Craig Kelly slams Australia’s rushed hate speech laws, passed with 12-month minimum jail terms for "less serious" offenses and up to seven years for terrorism-related crimes, despite existing weak enforcement like Section 18C. He warns the bill targets fringe right-wing voices while ignoring violent ideologies in Western Sydney or Melbourne, linking Labor’s push to migration policy failures and potential One Nation pressure from pro-migration financial backers. Kelly’s political shift—from Liberal to Libertarian—highlights his fight against COVID-era censorship and minority governments backed by Greens or Teal independents, which he predicts will trigger economic collapse. The Yemenia report exposes alleged "Takia" (deception) in Islamic and far-left narratives, with Payman’s dual citizenship claims and pro-terrorism remarks under scrutiny, revealing what Kelly calls a dangerous ABC-Islamic-far-left alliance. [Automatically generated summary]
New hate crime laws have just passed in Australia.
In tonight's episode of the Yamini Report, I talked to one of the leading voices on the front line in the fight for free speech down under Craig Kelly.
You're listening to the free audio version, which is great, but let's not kid ourselves, it's nowhere near as good as watching the video version at your minireport.com.
So head to your minireport.com and become a Rebel News Plus subscriber now, which will give you access to the video version, as well as my Thursday night show the opposition podcast with Rookshan, which as a member, you can join our private members-only discussion at the end of every episode.
Not that you need it, but other perks of being a Rebel News Plus member is access to every other Rebel show and documentary, including my upcoming documentary from New Zealand.
The subscription is a mere $8 a month, which will ensure that my work at Rebel News can continue because unlike the mainstream media, we are viewer funded and rely on your subscriptions to keep the lights on.
YuminiReport.com.
Join the Rebel News Plus family now.
Welcome back to the Yamini Report.
An issue that's been concerning, I think, a lot of conservatives and libertarians across the country is the newly passed hate crime laws.
Now, these laws impose minimum jail sentences between 12 months, I understand, for less serious hate crimes, it's saying, such as giving the Nazis salute wild and six years for those found guilty of terrorism offences.
Our next guest, tonight's guest, colleague, John Ruddick, who was more informed about the New South Wales legislation that's currently before the parliament.
Tonight, we have the man himself, Craig Kelly, who has been quite vocal about these new hate crime laws, about the laws themselves and what some of those, I guess, conservative parties that have either voted for or abstained.
What we'll do is let's start with unpacking the actual legislation.
Welcome to the show, Mr. Kelly.
How are you doing?
Hey, great to be with you, Arvey.
I'm here with my great libertarian shirt on with the kangaroo with the chainsaw.
So great to be with you.
I'm great to talk about this most important subject of freedom of speech and making sure we get these laws right.
Yeah, absolutely.
Look, I'm somebody that in the last, what is it, 16 or 17 months now, have been attacked viciously personally and also, you know, my community.
But I look at laws like this and I do not trust the government.
I do not think that they're really there to defend me or protect me.
And these laws, you know, they feel like a bit of an excuse for a power grab.
Let me understand from your perspective, somebody that's really studied the legislation.
What is it?
What are these hate crime laws?
Yeah, look, firstly, we already have laws against inciting violence.
We already have section 18C for better or for worse.
For worse, I'd argue.
Now, we had, yeah, firstly, I agree with you 100% there.
Remember, I was elected with Tony Abbott in 2013.
And one of the promises was to repeal that legislation, which the Liberal Party squibbed on.
But that's another story.
Look, we saw that situation up here in Sydney where you had, after those horrific events we saw there at that rock concert or that concert there in Israel, that we had people on the streets of Sydney calling it gas the Jews.
Now that's incitement to violence.
Those people should have been arrested.
But the police came up with some excuse for no action.
So the laws we have to protect against these things already exist.
Now, my great concern with this legislation, it goes way above about defining what is a hate crime.
No one likes to see what's a hate crime, but it's depend what you define it as.
And when you look through the wording of that legislation, it gives such a broad brush.
It doesn't only protect religious groups or groups based on their nationality or groups on their sexuality or disability, which we can argue there.
We don't want to see those people discriminated against.
But it also extends, one of the protected groups is groups by their political opinion.
Now, that simply should not be in that legislation.
You've also got the provisions of it's not just about violence.
They should have said against physical violence, but they've included to force and/or violence.
And that broadens, like, where does force come into?
There's a moral force.
There's all types of force that you can apply.
Now, Senator Canavan actually moved an amendment to try and fix that, to try and take it out to ensure it referred to physical force.
But that was taken out.
And then you've got the provision again that this is seven years in jail.
And in some of the provisions, they've taken away the discretion of the courts.
Now, where you have something like this, that there can be such a wide range of circumstances from the most innocent breach of the law to someone that's really doing it in an evil type of manner.
And yet the discretion about what the sentence should be is taken out of the judges' hands.
And there you have the Labour Party that have on their, you know, it's always been a thing of the Labour Party, we do not support mandatory sentences.
In fact, it's in their national platform.
But because they thought they needed to look tough on this legislation, they ditched that and voted for mandatory sentencing for the judges.
So, you know, again, it's another restriction on free speech in this country.
We've seen it where they tried to get that miss and disinformation bill through Parliament.
We've seen it now with the digital ID bill.
And we're going to have to, everyone next year, remember next year, the e-safety commissioner is busily working out how she's going to do this, where every Australian is going to need to have some form of digital ID to log onto their social media account to prove that they're over 16.
So all these provisions going against free speech.
To me, the best way to tackle the issue of anti-Semitism is with more free speech, more debate, more open debate.
You're not going to fix these issues by sort of brushing them under the rug and allowing them to fester.
Bring them out in the open.
Let people that hold these views, let them come out, and I say say them.
Let's expose these people for who they are rather than saying them behind closed doors.
Let's debate them and show the error of their ideas.
I'm totally with you on that.
And you can see, not even history teaches us that, but you can see even in the last few months, when you start pushing them underground, these groups kind of grow because it feeds into the narrative, you know, to those who don't, those that we can, what's their statement, those that we cannot criticize, who controls us by the way we can't criticize.
So it feeds into that narrative.
And I saw a headline in an article that was going viral this week.
You know, Jewish lives matter more than free speech.
And, you know, nobody's pointing out that it was not actually written by a Jew.
But it just feeds that conspiracy that somehow, you know, the Jewish community as a whole is fighting to take away people's freedom to either criticize even the conflict between Israel and Hamas or even the right to be racist.
People have that right.
But more importantly, the Jews just want to take away the freedom of the everyday Australian when that's just not the truth.
In fact, what I can tell you is that many of these type of laws, including 18C, in which I advocated strongly against, they're never really used to protect who they pretended in the beginning they're going to use it for.
So now they're calling it anti-Semitism, but I guarantee you, like you said, we already have laws in place that over the last 16 months, clear breaches of those laws.
They have not been used.
Why?
Because it's not politically correct to go after a certain minority.
You know, in the last week, we've just seen finally where the police are getting pushed to target, you know, to a refugee and a hijabi because they kind of crossed this line where the entire country was outraged by what they said.
But 9th of October outside the Sydney Opera House, what you mentioned before, where they did say gas the Jews, or then the police made the excuse that they said, where's the Jews?
Surely, because they wanted to go give them hugs or something.
But there was a clear incitement to violence then.
And no law was used.
Current laws were used to go after the perpetrators.
So what makes anyone think that new legislation is going to be used to go after those perpetrators?
And if COVID has taught us anything is laws that come in for whatever and often counter-terrorism laws, it was counter-terrorism laws during COVID that were enacted against the population who were pushing back against the overreach of the government.
And that's my fear here is whilst they haven't actually had even the time to go through the legislation word for word, but also it kind of almost is it's too late now because it has passed.
It scares me that they are passing more legislation at all in my name, which I, at the end of the day, think is going to be used against people like me.
Look, you're right.
One thing that the lesson from COVID is it is very dangerous where we give authorities and bureaucrats and government and the police forces the ability to silence free speech.
And that was one of the great, if you look back to say, where did it all go wrong in COVID?
It's because those small group of doctors and medical specialists that were trying to dissent against what was so-called the, you know, the science, as they told us, which we find out now, there was, admittedly, there was no science behind any of the things that they were doing.
Mandatory Sentences Controversy00:05:50
They were all censored.
So all the things we did detrimental in society are forced people to undergo experimental mental injections, deny people access to drugs that we know the peer-reviewed science shows would have saved lives and reduced the effect of it.
The effect of the lockdowns, the ridiculousness of masks and things, all those things.
Now, none of that should have happened for as long as it did because of the censorship of free speech.
The dissenting voices were silenced.
Now, to give those bureaucracies more power to censor what people say is, I think, the completely opposite direction that we are going in.
I'll go on by the examples.
Now, people can't, what you can't make a, was it a mandatory sentence if you make a Nazi salute?
Now, if I've got to quote one of some of the famous John Cleese cartoons where John Cleese did the, you know, did the Nazi jail Elon Musk?
Well, look, I can remember, you know, as a kid growing up, if someone was being like a teacher or someone in some position was being like overly dictorial or authoritarian, right, and putting in stupid dictatorial laws, you gave them the Nazi salute behind your back as a way of saying, like, it was used as humor and mockery.
And that made anyone doing the Nazi salute look like an idiot.
But that's the best way to, you know, now you say, oh, hang on, anyone doing a Nazi salute is going to be compulsory arrested in jail.
All of a sudden, you're making a martyr of these people instead of just sitting back and looking at them and mocking them and laughing at them.
That's the best recipe to change people's minds.
I agree.
My question to you, I guess, is mandatory sentences when it comes to terrorism offences.
I've got a bit of internal, I think I'm conflicted about it because on one hand, if we're legitimately talking about terrorism offences in the sense that we mean, you know, jihadi terrorism or we mean even groups on the right, fringe, right, that are planning and acting on actual acts of terror, okay?
Then I do feel like they should have a mandatory minimum jail sentence because I don't trust the woke judges these days.
You look at Victoria, every, you know, refugee or son of a refugee that commits some of the most heinous, brutal, violent acts in our community are out on bail every second day because they come with their sob story.
So in that case, I do actually, in essence, believe there should be a mandatory jail sentences.
But I also know at the same time that, again, when we look at COVID and they applied some of those terrorism legislation against who it was.
I remember you being tackled to the ground there at one time.
You could have been locked up.
AFL, you were inciting terrorism because you were inciting people to go out on the streets.
Absolutely.
So that's my problem here.
But I guess my question to you is, do you actually have a problem with a mandatory sentence if it was crafted and only able to be applied to actual terrorism offences?
If you're on the Labor side of politics, people in Labor are totally opposed to mandatory sentences full stop that they voted for this.
It's in their national platform.
I'm not like that.
But I think where you're going to have a mandatory sentence, you need to have a very narrow range of between, you know, if you're going from one to 10, right, about what's the worst crime under this legislation to the least crime, right?
If you can narrow that down to a range of nine to ten, right, have a mandatory sentence for the offences that you'd rate at nine to ten level to make sure people that are doing the most heinous of crimes, that they're not getting some soft judge that will let them out.
That's a good principle.
But this legislation, I said, it has such a broad range of offences where you could rate them from one to ten, and yet they all get the same sentence.
I'd rather see increase the penalties that the judges can give.
So those at the higher end of the more egregious offences, let them be up for greater and longer jail sentences and give the discretion to the judiciary.
So currently the legislation is, is it not minimum mandatory sentences?
Like they still do have a range.
It just has to start at, I think, for terrorism offences, seven years, and then it can go up.
Does it not have, or is it all terrorism offence of seven years?
Correct.
There's a minimum mandatory sentence.
It's different for a couple of different offences, but there's got to be circumstances where someone gets, and remember, this law that they've changed, you no longer have to have intent.
The previous legislation, you had to prove the person had intent to do harm.
They've taken away, and they just called you have to be reckless.
So that really lowers the bar of what it is.
So we're going to have circumstances in this court.
That's a reckless terrorism offense.
Well, look, look, the fact is we're going to have, because of these mandatory sentences, it's not going to deter anyone at the higher end of the scale.
But what it is going to do, it's going to catch someone that does, you know, some young kid that's doing something stupid and gets involved with the wrong crowd and does something innocently and doesn't really know what they are doing and makes a terrible mistake.
They're going to get a minimum mandatory sentence that's going to ruin the rest of their lives.
That doesn't sound like it.
Young Kid's Reckless Terrorism00:03:44
Look, I'm ready to take a bet.
I'm guessing you're not going to take the bet against me, but I can almost guarantee that it is not going to be applied to some of the terrorists that I'm more worried about in our community.
It's probably going to be used against some, like you say, it's either going to be one of or a couple of the leaders from those fringe right-wing lunatic groups, or it's going to be some young kid that's joined them and that they're going to make an example of, again, to scare those on the right, who are no friends of mine.
I don't really care for them much.
But again, they're not really the, they're not the ones that as the, as the class of people that they're saying they're going to protect, I can tell you most Jews are not nowhere near as concerned of those small group of neo-Nazis that are running around and doing all these little, you know, these shows and offensive flags and painting offensive.
It might not be nice to see it.
It certainly isn't for most of the Jewish community.
But if you ask the average Jew in the community, who scares you more, this group of lunatics or a big cohort of Western Sydney that actually all believe that we should die.
Like what we saw, like what we saw in those nurses.
What those nurses said was nothing special as an Israeli, you know, an Australian Israeli Jew.
I know exactly what they think about me.
And I know that that is actually a mainstream.
Those guys just got caught on camera.
So I'm far more worried about the groups in Western Sydney or some of the areas here in Melbourne.
But I know that these laws are never going to be applied against them.
Yeah, that's it.
Look, if we haven't been able to apply the laws that we've got, such as, you know, two-tier policing is real in this country as well, as it is in the UK.
How are they going to enforce these new laws?
We know will also be on this two-tier basis.
And as to those blokes that, you know, parade around in the city and running around in the black clothes and doing Nazi suits, okay, what's more likely to recruit a young kid into that group?
Right.
If you say, oh, these people are terrible and they're breaking all these laws and you see one of them being arrested for something that seems pretty innocent, that makes them seem like martyrs.
And that becomes attractive to the odd, you know, the young person confused and still learning what's what and how the world works.
If you stand back and you let them do it and you stand there and just laugh at them and mock them in a sort of like you don't make a pool anymore.
You take away the power.
Absolutely.
That's right.
That's right.
So again, it's the you know, the best defense that we have against hate speech, against acts of hatred, is free speech and open debate.
And most of all, as I said, a humor and mockery.
But, you know, we've decided to go down the other way.
And I said, this is, you're not going to change people's opinion on subjects.
You're not going to end hatred by suppressing free speech.
All you do is sweep it under the body.
Absolutely.
And you know what?
I want to know who thinks what about me.
I want it out there in the open.
I want to know who hates me.
I don't want people to be scared to say they hate me because also you want to know why they have this hatred for you.
Public Pressure on Policy00:14:31
Because if you know why, then you can engage them in civilized debate about those points.
And you've got some hope of being able to change their opinion around.
Or at least stop the cycle or at least combat the, you know, in those communities, in the communities that actually concern me, I want the Australian public to hear what they really think.
I want it because then people will realize we need to take our immigration policy far more seriously because this is what you're importing.
This is the ideology.
This is the thought process.
And as soon as you suppress it and they're not going to talk, the only time I guarantee you they're going to start talking is like you're seeing in Europe, like you're seeing in the UK, when they outnumber us 10 to 1, when there's nothing we can do about it.
And yeah, I absolutely agree with you.
Now, I'm going to ask you your professional opinion.
Let's start with Labour.
Why is Labour proposing it now?
Or why they push the laws through Parliament.
And remember, these laws were pushed through Parliament with one hour's debate in the Senate.
Now, Senate is meant to be the House of Review.
It's meant to consider the legislation.
They're given one hour to debate in the Parliament.
And I was pushed through on the same day.
Now, the reason that they pushed that legislation through in a day is because they didn't want some debate in the public or the public becoming aware to it.
Because they saw what happened with the Missing Disinformation Bill.
There was like about a four-week period when they sort of announced it until it came to a vote.
And in that four weeks, the average citizen looked at it and read it and sort of heard some other opinions.
Hang on a minute.
I don't want this.
And got on the phone to their independent senators.
We started a campaign.
We literally started a campaign where you were able just to put your name and email and basically your location and it sent an email to your local senator.
There was mass pressure.
I know there was yourself.
There were many other different disparate groups.
And it wasn't all coordinated.
It was all just, you know, this is why it was so effective because it was just different groups around the country reading the information, hearing about it, looking it up, right?
And in that four-week period, or four or five or six-week period, we did a couple of protest rallies in, we think it was one in Melbourne that Jordan hit off, our Libertarian candidate.
We attended, we covered it.
Jordan got out the chainsaw to the bill.
We set fire to it up here in Sydney, which carries some good media right.
So people, things like that, people read about the bill.
They looked at it and said, hang on a minute, we're going to put a government bureaucrat to decide what is and isn't misinformation after COVID.
These people got everything wrong.
Everything they told us was misinformation, now knows the truth, and now they want to make themselves the arbiters of truth.
And effectively, that legislation set up like an Orwellian sort of Ministry of Truth.
And people said no, because there was time for the Senate to consider it.
So they wanted to squeeze that down to nothing so I could go through so that the public didn't have the time to discuss or hear about it.
That's one thing Labor wanted to do.
The second thing, one of the real mistakes we've made in this country over the last couple of years has been our migration policy, not only in the numbers of people, and we can do that separately, right?
To have over a million people, it's actually 1.4 million people came in, 400,000 left, so it gave us a million net new people in 12 months' time is a recipe for disaster because no matter how hard you try, your infrastructure can't catch up.
And this was also done, remember that Labor's budget, when they got into office and they put out their first budget papers, I think it was in about, might have been September 2022, they forecast in the budget papers 235,000 net migration for the next two years.
Those numbers were up to 500 and 400 and something thousand.
So where they budgeted for what, 470,000, they gave us a million.
So that has caused enormous damage economically.
But the other thing is it's also causing great dislocation in society.
We've seen, and you only have to look at those nurses that were interviewed the other day.
How is it possible that someone with such attitudes is able to migrate to our country?
Clearly, the checks that we have on who we want to come into this country are silly, are not.
It wasn't like he was hiding his ideology.
There's footage of him months before receiving citizenship that he was in a mosque chanting for a terrorist ideology.
Like it's all out there.
The media was able to find it in days.
So what are those checks?
But again, I guess I'm going back to what, why did Labour, I get why they pushed it fast and it absolutely makes sense what you're saying because they learned their lesson from the last kind of censorship bill that they were trying to pass through and that backfired hard and they didn't want the pressure.
Because everybody pressured, the mass pressure from the public to the opposition, because we saw even the Liberal Party suddenly walked back their support of it.
And then you had all those minor groups, including some of the left-wing ones that also opposed it at the end, who probably, if they did it this way, it would have passed, I imagine.
If they did it quickly with one hour without letting the public know, I imagine it would have also passed.
But why did Labour want?
Why does Labor want this?
Firstly, it's to cover up the mistakes that they have made in our migration policy.
And rather than admit that our migration policy has run off the rails and Labor has allowed thousands of thousands of people into this country that actually do have hate in them and do want to cause division in our society and do espouse violence.
These people have been allowed into our country under the current migration policies.
So therefore, rather than sit back and say, well, you know, look, we've got our migration policies completely wrong here.
We need to have a complete rethink of them.
No no, no.
Just rush through these, a hate speech legislation, and we'll have this legislation and everything will be fine.
That's, that's one of the reasons, reasons labor is to cover up from for their failures.
Why supporting it?
Well again, I think it's the weakness of the liberal party.
Again, it's they want to see this to be tough right uh, and they've sacrificed free speech on that altar.
Now the liberal party uh, the liberal party of of years gone by, would have stood up and fought against this legislation.
Remember, this is a Liberal Party going into the last election, had the miss and disinformation bill as part of Liberal Party policy.
It's on their website.
I think it was originally their policy.
It was originally their policy.
Paul Fletcher was the minister.
I don't know whether it's still on his website.
That's why I agree with what you were saying, that if they had done the miss and disinformation bill without putting it to the public for that month.
Oh, correct.
They would have supported it.
If they had brought it in, rushed it through an hour like they did this, there wouldn't have been a chance for that public pressure on those independent senators.
And I must admit, you know, the minute I saw it go through, I rang John Ruddick, the leader of the Libertarian Party here in New South Wales.
I said, John, mate, this is, we've got to have a public rally.
So I think there's enough sentiment on this Republic rally.
And I said, we had that public rally and we talked it and people got to know about it.
I think there were six so-called independent senators who normally would have voted for something like that.
But it was the public pressure over those six weeks that slowly made them one by one change their mind.
Now, there's no way in the world that that would have happened if it hadn't been pushed through on an hour.
They're like, oh, yes, yes, where for it, wherefore it is.
I did notice over the last, when it did pass, you were pretty critical of the former party that you were a part of, the One Nation Party.
I have been trying to see if they'll come on.
Why do you think One Nation supported it?
Because I dare say they seem to come from a good place on most issues.
I almost agree with everything that they stand for.
It doesn't look like they're that proud of their support.
They haven't come out really defending their position hard.
I know you read into Malcolm Roberts, somebody that I'm pretty fond of.
I can see you are too.
But the next day when you saw that he didn't have his One Nation logo on one of his social medias, you read into it, but I noticed after that it went back to business as usual.
They haven't really talked about this issue.
Why do you think One Nation supported this legislation?
Is it simply the terrorism aspect that they're in support of and ignoring the rest?
I don't like to overly criticise One Nation.
Pauline's done, I think, an outstanding job and she's taken a lot of heat over many, many years.
She's certainly been one of the most consistent politicians in our country.
That's never folded no matter if it's, you know, when it was popular or unpopular, her position, it's always been straight.
I'm trying to understand, and I hope to also speak to them at some point about this, to understand why they thought they abstained on this one, was it?
Yeah.
They abstained, yes.
So look, there's a video that they did where I think Pauline's the, I think the day before or in the morning of that day sort of thing where she says, oh, I think I'm going to support the legislation.
And to me, it looked like one of those hostage videos.
It really did.
It looked like they, you know, for someone that normally speaks with you.
But so why?
Do you have any used to pee in there?
I want to know why you think, why do you think she was held hostage to support it?
Good.
Look, that's a very good question.
It's not only that they abstained.
There were many amendments that you would have.
When you're in parliament, you're not sort of like a crossbencher, right?
The legislation comes through to you.
And you might say, well, I sort of might, I like some things, I don't like some things of the bill, right?
You then have the ability to move amendments to the bill, right?
So one of the amendments surely could have been to remove political opinion as one of the groups that you're protecting.
That to me would have, that stands out.
So you get the parliamentary draftsman and they're there, like basically on your call.
And you say, look, draw me up an amendment.
I want to delete this reference in clause five or whatever it is.
Delete that reference to political opinion.
And then you get to stand up.
And when the legislation goes up, you get to stand up.
And even when they rush it through, you get to move that amendment.
You get to speak to that amendment about why it should be removed from the bill and the changes you want to move from the bill.
Now, I can think just looking at that bill at the top of my head, about half a dozen amendments that you could have moved, you would have been able to come up with in the first 15 minutes of looking at it.
So my concern was not only did they abstain, but they didn't move any amendments to that bill as well.
Now, it's up to them to explain why they didn't.
But there's no doubt.
Do you have any suspicion as to what would why they wouldn't?
You've been on the inside of both the Liberal Party, One Nation.
What is the kind of thing that would make it one possibility is pressure from some of your financial backers.
That's always a possibility.
You know, I remember once that I spoke.
Which One Nation financial backer would just saying you're asking me how.
Yeah, I'm okay.
Once I spoke out on the levels of immigration and I got a phone call from my electorate from one of the financial donors to the Liberal Party and said, mate, back off, right?
So we need these high rates of migration for the construction industry and for developers.
That was what I was told.
Mate, back off.
Don't speak about, don't speak against don't speak out against the migration rates because if you're a property developer, you love these high rates of migration because it means there's more demand for the properties that you're developing.
It means that you can get a greater price of the properties that you're selling.
So this is how the pressure often comes on.
Now, I'm not saying that happened with One Nation, as I said.
I'm saying that's one of the ways that people put pressure on.
I would love to have a conversation about them, and hopefully we will soon.
Just on that, my concern was when you see that video where Pauline says, yes, she's going to support it.
It wasn't the normal Paul Ann Hanson.
And you can see Malcolm, like as soon as she says it, see, Malcolm's like sort of swaying like this, you know, from side to side.
Get me out of this.
It wasn't the normal conviction that they got.
I think maybe we might include that video here.
But finally, before we let you go, and thanks so much for your time.
You obviously started in the Liberal Party.
You then moved to UAP, then One Nation, now Libertarian.
How does it work?
And why is a Libertarian?
Are you staying with the Libertarians?
And why is a Libertarian better than all the above?
I'll go through it.
Firstly, yes, the reality was I was very, I've always been interested in politics all my life.
I probably come from a conservative, libertarian point of view on many policies.
Why I Left the Liberals00:09:03
And anyone has to look at my commentary, my criticisms of renewable energy for years, my advocacy on issues of free speech, to see where I've stood on particular issues.
The Liberal Party was the party for me.
They were the ones that had on their website that said, we believe in individual freedoms, the freedom of the individual, small government, to get out of your life.
That was what I believed in.
But during the COVID period, it was the Liberal Party that left me.
I didn't leave the Liberal Party.
The Liberal Party abandoned all those policies and values that they had.
And when they were going down the track of mandatory forcing an Australian to undergo a medical intervention and denying doctors in this country the right to be doctors, to prescribe what was otherwise lawfully.
So we had treatments.
It's even sometimes you're careful not to mention them because you know they're still being censored.
There was hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin that we had doctors in this country that was lawful to prescribe these drugs if they thought using their medical expertise and research, practicing the art of medicine, they were lawfully able to prescribe these drugs.
And yet we had bureaucrats down in Canberra that interfered in that process and said, no, we're going to put you in jail if you do that.
Now that to me was those two things were completely wrong.
And I couldn't sit in a Liberal Party party room that was endorsing those things and watching Australians forced to be injected.
So I left there.
Now, after that, I was intending to run as an independent.
Clive Palmer came to me and said, mate, he said, you just can't sit there and run in your own seat.
These issues are too important.
He says, I'll back you.
We'll put candidates in every one of the 151 seats around the nation.
And let's raise these issues and let's fight on these issues.
Let's fight for free speech.
Let's fight for that freedom of those doctors.
And let's see how we go.
And that was an offer that just I could not, you know, obviously there's certain things that were promised that didn't happen.
But that was an offer that you couldn't refuse because it gave us the voice.
So I remember at that time, I was being completely shut out of the media.
The media, I'd been at my account.
Of mainstream media, of mainstream social media.
Yep, so you couldn't get, I even had YouTube censoring my parliamentary speeches.
So I'd make a speech in Parliament, introducing a piece of legislation to Parliament, right?
And I put it up on YouTube with basically like it's the speaker goes, I give the call to the member for Hughes to my speech, and it finishes, I thank the House, right?
And I put that up, and someone in America in an office in YouTube, now we know, probably pressured by this USAID or pressured by the Biden administration, looks at that and says, no, we don't like what he says.
We are censored.
So I couldn't even get out what I was saying in Parliament to the constituents.
So that's why with Clive Palmer, it was the advantage of being able to get that message out and broadcast that message.
Now, unfortunately, for various reasons, that didn't work.
We were able to get one senator up, Senator Ralph Babbitt, who I must say is doing a fantastic job.
We had 50 Ralph Babbitts that could have been elected into that parliament if we were successful.
Ralph was just one of many great candidates that we had.
And we're fortunate enough to get one up.
So the UAP then deregistered.
They can't run at this next election.
That was pretty clear to me when Mr. Palmer deregistered.
What the High Court decided just confirmed what I knew that they couldn't run.
So I was looking for another home.
I worked on a consultancy basis for One Nation for a short period of time.
Unfortunately, that didn't work out.
At the time was a toss-up between the Libertarians and One Nation.
I went with One Nation, that didn't work out, and I think I'm now where I belong.
And one of the great strengths of the Libertarian Party over some of the other minor parties is it is a democratic structure.
It's run by the membership.
It has real branches.
It is developing.
It is a growing party.
It's got parliamentary representation here in New South Wales.
One Nation no longer has any parliamentary representation in New South Wales.
Their last three members all resigned from the party.
So there's no One Nation representation in the New South Wales Parliament.
There is with the Libertarian Party.
I align with a lot of their values and I'm looking at being part of that organisation for many, many years to come.
Well, mate, I could talk to you for another two hours, but we've got to end it there.
I'm sure you're a busy man, but thanks so much.
Before you go, you're hopeful because you did mention some of the stuff that you mentioned.
RFK Jr. just American politics is looking completely different.
We're about to go into an election here.
Are you hopeful about the future?
There were some dark times we went through, and I think I'd met you a few times during that period.
Are you hopeful now?
I'm always, I'm an optimist at heart, and I'm always hopeful for the future.
But my real concern about this next parliament is that it is very difficult.
If you look through the numbers, it is very difficult to see how the Liberal Party coalition, or even Labor for that instance, is going to be able to govern with a majority.
So we are, you know, I would think it's almost a close to a near certainty unless the Labour Party completely implode, which is always possible between now and the election campaign.
But we know they'll be throwing out money to everyone.
So the polls are more likely to, if we look at past election campaigns, once the election is called, the polls tighten rather than the margin broaden.
So the coalition at the front 51, 49, that's not enough for them to form government by themselves.
So they're going to have to rely upon some of these teal independents to govern.
Now, the same with Labour.
I can't see any way possible they can have a majority government.
If they can maintain power, it's going to have to be with the Greens.
So we are going to be through a period of most likely of the next three years, we're going to have a government that is being held hostage to the Greens and the Teals.
And that is going to be a disaster for this country, an economic disaster for this country.
And that's why it's so important that we get some strong people from the Conservative Libertarian side in that Senate to make sure we can at least put some steel into the spine if it's a coalition minority government and stop the madness of a Greens Labor government.
That's what I'm saying.
So it's so important we get the Libertarians, as many as we can, elected to that federal senate.
Where can people find you?
You can find me best places on my Twitter account or ex, Craig Kelly.
That's, I think we've got one of the, I think, you know, my Twitter account runs at a around about 10 to 15 million impressions a month on that.
One of the highest rating political pages in this country.
So follow there.
You'll see a whole lot of stories and bits and pieces that I talk about that we know the ABC won't cover or the mainstream media won't cover and will cover up.
Thank you, mate.
We'll speak to you.
Thanks, Arby.
Always a pleasure.
Well, that was certainly an interesting conversation.
I enjoy Craig Kelly.
I think he's on point.
Most of the time, I can't, I don't think there's very often I've disagreed with his position on stuff.
It has been interesting to watch his political career starting in the Liberal Party, but it does make sense his response as to his journey as to why he's moved from so many parties.
I do hope the Libertarians do well in this next election because we do need voices like them and One Nation and some of these other smaller independent conservative parties.
Now, like I told you last week, we're starting this new part to the Yemenia report at the end of the segment where I just go and read a couple of the comments from you guys, from Rebel News Plus subscribers on my articles throughout the week.
So get involved in the conversations and I'll read your comment out next week and each week at the end of the segment.
Libertarians and Conservative Voices00:05:11
So today, this week, the story, in the last week, the story that's made most of most of our week up is obviously those two nurses that we referenced to in just in this episode.
And it's a story that's still unfolding.
I could see on our latest story, there's a couple of comments.
One from Bruce, who says that this proves that our side, so he's talking about this story, is that the Israeli influencer, after the ABC, implied and much of the Islamic community and much of the far left, it's weird.
It's an unholy alliance in which they all were implying that this Israeli influencer set their mark or was lying or unfairly edited it.
And obviously this Israeli influencer did end up publishing the full unedited version of it so that they so you know putting to bed that allegation that he did something that made it look like it wasn't or he baited them.
So Bruce says that this proves that our side is more noble and we have nothing to hide either.
It is a true point.
I'm glad that the video is released in its original form.
Can we expect the same honesty from those whose religion prescribes lying if it helps spread it?
It's called Takia.
I think the Takia and is a staple of that supposed religion of peace.
And I'd go beyond that.
Like Takia is true.
Most Muslims don't even know what Takia is, to be fair, but they will be dishonest to protect their narrative.
And not only the Islamic community, we can see that the far left, the Greens, all of them are being completely dishonest about this to protect their narrative.
And yeah, it's been insane to watch.
Even just in the last day or so, Fatima Payma finally came out with a statement in which she defends.
She defends her fellow refugee Afghani refugee and the other hijabi for bragging about killing Israelis in Australian hospitals and saying they'll do it again.
Like it is insane to me that somebody can be a representative in our parliament and defending this lot because they're so tribal and they've got to defend the narrative and they've got to defend their own and they don't care about Australia.
She clearly hates Australia as much as she does.
She hates Australia as much as she hates Israel.
And the sooner she gets kicked out of the Senate, the quicker we'll be better for it and blame Labor for that labor.
Let um, Labor is who she got in with.
And uh, that identity politics bore us that insane senator who should certainly not be a senator.
In fact, there's questions about her um legality around her being a senator due to her potential uh citizenship dual citizenship with um Afghanistan.
You're not allowed to have dual citizenship, so I could not be a senator and I accept that.
The only way to become one is if you renounce your other citizenship, and it seems like she's never done that.
But there seems to be a special rule when it comes to protected class.
Marco says on this same story, we live in Orwellian times.
There is more humanity in Israeli society than in the sum of all Islamic countries.
Most Muslims are still stuck in the middle ages not a good fit for it, not good fit in a western country.
Alas, most of them vote for left parties and the welfare state.
Hence the muted response from the pm.
Hopefully, Dutton will learn a few things from president Trump.
I stand for decency truth, justice and Judeo-christian values.
Therefore, I stand with Israel.
Keep up the great work, Avi.
Thank you, Marco, thank you for the support and thank you for staying consistent.
We've seen too many people in the last 16 months who, up until it became cool to um, join the mob and hate on Israel.
They were also people that used to walk around saying I care about Judeo-christian values.
Are the same people that now suddenly say there's no such thing as Judeo-christian values and um, they are as mad as the left.
So I appreciate people's consistency and even in this discussion with Cray Kelly, that's what I love about people like Pauline Hansen is their consistency.
Through it all that they did, they don't waver um, when it comes to their uh positions and standing for what's right, even when it's unpopular.
Join Night Live Show00:00:52
But that is the show for tonight.
So guys, next week please leave me some more comments on uh, on the stories that we publish and uh, i'll read them out here on the show.
Otherwise, join myself and Rookshan on thursday night live from 7 p.m at Theopposition.show.
You obviously Got a Rebel NEWS PLUS membership, unless you're listening to this on the audio version.
If you're listening to this on the free audio version, make sure to go now to your mini report.com, get yourself a Rebel Plus, a Rebel News Plus membership subscription.
That way, you can watch the video instead of just listening to the free audio.
And you can join us live.
If you are a member, you can join us live at the end of the Opposition podcast on Thursday nights.
It's when we go into a little room just with you guys, with the members.