Russell Broadbent here, your Federal Member for Monash.

The Net Zero by 2050 target is not grounded in reality. It’s unproductive and it’s adverse to Australian taxpayers and energy consumers – which is all of us!

In the last 3 years, the average capacity of energy projects proposed for connection, has been just 230 megawatts.

How can that be logical when one coal fired power station can produce nearly 7,000 megawatts of continuous and cheap power.

Building these tiny 200-megawatt projects all over the place would devastate our natural lands and wildlife – not to mention building an additional 10,000 km of transmission lines!

When the Government want to spruik shiny trophy-targets like ‘Net Zero’, it is going to be at your expense – TWICE. As a taxpayer, and as a consumer.

There is no path to Net Zero without significant compromise.

That’s Justice as I see it.

Today is a dark day and one that does not bode well for the nation. The government's so-called combatting misinformation bill marks the beginning of the end for free speech and democracy in Australia. Make no mistake, this bill is another alarming example of overreach and a step towards government tyranny over what we can and cannot discuss. It gives the government unfettered power and control over Australians and their right to exchange ideas, thoughts and opinions. Do you realise what we're risking here? Free speech is the bedrock of democracy, and, as Benjamin Franklin said, there is no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech.

The bill compels digital platform providers like X and Facebook to censor content that may contribute to serious harm. But who makes that decision? Who's the arbiter of truth? One of the bill's definitions of content that may cause serious harm is content that may cause serious harm to 'public health in Australia, including the efficacy of preventative health measures'. Where have I heard those words before? Why don't they just say misinformation is whatever discussion or debate goes against the narrative of the government of the day? It appears that anyone with a view that's contrary to the government's narrative is going to be in the firing line, just like during the pandemic, when our government, the government I was a part of, censored 4,000 social media posts as misinformation, many of which proved to be absolutely true.

I'm not alone in my concerns. In giving feedback on the original exposure draft, the Law Council rightly outlined concerns that digital platform services lack the expertise and resources to identify and distinguish misinformation. The Human Rights Commission, who were missing in action during the pandemic, said the bill didn't strike the right balance between censorship of objectively untrue content and protection of freedom of expression. It seems this final bill hasn't adequately addressed either of these legitimate issues, so why is it being rushed through? I agree with Dr Phillip Altman, a pharmacologist with 40 years experience as a clinical trial and drug regulatory affairs consultant, who believes the biggest pedlars of misinformation during the pandemic were the government and unelected health bureaucrats.

That's because they: falsely claimed that the experimental gene based mRNA injections were safe and effective when this was not supported by the available evidence, even from the pharmaceutical companies themselves; falsely claimed the senseless vaccine mandates would help to stop transmission when they were never tested for that; falsely claimed that COVID injections would keep you from getting COVID, getting seriously ill or going to hospital; falsely claimed that masks prevented transmission or infection; falsely claimed it was a pandemic of the unvaccinated; falsely claimed that early treatments were unsuitable; and falsely claimed that there was no clinical evidence to support ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19. Worst of all was the vilification and censorship of doctors, academics and scientists who raised the alarm about the safety of the vaccines.

But here's the rub: professional news services—mainstream media—are excluded from this bill. So they can lie or cause harm without fear of repercussions. Does anyone see a big red flag here? Based on what I've observed over the last nearly five years, it's the deliberate suppression of information by the media that is most sinister. This includes their failure to disclose the vested interests of so-called health experts, expert committees and institutions providing public advice; their failure to report on the doctors and health practitioners being deregistered and suspended for daring to disagree with the government's narrative; their failure to put pressure on the government to reveal the contractual arrangements with vaccine manufacturers; their failure to ask about the estimated 30,000 excess deaths since the rollout of the jabs; their failure to hold the TGA accountable for failing to investigate the more than 140,000 reports of adverse reactions to the jabs; their failure to highlight the minimal to near zero risk of COVID-19 in the young versus the risk to the elderly; and, most heinously, their failure to cover stories of the vaccine injured, including the thousands of injured Australians who aren't even eligible for compensation because of the illogically narrow eligibility criteria.

We're constantly assured that the science is settled and bombarded with propaganda to follow the science, but surely this dogma has no place in science. Surely our doctors, academics and scientists must be free to ask questions about assertions and debate issues. These are truly unprecedented times. In my 25 years in the parliament, I've never seen legislation like it. This is not the country I grew up in, and it's heading in a direction that makes me fear for future generations. Today I urge Australians to stand up and speak out on this bill while they still can.

This week the Government introduced a bill which marks the beginning of the end for free speech and democracy in Australia. I also dropped off my letter to the PM calling for restoration of Conscientious Objector rights.

Deputy Speaker paid parental leave is an avenue for particularly women to participate further in their opportunities to work and their families to have better opportunities and has been described in the legislation greater opportunities for women to have a better retirement than they would otherwise have. This is to be supported and is laudable.

It brings in fairness and justice, but the government and this parliament has promoted through whatever parliament there has been before it.  

When injustice festers in a community, it ripples outward, affecting us all. Injustice doesn’t just harm those directly involved—it compromises the entire fabric of society. We can’t stand idly by when faced with discrimination, especially when it targets the most vulnerable among us—our children, particularly our Indigenous children. We share the burden of this injustice, and it is our collective duty to call it out and demand change.

I don’t claim to be an expert on the pros and cons of childhood vaccination—that is for those more far more knowledgeable than I. However, what I do know, and what has come to my attention through the voices of over a thousand families, is the deep harm caused by policies like "No Jab, No Pay" and "No Jab, No Play." These measures, intended to protect public health, have instead punished families who choose not to vaccinate by stripping them of essential support. Childcare subsidies, out-of-hours care, Centrelink payments, and crucial family tax benefits have all been reduced or withheld entirely.

Families, particularly single-parent households, are being driven to the brink, living hand-to-mouth, struggling under the weight of government policies that are, at best, indifferent and, at worst, cruel. Kirsten is one of the many who have reached out to me—her story emblematic of the challenges faced by countless others.

When Kirsten welcomed her first child into the world, it was a moment of pure joy. Her baby girl, perfect in every way, brought immense happiness to her family. Following the standard vaccination schedule, Kirsten believed she was doing what was right. But that trust was shattered when her daughter, after receiving her first vaccine, turned blue, unconscious, and stopped breathing, later described as a SIDS episode.

Imagine the terror of that moment. Told to "smack the baby hard to bring her back" by emergency responders, Kirsten’s world was turned upside down. At her daughter's 12-month vaccine, the same nightmare played out—her child required resuscitation. When her son was born, he too needed CPR after his vaccination.

Kirsten sought an exemption, understanding that vaccines were not safe for her children. Yet, despite her harrowing experiences, the exemption was denied. The system meant to protect her family failed her. She made the courageous decision to stop vaccinating, and her unvaccinated children have since thrived—no more SIDS episodes, no health crises, and her premature child has been healthier than her vaccinated siblings.

But Kirsten’s decision came at a great cost. Her family’s benefits were cut, and her children are now excluded from educational and social opportunities essential for their development. This punishment prevents Kirsten from working, further exacerbating her family’s struggles. And Kirsten is far from alone. Families who stand firm for their children’s health are being pushed out of the workforce, financially penalised, and denied the opportunity to fully participate in society. And of course, Deputy Speaker, if you don’t work you don’t get paid parental leave.

And then there’s Elizabeth’s story—a testament to the broader impact of these policies on communities. Elizabeth, a mother who, with the support of her GP, made the informed decision to delay vaccinations for her children, found herself unfairly disadvantaged by this choice. A capable, community-minded woman, Elizabeth had built a promising career and was actively contributing to her local and broader community through her work and civil involvement.

However, the restrictive vaccination policies forced her to change jobs, reduce her hours, and accept a significant pay cut to care for her unvaccinated children, placing her family at a substantial financial disadvantage and her children were denied access to early learning and socialisation opportunities. Elizabeth spoke of the emotional toll these policies had taken on her family and community, describing the "state-sanctioned discrimination" that left her feeling ostracised. She pointed out how these policies are not just punitive but also counterproductive—by sidelining her, they deprived the community of the contributions she could no longer make.

Elizabeth’s case is especially troubling because it highlights how these policies extend beyond individual families—they impact the broader community. By preventing capable individuals like Elizabeth from fully participating in society, these policies rob communities of vital support and service. This exclusion has ripple effects that reach far beyond one family, undermining the collective good of the nation.

For Indigenous families, the impact of current vaccination policies is amplified by a long history of assimilation into Western medical systems. The National Agreement on Closing the Gap outlines clear goals: to ensure Indigenous children thrive in their early years, reach their full potential, and that their families are supported in meaningful economic participation. However, these goals are hindered by policies that inadvertently deny access to early learning and reduce essential financial benefits for families with unvaccinated children.

Excluding unvaccinated children from early learning opportunities compromises the principles of fairness and equity that we in this parliament seek to uphold. Education is fundamental to a child’s development, and yet Indigenous children—already amongst the most vulnerable—are being restricted from these critical opportunities. For single mothers, particularly Indigenous women, this creates difficult choices. They must either vaccinate their children against their cultural and spiritual beliefs or forfeit access to childcare and their ability to work and provide for their families.

The No Jab, No Pay policy deepens financial hardship, entrenches poverty, and limits access to early education and employment for many First Nations women and their children. These policies risk isolating families from the very opportunities they need to thrive, contradicting the intentions of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, which strives to provide equitable outcomes for all.

Furthermore, the No Jab, No Pay No Play policy stands in contradiction to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 43 of the Declaration affirms that it “constitutes the minimum standards for the survival, dignity, and well-being of Indigenous peoples worldwide.” Any reduction in these standards, particularly in the context of self-determined medical autonomy, challenges the core of these human rights protections.

We as a parliament must respect these rights, we as a national must respect these rights and work toward policies that support rather than diminish the dignity, survival, and well-being of Indigenous families, ensuring they have access to the same opportunities for growth and success as all Australians do.

Now, here’s where the irony cuts deep. In some regions, wealthier families have found loopholes in these very policies. If they can afford to pay full fees, their unvaccinated children are still able to attend childcare and after-hours care—essentially buying their way out of the system. This blatant double standard defeats the very health argument these policies claim to uphold. How can it be that, for a price, unvaccinated children are allowed into the same social settings from which other unvaccinated children are excluded? What does this contradiction reveal about the true motivations behind these measures—are they genuinely focused on public health or something else entirely?

And it gets worse: while unvaccinated children are excluded, health workers and parents are not required to be vaccinated to enter these same childcare settings. So, what does it say about our priorities when children are the ones singled out? How can we justify penalising the most vulnerable for decisions made by their parents, while overlooking the inconsistencies that exist within the system? What steps can we take to address these contradictions and create a more just and equitable approach to these health policies?

This paradox only reinforces the deeper injustice at play. Policies designed to protect public health are instead creating new layers of inequality and exclusion, all while allowing those with financial means to sidestep the very restrictions others are forced to endure.

A simple yet effective solution lies in reinstating the option for conscientious objection for parents who choose not to vaccinate. By making this process as straightforward as filling out a form at Centrelink, we can ensure that families continue to receive the benefits they need without unnecessary restrictions. This change would balance public health with respect for individual choice and cultural diversity.

It is our collective responsibility—yours and mine—to ensure that all families have the opportunity to Protect, Provide, and Prosper. This is more than just a slogan; it is a call to action to defend individual rights, provide access to essential services, and ensure that every child, every family, can thrive, no matter their personal medical decisions.

I commend this proposition to the House.

Australia is one of few countries that doesn’t need to subsidise farming. We have a world class advantage in agriculture, and we are lucky to have our food produced locally. That’s no mean feat.

It is clear that Labor governments don’t see farmers as the working man, more of a threat to their political agenda.

By banning the export of live sheep by sea, they are saying to ALL Australian businesses: ‘feel-good rhetoric’ and ideology is more important than reality.

There is no doubt that this will seriously damage WA, but it also poses an over-supply risk to the Eastern States, reducing the value of our WHOLE sheep industry.

The popular talking point from Labor was ‘this is a dying industry’, but this isn’t true. Because in recent years there has been less sheep in Eastern Australia and so WA sent their sheep our way and got a good price for it. Otherwise, they’d be sending sheep offshore as usual.

This ban does is takes away that market freedom, and it will have knock-on effects for all sheep farmers across the nation.

When the Labor government spruik a ‘Future Made in Australia’, its disappointing to see that Australian agriculture isn’t included under their mandate.

It’s disappointing to see that they will use 22 billion dollars of your money, to fund their green agenda.

If Labor was serious about a Future Made in Australia, they’d look to our real natural advantages in agriculture and natural resources.

Why aren’t we using Australian wool? Why aren’t we exporting more of our excess fruit and veg instead of wasting it? Why are we demonising consumption of red meat?

Farmers wrestle with enough unknown variables, the government of the day shouldn’t be another.

Hello Russell Broadbent here, your Independent Member for Monash

Thanks for joining me today.

I’m no stranger to standing up, speaking out and stating the truth as I see it – especially when it comes to people suffering injustice, discrimination or distress.

While there’s often a cost when you go against the herd, I’ve never regretted doing it - not once.

And I know that the families I’m standing up for regarding the No Jab No Pay policy are also no strangers to going against the tide, against the herd.

Over the years, whenever I questioned the mistreatment of vulnerable people like single parents, the elderly, disabled and refugees, the herd were not happy. That didn’t worry me.

When I questioned the validity of covid mandates and new vaccines, the herd were not happy.  That didn’t worry me.

And rest assured, the herd won’t be happy when I take another stand in the parliament next week.

To the thousands of mums and dads who face discrimination, and financial punishment for the so-called ‘offence’ of not keeping their child up to date on the childhood immunisation register and to parents who felt coerced to vaccinate their children in order to work, let me say this, you’re not alone and we’re all in this together now.

The stories I’ve heard are gut-wrenching. The sacrifice of these intelligent and informed parents is humbling. Their desperation and distress is devastating to read, and their pleas for protection from further prosecution and persecution are heartbreaking.

You heard me correctly – these parents are being persecuted– not in Russia, not in China not in North Korea, but right here in Australia. They’re victims of a cruel and punitive government policy.

I salute these parents who refused to bow the knee and have stood tall against successive governments – refusing to vaccinate their children despite knowing the financial consequences.

As I continue to share their stories, I’m sure you’ll come to the same conclusion as me – that these parents’ sacrifices are a testament to their enduring love and concern for their child’s health and wellbeing, a decision that was often made after a first child suffered an adverse reaction to a vaccine. 

Let there be no doubt, I will stand in the gap for these courageous parents until truth and justice prevail.

That’s justice as I see it.

The reason ten million Australians have a Digital ID is because ten million Australians were coerced into getting one, and Centrelink can’t or won’t talk to you without one.

Coercion is not consent.  

When I say no to the next vaccination mandate – which I will – how could my digital identity be used to encourage, punish or penalise me?

I apologise for being part of a government that brought in No Jab, No Play. I've received hundreds of emails from distressed parents who've been financially punished for not having their child’s immunisations up-to-date. I will read each email and raise their issues with the PM.

Australians were recently alerted to the critical shortage of life saving medical products including intravenous fluids which are essential in our hospitals and operating theatres.  It’s been reported that the shortage is so bad that some hospitals are being forced to cancel elective surgeries. 

As if our health system wasn’t under enough pressure!

But it’s even worse than that, the Therapeutic Goods Administration advises there are shortages across more than 400 products - including frequently used antibiotics and painkillers. 

This problem is not new.  A 2020 report states “Australia has almost no capacity to manufacture any active pharmaceutical product for most of the products listed on World Health Organisation's list of Essential Medicines.” Why?  Because “we have incrementally outsourced almost all of our medicine supply chain to the global market.”

It turns out that Australia imports around 90% of the medicines we consume, and what little we do manufacture, we mostly export!  It’s made worse by the fact that we’re at the end of a very long global supply chain that makes us vulnerable to supply chain disruptions…. Like ‘pandemics!’

How on earth did we get here? 

I don’t know. But a report notes that agreements made over a decade ago between the government and the pharmaceutical industry may have played a role.  These agreements secured compulsory price drops in generic drugs in exchange for a commitment to restrain policy development in the area of new drug groups on the PBS - a crucial mechanism in controlling the cost of new (and patented) medicines.

The result?

The generic drug industry (which used to be predominantly Australian-owned firms) has largely closed its research and manufacturing arms and moved the bulk of its activities offshore, destroying our capacity to respond to a public health emergency by rapidly scaling up production of essential medicines in Australia.

Once again, Australia is relying on other countries and factors beyond our control, to provide what we need rather than securing the essentials and looking after the interests of the Australian people.

Labelling dissenting views as ‘conspiracy theories’ is just another tactic used by the government to censor free speech.

If you’re not allowed to debate the science, it’s propaganda!

Today in the House Tom Pritchard was honoured as the last remaining Rat of Tobruk. My next-door neighbour, Cecil Donnelly, was a Rat of Tobruk. Cecil began his working life working for my grandfather at his grocery store. Cecil went on to become a POW on Crete, after Crete was overrun, and then a POW in Germany.

Cecil finished the war as a POW. He was a remarkable gentleman because, in a way, he was very humble and never mentioned to me he'd been a Rat of Tobruk in any of the conversations we had. It was interesting because he called his children by nicknames—Alan was 'Gondi', Craig was 'Macca', Meredith was 'Minnie' and Kaye was 'Kad'. I remember that each night at five o'clock—our family ate later than the Donnellys—Midge Donnelly, the mum, would come out and yell out the four names of the kids at the top of her voice, and they'd come in for their dinner.

I honour Cecil Donnelly and all the Rats of Tobruk that made Australia and the nation—and they had that reputation that was spoken about in regard to Tom Pritchard today. I was so proud that Cecil Donnelly, my mum's friend and one of the first workers, was honoured in this way today.

Russell Broadbent here, your Federal Member for Monash.

High interest rates, high property taxes and high property prices all lead to one outcome: Property investors are keen to quit the market while they are ahead.

It’s easy to blame landlords and property investors alike, and say they are the reason why people are struggling more than ever to own their first home.

When really, it is the intervention of Governments – both State and Federal, which has exacerbated the initial problem – a housing shortage.

State Governments are mostly responsible for the ridiculous increases in property taxes.

The ATO though collected $68bn in property taxes last year – and that’s excluding capital gains!

Also, the Victorian Government introduced new taxes last year which have led to Melbourne being one of the weakest property markets in Australia.

The Federal Government is also responsible, after handing down a budget which puts them in the red for the foreseeable future – in a time where the Government is nearly 1 trillion dollars in debt!

This encourages the RBA to continue keeping rates as high as they are, because Government spending is inflationary, and the Labor government has shown it favours short-term politics over good judgement.

The exodus of property investors to alternative opportunities - such as cash and equities – is NOT to the benefit of our society and its housing crisis.

Property investors provide more than 80% of the homes occupied by renters in Australia.

But for many, including our very own Prime Minister, owning a rental property has become burdened with costs which outweigh the potential benefit.

I’m not suggesting that property investors need a hand, not for one minute.

I’m suggesting that governments should, at the very least, not interfere with the opportunity that investors provide for renters – because by extension, the unintended consequences are higher rent and higher property prices.

Neither of which are helpful when Australians are under cost-of living pressures they are today and trying desperately to break into the property market themselves.

And that’s just as I see it.