I wish to make a personal explanation.

Does the member claim to have been misrepresented?

Many times.

I call the member for Hughes.

Last Saturday, 27 November, the Daily Telegraph published the following paragraph:

From being a guest speaker at anti-vaccine, anti-lockdown rallies featuring gallows, nooses and Nazis, Kelly, and financial backer Clive Palmer, have embarked on misinterpreting vaccine data in a scare campaign.

This public assertion is false, deceptive and misleading in multiple respects. Firstly, there has been no misinterpretation of the vaccine data. It remains a fact that the long-term safety data remains unknown. Secondly, this ambiguously worded paragraph creates the impression that the rallies featured Nazis—namely, Mr Kelly and Mr Palmer. Alternatively it creates the impression that these rallies have featured Nazis, and that I am somehow associated with them. Either way, this is a disgraceful, slanderous representation that is a new low for the mainstream media. These rallies are about citizens protesting that they are being forced to carry digital identity papers to fully participate in society. These rallies are protesting about the superstitious—

Member for Hughes, I must intervene. The standing orders provide that you can indicate to the House where you've been misrepresented, which you have adequately done. I believe you're now straying into argument about the matter. I invite you to come to a conclusion if there's no other misrepresentation that you wish to bring to the attention of the House.

I will conclude with the misrepresentation that the rallies featured Nazis. On Saturday the rally featured Uncle Max, an Indigenous elder, who gave a magnificent speech and led the protest. Such media reporting, resorting to Nazi slurs, slanders everyone who attended these rallies and it also slanders great men like Uncle Max.