required National Immunisation Program childhood vaccinations. Wealthier families who are not reliant on or qualify for FTB-A are free to exercise their judgement with respect to their children's medical treatment while those families reliant on FTB-A are forced into state mandated vaccine compliance in order to receive the financial assistance they require. Wealthier families are also more likely to have the time and energy to question and therefore vaccine hesitancy is strongest in well-educated, affluent families. This should come as no shock. A national survey of parents as far back as 2004 substantiated that parents who of unimmunised children were "significantly more likely to be tertiary educated." Lower income Australians are not afforded this same choice, further compounding the effect of financial stress and hardship on their daily lives. They cannot question, they cannot object. They must comply or be refused financial assistance for their family. When coupled with Australia's already high vaccination rates, coercing lower-income families through financial measures to immunise a child shows an unnecessary infringement on the freedom of choice for Australians who can least afford to express their views. They are shut out from espousing their personal concerns. Such coercion raises its own moral and ethical issues. According to the Australian Immunisation Handbook for consent to be legally valid, "It must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation". The principle of informed consent becomes questionable when consent is only obtained under the threat of denying much needed financial assistance to vulnerable families. The current regime undermines the concept of informed consent and is quite possibly in breach of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The 2015 change in legislation has placed undue financial pressures on parents in order to coerce them to accept medical treatment for their children they might not want. With the data gathered in the decade since the introduction of these measures, it is difficult to see how such imposts on families have had a substantial enough benefit to justify such an ethically questionable practice. This Bill seeks to address the infringement on the rights of parents to determine what is best for their child. Under the proposed changes, conscientious objectors would once again qualify for assistance, under certain circumstances. This Bill reinstates the definition ofconscientious objectoras follows: conscientious objection Under the proposed changes, a child (or FTB Child as defined by the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999) would meet their immunisation requirement if: It is clear that the current legislation disproportionately burdens low-income families who depend on family tax benefits and childcare subsidies to make ends meet. More and more families with the means have opted out of this system in since 2021, but Australia's immunisation rates remain at above average levels. Providing the same freedom to lower-socio economic families would have a minimal impact on national immunisation figures, while restoring their freedom of choice. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned.
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Amendment (No Jab No Pay Repeal) Bill 2025; First Reading | Bills | Senate debates
I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999, and for related purposes Question agreed to. I present the bill and...
I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999, and for related purposes Question agreed to. I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time.
Australian Parliament | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
What a disappointment we missed out on that spiel from Senator Ayres! Anyway, we'll get on with the real stuff. It actually leads me into the point I want to make today, which is that Australian...
What a disappointment we missed out on that spiel from Senator Ayres! Anyway, we'll get on with the real stuff. It actually leads me into the point I want to make today, which is that Australian politics is broken, as evidenced by that. It's not broken by a lack of promises. Every election we hear promises about glossy pledges, cheaper power, a fair go for all and listening to Australians. They're always listening to Australians. Yet, once the votes are counted, we get the same timid theatre in this place. What this building actually lacks is courage, moral clarity and a serious grasp of the forces that are reshaping this world beyond our shores. This building is entirely focused on itself. In fact, this very week the people in this building spent almost an entire sitting day lecturing an elected senator about what she was wearing in this chamber after they denied her the right to speak about her own bill, which is a common thing for this government. The people in this building speak in focus-group-style language while energy costs choke Australian households and young people inherit a nation that borrows from them in order to pay for today. This is a parliament filled with weathervanes, not compasses. I can tell you that pointing this out from the sidelines doesn't do anything at the moment. Complaining from the pub, on talkback radio or in furious posts on social media doesn't cost anything, and it achieves less. If you're tired of watching the slow-motion decline of this country, as I am, the responsibility is actually yours. Marches are all fine, but getting involved in politics is more important, because democracy is not a spectator sport. This country was built by people who refused to accept mediocrity, and the country can be reclaimed, but it's not going to be reclaimed with you sitting on your couch at home.
Earlier this month, the people of New York City elected a new mayor, who supports a radical swing towards socialism. You can't really expect that young people in this country wouldn't fall for...
Earlier this month, the people of New York City elected a new mayor, who supports a radical swing towards socialism. You can't really expect that young people in this country wouldn't fall for the sweet siren song of the left, though. Here in Australia, we've got to urgently take heed of these lessons, because, if you're under 35 and you're living in one of our capital cities or any regional centre, you're staring down the barrel of a million-dollar starter home and a HECS debt that grows faster than your wage, and you've probably been brainwashed into thinking the climate's on fire. If you're one of those people, it's not unreasonable to think that the left's pitch sounds a bit seductive. They promise to burn the whole system down and then rebuild it—free everything, seize the mansions of the rich and turn them into co-ops. It's not hard to see why that lands like oxygen in a room full of smoke. The left, of course, are selling a cure which is much, much worse than the disease, but here's the part that no-one on the right wants to say out loud: we're the ones letting young people down. Where's the vision that says, 'We see your anger, and we have a better answer—one that doesn't burn down the house just to fix the plumbing'? There has to be a proper plan delivered that marries free markets with real opportunity—a pitch to the 28-year-old that says, 'I'm not here to defend the corporate sector; I'm here to make sure you can become rich too, if you want, without needing a rich parent.' Instead, too many on the right have run from the fight and allowed the far left to own the language of kindness and the language of fairness, because we've been too busy trying to be more like the enemy to notice that the housing crisis was radicalising the young generation. Young people aren't stupid; they're rational. When one side says, 'Burn it down,' and the other side says, 'No, cook it slowly,' guess which megaphone gets the retweets. Surely this has to be a wake-up call. To the far left: your revolution's going to deliver queues, corruption and a new elite wearing Che Guevara shirts. Venezuela tried your playbook, by the way, and so did every other socialist experiment that promised paradise and delivered poverty with better slogans. Wealth isn't a fixed pie to be sliced up; it's a garden to grow. You can't redistribute your way to prosperity when the pie stops expanding. To the right: stop hiding. We've got to offer a principled alternative. Champion markets that work for everyone, not just the top one per cent. Back policies that reward risk, punish rent seeking and make homeownership possible before someone's 40th birthday. Talk about wealth creation and be the adults who say that they'll fix the system without torching the village. To the young people listening: you're right to be angry, but don't let the anger hand your future to ideologues who've never run a business, balanced a budget or met a payroll. Ask the left, 'Where's the money going to come from when the rich leave and the jobs all dry up?' and ask the right, 'What's your plan to make sure the next generation isn't permanently locked out?' The right of politics is down, but it's not out. It needs reform, not revolution, it needs courage, not cosplay, and it needs you—not as drones of the far left or collateral damage for the complacent right but as the generation that demands a fair go and the generation that demands a system that actually delivers for them.
Answers to Questions | Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers | Senate debates
Australians, having listened to today's question time and the answers given to questions asked by coalition senators, would have the right to feel as though this is a building that's not really...
Australians, having listened to today's question time and the answers given to questions asked by coalition senators, would have the right to feel as though this is a building that's not really listening to them. I should know; I work in here. The only job for a government is to put Australia and Australians first, and 'Australia first' means that everything we do every single day in this building must serve Australia's interests first and foremost. But what does that mean in real terms? It means that our government's duty is to its citizens—our workers, our farmers, our communities—not to foreign interests and not to the government's friends in the global elites that it's trying to cosy up to. This government is like the parent that takes their neighbour's kids to Dreamworld when their own kids need food and clothes. There's nothing these people love more than rubbing shoulders with the European elites and listening to their think tank speeches. By way of example, I give you the current energy policy and the reckless rush to net zero emissions, driven by the UN and their climate mandates, whose ideology has crippled our energy grid. While the swamp here in Canberra seems very concerned about climate change, climate targets, our UN obligations and so on, most Aussies just want to see their power bills reduced. Any government that puts Australia first would harness our abundant coal, gas and uranium to deliver cheap power, which would in turn ensure our industries thrive and households are not left in the dark. The second limb to Australia first is our borders, which are, of course, the bedrock of a sovereign nation. This government's immigration policies have thrown the gates open. An Australia-first policy would cap migration at sustainable levels. It would prioritise skilled workers where they're needed—people who share our values. It would strengthen our borders to protect our sovereignty. Third, we have the bloated foreign aid budget. The question has to be asked—and it's not asked often enough in this place. Why are we pumping money into other nations when there are upwards of 300,000 to 400,000 Australians living homeless on our streets? Why are we doing that? In 2025-26, Australians will deliver just over $5 billion in the Official Development Assistance fund, three-quarters of which is going to be spent in the Indo-Pacific, much of it on global climate initiatives, while Australia's regional hospitals and schools struggle for funding. An Australia-first government would redirect those funds to build our infrastructure, support our farmers and ensure that our defence focuses on simply protecting our shores. Fourth, we actually need an economy that works for Australians. Our acquiescence to globalisation has gutted manufacturing in this country, leaving us dependent on foreign supply chains. The free trade obsession and failure to protect local industries has cost jobs. An Australia-first economy would incentivise local production, protect our sectors—steel, agriculture and the like—and bring back jobs for our workers, not just for the profits of multinational corporations. Finally and often overlooked, an Australia-first government would be protecting free speech. It's the lifeblood of a free country and it's in a perilous position in 2025—I would say as perilous a position as it has ever been in this nation. The reality of this is that, without a proper set of protections for free speech in this country—and I'm not just talking about digital rights; I'm talking about across the board, with the incursions throughout all aspects. You name it; it's being clamped down on. Without it, there is no ability for Australians in this country to challenge what's going on in this building, to challenge the global elites and their friends in the mainstream media who continue to push these censorious policies. An Australia-first movement would defend Australians' right to speak freely, ensuring that no-one is silenced, regardless their views. An Australia-first government which was grounded in these five principles would restore our sovereignty, protect our borders, prioritise our security, rebuild our economy and defend our free speech, because that is what it means to be Australia first.
Pregnancy and Infant Loss | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
Earlier in the week, the Labor government rammed through the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025. The stated purpose of that bill was to ensure that employer funded paid parental leave...
Earlier in the week, the Labor government rammed through the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025. The stated purpose of that bill was to ensure that employer funded paid parental leave isn't cancelled because a child is stillborn or dies—I say that again 'or dies'. I've asked about the status of late-term abortion procedures as they relate to the stillborn baby payment, which is a different issue, during Senate estimates. It's understood that this payment, in some circumstances, is paid in the case of late-term abortions. To clarify that issue as it related to the bill, I moved an amendment that, if passed, would have stopped the payment being made in those circumstances. Last week, in the Federation Chamber, MPs Andrew Hastie, Barnaby Joyce, Henry Pike and Tony Pasin rightly raised the issue of Priya's bill being used following a late-term abortion. They did so respectfully. They did so offering no judgement. They didn't even seek to amend the bill. This morning on ABC Radio, opposition leader Sussan Ley said: … any commentary about this bill applying in other contexts is insensitive. I have to respond to that. How can it be insensitive to raise the issue of a clear loophole in a federally mandated scheme in the parliament, which votes on the scheme. That is their right, that is my right, and, indeed, that is the very purpose of debate in this parliament.
Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025, Australian Centre for Disease Control (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
I rise today to speak in opposition to this globalist takeover of Australian health, represented by the Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025 and the Australian Centre for Disease...
I rise today to speak in opposition to this globalist takeover of Australian health, represented by the Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025 and the Australian Centre for Disease Control (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025. These are bills which are going to further entrench the errors of the COVID-19 era into permanent federal bureaucracy in this country. The COVID period was a time of arbitrary bureaucratic edicts and contradictory health advice, something that more and more people have come to admit as the social pressure applied to them during that period has lessened. State government public health messaging, which inspired at the time by the US's own CDC and the World Health Organization, manipulated the Australian population, and the tactics used had very much the opposite of science and medicine in mind. They were about fear and propaganda. The COVID period was an absurd period in the nation's history in which bullying temporarily prevailed over rational discussion and inquiry, though, thankfully, many Australians saw through it. Arbitrary edicts such as mask-wearing and 1.5-metre social distancing were weaponised to close playgrounds, tape off park benches, separate families at funerals and prevent people from visiting dying loved ones in hospitals. Much of the suffering during that period was the result of government overreach and intervention that was enacted 'for your safety'. Over in the US, the American CDC became a symbol of politicised science, suppressed dissent and connections to pharmaceutical giants that were apparently above government scrutiny. The CDC's general advice was relied on by left-wing politicians and socialists and generally wielded as a cudgel even though dissidents were simply asking basic questions that the health authorities had no reasonable answers to. Those questions included things like: 'Why do I have to wear a mask on the way to the restaurant but not when I'm sitting at the table? Why do I have to get a vaccine with no long-term safety data if it doesn't prevent infection or the spread of the disease? Why is the Nobel Prize-winning, for-humans drug ivermectin being suppressed when it is safe?' Furthermore, the American CDC has often served as yet another enforcement arm of the ideological state, another bureaucratic element of clown world, as it could be called. It publishes articles about combating racism through public health policies and seems preoccupied with promoting a DEI version of public health in which the patriarchy and colonialism are portrayed as public health threats. One can read articles published by the CDC to find out the Impact of racist microaggressions and LGBTQ-related minority stressors: effects on psychological distress among LGBTQ+ young people of color, which, of course, is clearly designed to promote a cultural and political narrative and has nothing to do with health. This is not actual health research. During COVID, the US's CDC advice simply reiterated health slogans and mantras, which made it clear that to ask questions meant you should essentially be considered a threat to others. We don't have to go over all the details there; we've lived them so often. But I think it would be fair to say that, following the COVID period, we should be reconsidering our relationship with and our reliance on such institutions. The notion that the lesson we've learnt from the pandemic period is that we need greater centralised authority with regard to public health measures is a laughable concept, yet that's apparently what we learnt. That notion here arrives in light of the COVID-19 response inquiry report, which was published late last year. That review was always going to present a one-sided perspective of the events, although it paid carefully crafted lip service to the criticism of state governments in that period, such as acknowledging the strict border closures and lockdowns that might have been a touch overdone. The report was still designed to reinforce and justify the bureaucratic narrative, ultimately chalking up public outrage and the obvious errors of health departments to misinformation and a lack of data-sharing capabilities. 'If only the federal government had greater control,' they said, and hence the predictable recommendation was to create an Australian CDC. The inquiry report ignored the excess deaths phenomenon that's undoubtedly connected to the COVID-19 vaccines. It dismissed the scepticism of a vaccine that was hurriedly developed as being a result of mis- and disinformation and excused the draconian, heavy-handed mask mandates, lockdowns, border closures and so on as the result of being in an unprecedented situation. It just goes on and on. Aside from its purpose of justifying the narrative for the CDC, it's not worth reading. At the risk of repeating what I've said many times before, there was nothing unprecedented or unpredictable about what happened during this period. There are no excuses for the manipulative fear-inducing tactics that people, whether they were part of the government or not, used to intimidate others into compliance. It was obvious from the outset that COVID was not what we were being led to believe it was. Those who were intelligent enough to perceive that and brave enough to call it out were of course vilified by all of those in power. When the virus first arrived, there were people who knew that it actually wasn't very dangerous, and the case fatality rates were the same as the regular seasonal flu. If you weren't paying attention to the news, there really wasn't much reason to be concerned. It was only the media hysteria and stern attitudes of government officials that made everyone think differently. Few people under the age of 70 really had anything to worry about when it came to COVID. I have discussed elsewhere those staggering statistics which make the hysteria look completely absurd in hindsight. All of this is reason enough for opposing this bill. The lesson of COVID is not that we need tighter government control and more opportunity to combat misinformation. The lesson is more like we need to understand that, during the COVID period, health officials wielded too much power and were able to appeal to their own authority rather than real evidence. A good example of this arose when I asked SA health via a freedom-of-information request to provide the actual research undertaken to justify their public health measures, and all I got back was a series of meeting notes about that big—essentially nothing to see. We've got to understand that practitioners like doctors and nurses who raised questions about the safety of vaccines during that period or said anything which might be interpreted as undermining the government's official stance on the products, whether acting in their professional capacity or speaking privately, were told they would be suspended from their work. 'Trust the science,' amounted to nothing more than, 'Obey.' Yet the academic class congratulated themselves for their perception of their own heroism. I personally met many health professionals who have been excluded from the system they once worked for, for doing what they understood to be their job, which is treating individual patients with approaches which suited them as individuals. That, apparently, posed a threat to public health. We've got to understand that many regular citizens who questioned the mandates, the lockdowns, the strict border closures and so on were routinely dehumanised and labelled as dangerous and crazy by the media establishment. Many of them even lost their jobs for refusing to receive the treatment—a treatment that had zero long-term safety data and a range of reported adverse effects. Others were pressured into receiving it when they didn't want or need it because of financial concerns. As long as there is any reason to think the Australian CDC is going to promote or endorse such measures, I will not support this bill. There is no reason to think it won't. Simply put, the lesson of COVID is that just because the government says something does not make it true. To briefly address the bill itself, I will begin by noting that there is no real or concrete rationale for it. It's all pretty broad, generic rhetoric suggesting the need for greater data-sharing capabilities, the need for pandemic preparedness and the need for a public health authority to give clear messaging to Australians. It's not really clear to anyone why the new organisation needs to be developed for things that already seem to fall within the purview of the department of health, or why these things can't happen in the current system. There is no real cost-benefit analysis provided; however, as usual, the creation of this new organisation is creating a new role—in this case, the CDC director-general, which sounds very important, but this is another person who will be an unelected anointed bureaucrat wielding a good deal of sweeping powers. The director-general will hold powers to direct information to be provided to them, issue emergency data declarations and plan with foreign governments and international organisations. The director-general may request or direct individuals, companies or state entities to provide specific information, with civil penalties for refusal; trigger broad information-sharing across governments and private entities during a severe and immediate or unforeseen threat; and form arrangements with foreign governments and international arrangements on health matters. Suffice to say this is fairly broad and somewhat ambiguous suite of powers for the new role at a time when trust in this sector is at an all-time low. It's also worth noting that the new Australian CDC is somehow connected to the health effects of climate change, which is predictably defined in the bill as a public health matter. As a technical point, it's worth noting that environmental health is already separately accounted for in the bill, so it seems reductive to talk separately about climate change. It appears to be more of a political gesture than anything else, and it signals that the ideological slant of the CDC will likely have, in the eyes of many Australians, already undermined its credibility. Very alarmingly, the CDC has embedded One Health as a core guiding principle—that's right—promoting a practical collaboration between doctors, ecologists and wildlife biologists, to name but a few. For anyone listening, have a look at it. Of course, it's supported by the World Health Organization, the UN and many other nations across the world. Don't just take it from me. The new CDC's own website states: One Health takes an integrated, unifying approach to tackling health challenges that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems. Wow! One has to wonder whether the powers of the Director-General will be used in some politicised. nonsensical effort to control Australians through climate change measures. Even if one grants the necessity of creating this CDC, which seems dubious to begin with, one can't support the bill if concerned about the abuse of the climate change narrative. Will climate change be treated as a severe and immediate threat? Well, guess what? Prepare for your first climate lockdown. It's most notable that the explanatory memorandum to the Australian Centre for Disease Control (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025, which has been co-introduced, states: Schedule 3 under the Freedom of Information Act … will also be amended to ensure information protected by the secrecy provision in the CDC Bill (personal and commercial in confidence information) would be exempt from disclosure under subsection 38(1) of the FOI Act. This would exempt protected information from publication under the Director-General's duty to publish public health advice. It also ensures protected information is exempt from release under freedom of information requests under the FOI Act. Simply put, the bill's quietly amending the Freedom of Information Act to protect the CDC from scrutiny. Any information the Director-General deems protected—which might include commercial information or might relate to anything—could be legally exempt from FOI release, which removes the possibility of information disclosure that would hold the CDC to account in future events. Of course, they would just be able to say, 'Trust the science,' to not worry about any FOI inconveniences—it's obvious that this would be inconvenient for the CDC—and to save the effort of having to empirically justify their own decisions. In conclusion, the establishment of an Australian CDC represents the bricking in of all the mistakes and methodology of the so-called experts throughout the COVID period. The case for its necessity hasn't been adequately made, and the wrongs of the 'expertocracy' during COVID haven't been adequately accounted for; we haven't had a royal commission. We should be culling the bureaucracy at this point, not creating more. For that reason, and for many others, I will be opposing this bill.
Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025; In Committee | Bills | Senate debates
by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3477 in my name: (1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 15), after item 3, insert: 3A At the end of subsection 77A(2) Add: ; and (d) whose...
by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3477 in my name: (1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 15), after item 3, insert: 3A At the end of subsection 77A(2) Add: ; and (d) whose delivery does not occur because of an intentional termination of the pregnancy. Note: An intentional termination of pregnancy referred to in paragraph (d) includes, for example, a medical termination involving the administration of a drug or the use of a medical instrument, but does not include child-birth, or medical intervention required to deliver a child who has died in the womb of natural causes. (2) Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (after line 16), at the end of section 333X, add: Interpretation (7) To avoid doubt, a reference in this section to the death of a child does not include a reference to the death of a child that occurs because of an intentional termination of a pregnancy (whether the death of the child because of the intentional termination occurs before, during or after delivery of the child).
March for Australia | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
The March for Australia was an overwhelmingly peaceful event held across Australian capital cities last weekend, and 99.9 per cent of attendees were there for the right reasons, expressing their...
The March for Australia was an overwhelmingly peaceful event held across Australian capital cities last weekend, and 99.9 per cent of attendees were there for the right reasons, expressing their frustration over the terrible state of the country. The participants were everyday Aussies from all backgrounds, united with a concern for the terrible state of the country and Australia's future. Enter the appalling National Socialist Network, or the NSN; they are labelled 'far right' by the media but they use the term 'socialist' in their name, which always strikes me as odd! The NSN are a strange group—not face-tattooed, overweight men, like we've come to expect from these types, but oddly clean-cut, preppy-looking ones. Someone said to me the other day, 'It seems like they're straight out of central casting.' For the last few years these men have been turning up to similar events now and then—mostly masked, sometimes not, but certainly right on cue. Why don't we know more about these people, and how come a group with so few numbers gets so much media attention? I think that's weird. And how did the leader of the group just happen to be in the area as the Premier of Victoria conducted a press conference with multiple cameras around? Must just be an incredible coincidence! Their stunts seem almost like pantomime; one would say 'cartoon-like', if the subject matter wasn't so appalling. It's very odd, and none of it seems to make sense. One thing is for sure: these people don't speak for the views and concerns of everyday Aussies. That said, there is no doubt how useful they've been for the government, the media and the establishment, who are hell-bent on trying to subdue growing dissent in mainstream Australia about a country in decline. I think that's odd.
That's a good segue into taking note, because, despite all of those overtures about, 'We're not going to do it; there's no spare bedroom tax,' we still didn't actually get a no from the...
That's a good segue into taking note, because, despite all of those overtures about, 'We're not going to do it; there's no spare bedroom tax,' we still didn't actually get a no from the government; we didn't get it ruled out. I note that Senator Wong did not do that. I didn't have it, I must say, and it has been reported, so, whatever the postulation from the other side is, it was actually reported, and we have not had it ruled out. And it wasn't on my bingo card, I have to say. I know that this government loves to spend—we know that. We know they love to get their claws into your money—we know that as well. But I didn't see this one coming. Perhaps it was just a thought bubble, but, once again, it was not ruled out. However, what we did hear from the Treasurer was that the tax system is—I think he used the word 'imperfect' and skewed in favour of the older generations, which should be alarming language for any of the Australians who have saved for their retirement. We heard that language coming from that side of the chamber in a different era many times before, with the potential for grabs on superannuation, negative gearing—you name it. This, after all, is a high-spending socialist government, and we know the old adage. I think it was Margaret Thatcher who said that the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. So I thought to myself that we could come up with a couple of suggestions of things that might be considered at the next—what did we call it? The Economic Reform Roundtable was the language used. What about, for example, a pet tax? Australians love pets, and you could put on a sliding scale for pets. Pets produce carbon, so we don't like that. That's bad apparently. You could put on a sliding scale. It also achieves the other socialist goal of creating a miserable world, so that is something that could be considered. What about a protest tax? We've seen that comfortably. Of course, you would have to be careful. You wouldn't want to tax Extinction Rebellion protests—just the ones where they take the Aussie flag. I thought about, possibly, an ambition levy, because nothing upsets socialists more than personal ambition, and taxing it would achieve the two-fold goal of knocking off people's hopes and dreams while also pumping money into the coffers. I think there could perhaps be conversation licensing fees. You could snuff out free speech—they love that! They are all into that at the moment. You could make yourself a nice little clip on the way through and consider a range of taxes on non-state-approved discussions on things like how proud we are of our country and history and give yourself a nice 25 per cent on top of that. The point is that they're going to have to find ways to do it, because they're spending your money like it is going out of fashion. They are going to have to get creative. So they can laugh all they want about a spare bedroom tax. It's going to be something ludicrous. Question agreed to.
Australian Football League | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
Last week the Australian Football League banned Adelaide Crows player Izak Rankine for four weeks for using a slur, citing its dedication to respect and inclusion. Yet the 2025 grand final...
Last week the Australian Football League banned Adelaide Crows player Izak Rankine for four weeks for using a slur, citing its dedication to respect and inclusion. Yet the 2025 grand final headline act is Snoop Dogg, an artist with a history of using similar language in his songs and on a recent podcast. I ask the question: what's the difference? Excusing a high-profile musical act while penalising players, I would say, sends a pretty mixed message. But the AFL loves its ESG targets and its advertising revenue. This is also a league which punishes players for on-field breaches but profits from online gambling partnerships. Doesn't this reliance on betting revenue clash with the AFL's moral posturing? If the AFL truly values inclusion and integrity, shouldn't it apply its standards consistently across players, entertainers and partnerships? But we know how this is going to play out: Snoop Dogg's going to be there on grand final day—they've paid too much money not to have him—Rankine won't be there, and nothing will come of it because the league is the only show in town. Don't get me wrong; I don't have any problem with the headline act performing. But what's with the inconsistency? I'm going to give a little bit of advice: one way for the AFL to avoid such mixed messaging is to stay out of politics and just play their game of football.
Back in 1990, the media landscape was quite different. The only media channels which existed then were mainstream television, radio and newspapers. Control of the narrative was limited to a few...
Back in 1990, the media landscape was quite different. The only media channels which existed then were mainstream television, radio and newspapers. Control of the narrative was limited to a few select outlets, meaning it was easy to control. The connections between the security state, the intelligence community and the media are well established; look no further than Operation Mockingbird in the US in the early years of the Cold War. Do you think it's just in the US? Rest assured that the mainstream media all over the world is replete with friends of the corporate sector, the Five Eyes intelligence sharing network, between Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK and USA, and the administrative state. In the USA, this has been called 'the blob'. The mid-nineties brought about the mass market adoption of the internet, which spread across the globe, and the blob championed this new tech with the establishment, lauding the information superhighway with its potential to boost education and spread free speech. It's hard to imagine that anyone predicted the enormous shift in the media landscape, though, as smartphones and social media allowed the rise of independent media returning real journalism to our screens. Before long, people started to switch off the mainstream media, and, today, people like me have begun to understand that what we get from these outlets, basically, is bread and circuses at best and outright propaganda at worst. I have to say that I barely bother with a single word written in mainstream newspapers and never switch on the radio or the TV, because now you can get your news from people who are free from the corporate media landscape. This has dented the control the blob once had over your life. Twitter's internal files, released between March 2022 and December 2023 in the United States, showed the cosy link between the US intelligence services, big tech and government. And US journalist Michael Shellenberger described what he found as the 'censorship industrial complex'. They were creating blacklists and pressuring social media platforms to sensor, deamplify and even outright ban people from free speech. That only happened in the United States, right? It wouldn't be happening in Australia, would it? Well, think again. The Department of Home Affairs here in Australia got caught red-handed dobbing in Aussies to big tech during COVID. The effect of the new media has been quite devastating for the blob, who swung into full censorship mode to shut down inconvenient political narratives. They've infiltrated everywhere across the country, including this building, and they're pouring their ideas into our legislative chambers by presenting arguments which are all about safety online for children and hate speech. But the truth is it's all about censorship, control and returning the media landscape to the digital form it was in back in 1990. By year's end, it won't just be social media platforms asking to verify your age. Age verification requirements will also extend to search engine accounts, and age verification will be proven to be basically a vector for identity verification. Last year, I opposed the government's hate speech laws and the under-16 social media ban for these and other reasons. The mainstream media is cheering these laws on. They don't care about your children; what they care about is their market share. By the way, how come the same censorship dragnet is being played out across the Western world at exactly the same time? How come the intelligence communities in the US, Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand all use the exact same language of disinformation and hate speech and demand legislation for governments to curb real-world harm online—I suppose that's just a coincidence. National leaders, representatives of international organisations and philanthropists have expressed their commitment to fostering free speech and open societies, but, sadly, their actions tell a very different story. Five Eyes intel gives Australia high-level intel capabilities, but does the alliance's secrecy and US-centric focus expose us to external pressures? Who checks on this unchecked surveillance and what's the real agenda? The blob's leaders, frankly, are driven by the fear that the internet and social media platforms empower populist alternative views, which they regard as unhelpful.
Economic Reform Roundtable | Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers | Senate debates
I'd just like to convey, for having received the lovely feedback from Senator Sterle about me being a very decent human being—it's very true, by the way; I am—that back. You're on the...
I'd just like to convey, for having received the lovely feedback from Senator Sterle about me being a very decent human being—it's very true, by the way; I am—that back. You're on the wrong side of the chamber, I reckon. I don't know what you're doing over there mixing with the socialists. You should be over with the good guys, where you belong, because I think you're alright too. That's a lovely moment for the Australian people. But we are here to talk about more important matters than my love for Senator Sterle. We are here to talk about the important matters that were raised by the coalition senators on this side this afternoon. One of them was a very good question, from Senator Bragg, who asked the minister about the housing crisis. By the way, it's not a storm on the horizon. It's here right now today, and Australians are feeling the pinch of that crisis. Of course, if it were true that those opposite were actually speaking to real Australians, they would understand that in the way that we understand it. Every time I talk to an Australian, be they young or old, they tell me the same thing is on their mind, and that is the state of housing in this country. The minister glossed over the response, I think, to the question. The question was what was driving this. The answer to that is multifactorial. The main one, of course, is the state of the economy generally. We've seen Labor promising working families in this country for a long period of time now a better life, but they're delivering weaker growth, higher energy costs and falling living standards. Household growth in itself is going backwards at a rate of knots, and productivity has flatlined. In fact we know, because we on this side of the chamber have said it until we're blue in the face that Australia's plunged from 13th to 18th in global competitiveness over the last few years. Prices across the board are skyrocketing, and that is affecting the housing market more than anything at all. We've heard them campaigning against this National Construction Code, and now they tell us that they themselves want to freeze the National Construction Code. They really don't understand the nexus and genesis of what's happening. But we have to understand that there is an elephant in the room when it comes to the housing crisis—that is, the mass migration crisis that we're seeing in this country and that we have seen over the last few years. The financial year 2023-24 saw net overseas migration at around 446,000 new people coming into this country. The previous year was just over half a million—536,000—people coming into this country. That's just over a million people that have entered this country over the last couple of years. Australians are now competing with people from overseas every single day to afford affordable homes to either rent or buy. It's not only the housing market which is under threat; it's also our transport system, our health care and our schools. The fact is that immigration should be doing something for Australia rather than the other way around. I would suggest that the current model of mass migration is not serving the interests of the Australian people any longer; in fact, it is now doing quite the opposite. The number of times young Australians have talked to me about turning up to rental inspections and being there with 50 to 100 other people—all waiting in line and all looking for their opportunity to rent a property—is the overarching factor over and above the competition and the state of the economy. I know that, at the last two elections, I didn't hear that discussed by the government; I didn't hear this plan to continue to allow huge numbers of people through the gates. I certainly didn't vote for anything of that nature with that in mind, and there are no Australians that I'm aware of that did that either. This policy is, frankly, tearing at the fabric of this country. It is taking away from Australians what they have an absolute right to expect. We heard, over the election period, Morgan Cox get on Q+A on the ABC and talk about this very issue only for 'how dare he' to be howled at him. This is a man with a young family and a wife—who was born overseas, I think—so hardly the caricature of a person that they like to cast in this. Talk about this very issue, how it's affecting Australians and what it is doing to the very fabric of this nation. That is the overriding issue on the housing crisis, I would suggest.
Sex Discrimination Amendment (Restoring Biological Definitions) Bill 2025 | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
This morning I attempted to introduce a bill to protect women's rights by amending the Sex Discrimination Act, by removing references to gender identity and restoring the act to its original...
This morning I attempted to introduce a bill to protect women's rights by amending the Sex Discrimination Act, by removing references to gender identity and restoring the act to its original purpose, which was to prevent discrimination on the basis of biological sex. That attempt was thwarted by Labor and the Greens, who opposed the bill's introduction. That's right: Labor and the Greens don't even want to discuss the issue of protecting women's spaces. What that bill sought to do was to restore the Sex Discrimination Act to the position it was in in 2013, when there was a prescriptive definition of 'man' and 'woman', before the Gillard government introduced the concept of 'gender identity' into the act as a protected attribute. This change has had what, arguably, may have been unintended consequences, in creating a situation where the safety, privacy and opportunities of women are now threatened under the very law that was designed to protect them. But Labor and the Greens don't care. Sex is not a social construct. It's a core biological reality that underpins human nature and the protections that this act was meant to provide. But, today, 'discrimination' on the basis of the concept of gender identity has become unlawful, placing Australians under legal threat for not affirming a concept that they may actually fundamentally disagree with. Now, if some of the people in this building actually cared about those who suffer from gender dysphoria, we'd be talking about this in a truthful manner. But that is not what happened today. I want to take the opportunity, however, to thank the coalition, the opposition, for pushing the bill through for at least a second reading—they voted in favour of it—and also Senator Canavan, who co-sponsored the motion this morning. This battle is not over.
Sex Discrimination Amendment (Restoring Biological Definitions) Bill 2025; First Reading | Bills | Senate debates
I, and also on behalf of Senator Canavan, move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, and for related purposes. Question agreed to. I...
I, and also on behalf of Senator Canavan, move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, and for related purposes. Question agreed to. I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Well, it wasn't very funny. Anyway, what I am here to talk about though are the questions and the answers given to them. I listened to the debate earlier about a range of issues, including the...
Well, it wasn't very funny. Anyway, what I am here to talk about though are the questions and the answers given to them. I listened to the debate earlier about a range of issues, including the Housing Australia Future Fund, the $10 billion fund which we know now is yet to build, I think, fewer than 17 houses—or 17 houses; certainly not many. We're not going to house the 1.5 million new people that have entered this country over the last three-and-a-bit years with that kind of number. Fine. But we also heard a little bit about the position on fuel tax credits. We're now seeing the government unable to rule out cuts to diesel fuel rebates, which were relied on by all of the people that drive this country—truckies, farmers, miners—and this is all in the name of emissions. The pressure on everyday Australians and everyday Australia is absolutely real, and it got me thinking about a scenario. We're always in here talking about—and I note, by the way, that it's alright for female senators and MPs in this place to talk about the manner in which things affect female Australians, but we never hear the flip side, on what's happening to young men in this country. These are the sorts of policy positions which are putting, as I am now witnessing out in community, the most enormous strain on young Australian males that I have ever seen. If anyone's not seeing it, then they're not talking to enough young men out there. Whenever I talk to a young bloke in this country, he tells me that, no matter how much he works, no matter how hard he works and no matter how diligent he is with his savings, he simply can't afford the life that his parents did, the life that his father did, the life that his grandfather did, and the anxiety out there because of the pressure on young men is a real and present problem in this country that is not being addressed properly. The young men that I speak to talk in this country about the simple things in life, like being too scared to ask a woman out, to ask a girl out, simply for a cup of coffee, because they're not sure they can afford it anymore, thanks to the policy settings we're seeing from the government across the chamber. There are a range of other issues affecting young men today. The Me Too movement has made them almost frightened to approach young women for fear of being called names, I might say. But that's a different issue; we're talking about the economic side of it. The changes to the manner in which we treat young men now, I think, are extraordinary. We hear them talking about their careers and the manner in which they feel that, even if they do a good job in their workplace, they may well get stepped over the top of because of some DEI target. We talk about them listening to commentators and politicians in this place effectively accusing them of being offenders in waiting. We find that we're now living in a world where this situation is causing angst and unrest, it is causing problems at home and it is not being addressed, and it is something that I think is going to ultimately become a serious problem. It has never, ever been more expensive for young people in this country than it is at the moment, and that is placing a huge amount of pressure on the next generation. People are reluctant now—young men are reluctant now—to go about the process of starting a family and owning a home. They feel they can never, ever, ever be in a position where they're going to get onto the front foot. So we can talk about all of the problems facing the economy, we can talk about the gender pay gap in this place, and we can talk about the 'Gen Z boss and a mini' and all of this sort of stuff that we see floating around out here, but the question that is being left is this: what are we going to do with the generation of young men in this country who feel totally and utterly let down by the system, totally and utterly left behind by an Australia that doesn't want to talk about them in anything other than pejorative terms? For the longest time, I have been talking about this. It is often accused of being toxic in itself. But the reality is that this is a growing issue in this country. It is one that politics is not addressing, and it needs to. Question agreed to.
Motions to take note of answers are normally meant to be engaging. I like to think of it like amateur stand-up, frankly. Anyway, I've got five minutes, and I could do a critique of that, but I won't.
Cybersafety | Matters of Urgency | Senate debates
The Internet Search Engine Services Online Safety Code, as we've heard today, is set to come into effect in December this year, and what it is going to effectively do is require internet search...
The Internet Search Engine Services Online Safety Code, as we've heard today, is set to come into effect in December this year, and what it is going to effectively do is require internet search engine providers to confirm the age of their account holders, amongst a range of other things that we've heard about this evening. But the crux of this is that what this will mean is that every Australian will be locked out of their Google account, their Yahoo account or their Microsoft account until they verify their age, which I think is quite incredible. I think it's unbelievable, actually. How does a big tech company actually achieve this in a practical sense? How does a big tech company actually identify you and confirm your age? Well, it does that by simply confirming your identity, and it means this is not just targeted at children; it's going to be targeted at everyone. You can't identify who is 16 and over unless you identify everybody. That's what this is about. Let's be very clear about it. That's what this has always been about. It was the same with the original legislation banning social media for under-16s, which was a trojan horse for this very position. This was rushed through in parliament last year. Now we're seeing an industry code which, as many of the contributors tonight have said, has been brought out without industry consultation and with a bureaucratic stroke of a pen. The selling point has always been about protecting kids online, which nobody in this room disagrees with; it's trite to suggest otherwise. Yet the measures that are used to achieve this always seem to come back to the issue of requiring more government intervention and more government surveillance of Australians. Why is it happening? What is the real story here? Well, the corporate sector and the administrative state have lost control of the narrative. They've lost control of the media cycle, and they're driven by the fear that the internet and social media platforms are now empowering populist and alternative views which they regard simply as unhelpful. It just sounds like free speech to me. The consequences of this new code will be yet further erosion of our privacy and another step towards this digital dystopia that we've been talking about. For us, as a country that purports to identify itself as free and as a country that believes, I think, at its core that unnecessary surveillance is unacceptable, this is extraordinary. We're not communist China. But, if you want to know what Australia's future looks like on its current trajectory, go and have a look at Shenzhen in China—cameras everywhere, facial recognition, a digital currency and a social credit system. That is not an Australia that I want. It's not an Australia that I think anyone really wants. But it's an Australia that the bureaucracy and the political class are slow-marching us towards. It's that serious. This is not just about protecting kids online. Once this system is in place—once the digital snare trap is in place—it is going to be impossible to wind back.
That's much to your benefit! The reality here, though, is that this building is now populated by an incredible cast of characters. This building is like a great big party for the swamp, and...
That's much to your benefit! The reality here, though, is that this building is now populated by an incredible cast of characters. This building is like a great big party for the swamp, and no-one at home is invited. It's a party you're not invited to, because it's now completely, wholly owned by a different breed. You've got the career lefty politician person, who can't seem to walk around the building on his own. He's got to have two or three staff members behind him, talking about whatever busy work they're doing in the back room. This character, of course, made an impassioned speech 10 years ago about values and then forgot about them on the basis that we need to see the bigger picture. You've got the journalists, who don't get away scott-free, congregating in groups around the building, holding microphones, asking really important beltway questions about really important beltway issues—captive to corporate interests though, mind you, and at the whim of their editors—loving to drop a yarn, but in fact they're just writing whatever is deemed suitable by their private equity ownership. They have got 'journalist' on their tag, but if you read the business card, it should probably say 'Labor media adviser in waiting'. You've also got the lobbyists. You can see them milling around the building dominated by their orange lanyards. This is the lobbyist, sometimes known as the one-term MP, who told his family that he couldn't wait to get out of the building and now spends his days having coffees with MPs and reporting back to his board that he's influencing policy making. The staffers don't get off scott-free. You see them walking around the building in pants exposing the ankles, with a rainbow lanyard. They can't seem to walk without a coffee in their hand, talking about whatever the minister wants or whatever Zohran Mamdani's mayoral campaign is looking like. And who can forget the career bureaucrats with more letters after their names than the alphabet? They went to ANU in '93 to study human rights law and ended up in the diversity, equity and inclusion department of one our intel agencies. These are the cast of characters who are doing damage to this nation.