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.

I had the pleasure of speaking with Dr Kat Lindley who gave me a very disturbing update about recent amendments to the WHO’s International Health Regulations. This means that in the event of another pandemic member countries would be expected to increase their surveillance of dissenters and censor their voices. Who in government signed Australia up to such dystopian measures?

Russell Broadbent here, your Federal Member for Monash.

Labor, The Greens, and Teals have got a real problem if they remain ignorant to the undeniable role that nuclear energy must play in our energy grid.

If the goal is to reduce emissions and reach net zero by 2050, surely nuclear is the obvious option.

Nuclear beats renewable energy, fair and square. Nuclear provides continuous and reliable energy. Renewables provide intermittent and unreliable energy.

The future of renewable energy is riddled with uncertainty. Investment in renewable energy projects has stalled because of their flawed business case and governments changing the rules, moving the goal posts. Yet still, the government of the day is persistent to focus on renewables only. And if the Government is so sure that the market does not approve of nuclear energy, just lift the ban and find out!

Labor’s obsession with renewables as a source for baseload power doesn’t stack up. Renewables can’t be a source for baseload power due to their intermittent output. It has already gotten to the point where state governments are paying for the continuation of coal-fired power plants because otherwise, we’d be in for blackouts!

In a country where we are wealthy in natural resources, we should surely have our energy security figured out. But the failed effort to conform with global standards of ‘sustainability’ will impose a negative supply shock on energy, on ourselves!

In the long run, we need to be thinking about sustainability in its former meaning – the ability to maintain productivity, and that is not possible if Australia is left in the dark.

That's justice as I see it.

After nearly 25 years in this House, it comes down for this to me: it's a matter of common sense in our legislation. It's a matter of trust given by the Australian people to our politicians. It's a duty of care to the Australian people. We take something from our doctors in our legislation when they commit to first do no harm—I say to your nation. Net zero by 2050 for me is a plan and a future target, but there's no bridge—I see the minister—that is practical from now to net zero by 2050 to get you there. I would ask anybody to come to me and show me how, without destroying Australian manufacturing, farms, businesses and opportunity, you can take this country from where we are today to net zero by 2050.

Government members interjecting—

You're destroying manufacturing in this country. Manufacturing has been declining. I'd love it if the government's plan for manufacturing were true. It is not. It is not the future. You're not doing the best. You don't have a duty of care for this country. I say that to the Treasurer as well. Give me the plan that takes you from here to net zero and all the things that go on the bridge to get there without destroying all the benefits that coal and gas grew this country on.

Here's another dose of Monash common sense from Russell Broadbent. One thing that I have always held up very high, as the member for Monash—and, formerly, the member for McMillan, and the member for Corinella before that—is that I have a duty of care not only to the people that I represent locally but also to the nation. We are parliamentary representatives—and I have the greatest respect for every member of parliament who comes into this place with a view to putting Australians and their best interests first and having a duty of care towards them.

As to that duty of care, have you ever thought for a minute why there isn't already a nuclear plant here in Australia? Well, we have one—but a major nuclear power plant? There is one very good reason. It's because we have an abundance of natural resources in coal and gas.

How dare it be written, as it was in one of the newspapers I read on the weekend, that coal is the cheapest form of electricity! Coal powerfully grew the Hunter Valley. It powerfully grew the Latrobe Valley and gave Victoria an abundance of cheap power. We have so much gas underground in Victoria, it's nearly bubbling to the top by itself. But there's a moratorium in Victoria that says: 'We lack common sense. We are going to cut both our hands off in regard to energy so we can't use these amazing natural resources that we have.' If we don't address that, and exercise our duty of care towards the Australian people, we are going to end up having—not brownouts, but we'll be running out of power in some spots. So we'll just switch off Bendigo for a while, or we'll take the biggest business we can find and tell them: 'You're going to have to curtail what you're using at the moment. We're going to have to cut your gas down for a while, so you won't be able to operate that day. Can you agree with that?'

My wife had a day this week without power and she went through all the issues. I said, 'Look, I've got this fantastic battery boiler; you can put it onto the car, a six-volt battery, and boil yourself a cup of coffee.' Well, it worked, but it took an hour and a half to boil. I mean, there are restrictions on other, alternative methods of getting something boiled.

We get electricity when we boil water and put steam through a turbine. And what's the damning part? Where do people attack us? They come along and say: 'Look this pollution in the Latrobe Valley,' and they show a picture of steam coming off the cooling towers! Yes, you can see the smoke stacks as well. But what we desperately need to do is to make sure that those coal-fired power plants in and around my electorate are still there and pumping away. We've got to put energy into them and exercise ourselves as to looking after those power plants.

Following her discussion as part of a panel on Spotlight’s After Covid special, Gigi Foster shared her insights and filled in some gaps…

I have the greatest respect for the member for Bean—and he knows that—as I have respect for every member of parliament in this place. However, the member for Bean has completely missed the point. This motion is not about the government's response to aged care. This motion is about older people, their place in Australia, respect for older people, living life to its full as an older person and older people being given the opportunity to participate actively within the confines of the nation. As the motion points out, the number of Australians over 50 is going to increase exponentially over the next 10 to 15 years. I happen to be one of that group.

I was asked on radio this morning, Deputy Speaker McKenzie—and you're not going to like what I'm about to say—'Do you think the Liberal Party are ageist?' and I had to answer, 'Yes, they are.' But I should have said—and I didn't get a chance—that it is because they reflect the rest of the Australian community. The Australian community say to people like me: 'We're old and we're retired, so why aren't you old and retired?' Because I don't feel old and I don't feel like retiring. Why? It was never about my performance. As one elder and former leader of the party said, 'He's too old and he's been there too long.' There was no question about performance. Then I was asked about President Biden's age, and I said: 'It's nothing to do with President Biden's age. It's about his competence.' It's nothing to do with his age. There are plenty of people of that age who are still working on their farms, still working as doctors and specialists in their field. It's only Catholic priests now who are told that they've got to retire at 75. It used to be 70, but they ran out of priests.

I say to you, Deputy Speaker, that this motion by the member for Mayo gives an opportunity for Australia to grow up and recognise that older Australians have a place in the future—not looking to the past the whole time but a place in the future. The member for Mayo calls for a minister for older Australians. Wouldn't that be a turn-up—that we actually recognise that this major bulk group in the community deserves some attention, rather than saying, as the member for Bean said, that it's all about aged care and how we're going to look after them? No. They are looking after themselves quite well, thank you very much—overall. I know there are people doing it hard. There always will be, and we do our best to accommodate them. But, overall, older Australians have done well. They've worked hard. They've put a nest egg together. They have good superannuation. They have opportunities for pensions if they need them. And if they've paid off their house and they're not paying rent—I had one pensioner saying: 'What are you on about? Myself and my husband are doing quite well on the pension.' But they own their house, and they probably have a conservative lifestyle. I remember the mum of one of my friends saying, 'What are these people on about?'—she had been on her own for years—'I save money on the pension.'

I suppose it just depends on your lifestyle, how you operate and how you go. But this should be an exciting time for people, when they turn 50. One of our great popstars said this morning, 'I'm turning 40, and I'm excited to launch myself into the next stage of my life.' I'm saying that people turning 70 should be launching themselves into the next stage of their life, in an exciting way, in a futuristic way, in a way that says, 'I want to be part of this great nation, this great south land, this amazing place, and I want to take leadership roles and I want to be recognised for the experience and the ability that I have and the wisdom that I have learnt over many, many years, which will keep younger people out of the trouble that they would have headed for if they had kept going down the track they were on.'

This motion is a good motion, which recognises people in Australia over 50, over 60, over 70, sometimes over 80 and over 90. In fact, my aunty, who lives in your electorate Deputy Speaker McKenzie, died within two weeks of her 102nd birthday, and at age 95 she went on a six-week fishing and camping trip with her son. Not bad. Good on you, Aunty Glad.

Today I open a new book, a new gospel. I'm going to read a verse from the gospel of Adam: Adam Creighton of the Australian, with a new book called a new book called 'The Book of Common Sense'. For this nation and nations around the world, with regard to the arguments that you and everybody in this room have heard about whether we use nuclear power or we don't use nuclear power—thousands of words written over the last six to eight weeks in newspapers across this land. So I open the new book today: the book of common sense. One of the profits and watch keepers of this book of common sense that I open today is Adam Creighton. There are others, but there is Adam Creighton particularly in an article in the Australian today which to me says it all.

For a start, he talked about how the electoral fortunes of those in Europe, who have voted recently, seem to be changing in dramatic ways. In a biblical reflection, their voting trends are changing, and they're changing because they are people who are thinking and using the book of common sense. In France, the support for the great green movement has halved to 5.5 per cent. In Germany, support for the Greens collapsed 50 per cent, to 12 per cent from 24. In the US, support for nuclear energy for domestic power surged from 43 per cent in 2020 to 57 per cent in 2023. The number of nuclear reactors in the US, which provide around 20 per cent of the country's electricity, declined from a peak of 111 in the eighties to 93 today, but nuclear power is being embraced by the current Biden administration as the only realistic way to achieve net zero.

I am enjoying this book of common sense. France has announced it's building at least six and up to 14 new nuclear power stations in the coming years. India is building how many—18 nuclear stations by 2030. China is planning at least 100 new reactors by 2035. Yes, nuclear power stations will be expensive until the speed of production increases and local industry adjusts. State and federal governments in Australia spent around $400 billion of borrowed money during COVID for an excess deaths outcome which was scarcely different from Sweden, who spent barely anything in comparison.

Yes, this book of common sense. Since 1997, fossil fuel consumption in absolute terms around the world has increased 55 per cent. Its share of the total has declined from 86 per cent to 82, down four per cent. We haven't been able to achieve that much in the grand scheme of the global energy transition. For affluent nations like ours to achieve net-zero carbon goals in international treaties that they've signed up to, they are required to commit to an annual expenditure of at least 20 per cent of GDP for decades. More than 80 million kilometres of new transmission lines across the world—the equivalent of redoing the entire global grid—would need to be built by 2040. I put to you that I have opened the book of common sense; it's not the first time you'll hear this gospel from me. I'm glad that the minister is in the room, and I hope she and her department take good account of this opening of the book of common sense.

Recently the Department of Health reported that only 3.5% of 18 – 64-year-olds have received a Covid booster in the past 6 months*. 

Furthermore, the latest figures from the Australian Immunisation Register show that childhood immunisation rates are falling.

This phenomenon is not unique to Australia. According to the World Health Organisation and UNICEF, vaccination rates are falling across the globe.

Why could this be? 

One doctor says that the COVID vaccination roll out has ‘potentially shifted people’s attitude,’ with vaccination rates falling across all age groups since 2020.

This begs the question, did Australia’s Covid vaccination policies contribute to this change in general vaccine uptake? 

If so, why?

Let me run this scenario by you.

Firstly, we were told to get vaccinated on behalf of everyone else – to stop the virus spreading. Fair enough. That’s reasonable. But then, we learned that the vaccines didn’t stop transmission. So not only didn’t it stop people contracting Covid, it didn’t stop the spread.

Second, the risks were downplayed. We now have over 140 000 reported adverse events to the TGA’s reporting system, including 1023 deaths. This is more reports than for all other vaccines in the last 50 years combined. The now withdrawn Astra Zeneca shot was linked with clots and death soon after roll out in 2021, yet it took another 2 years before it left our shelves.

That’s a lot to digest!

Australians now suspect something is up. The trust factor has been compromised. Many of us know people who have been vax injured. I have interviewed many injured people on this channel.

What else have we learned? We’ve learned that the conversation around benefits and harms of our Covid response was stifled. Our own Department of Home affairs censored over 4000 social media posts about Covid, many of which were later proven to be absolutely true. Yet recently Former CDC head Dr Anthony Fauci admitted that he ‘didn’t remember reviewing any studies or data that supported masking children or social distancing and that the rules just ‘sort of appeared.’

But by far the most egregious insult on the Australian people were the mandates. These were, and always have been, deeply unethical.  Especially when you are forcing people to decide between an experimental jab – a so-called ‘vaccine’ which fails to prevent infection and transmission - and their job. 

Ex CDC Director Dr Robert Redfield recently confirmed this view saying, 'they never should have mandated vaccines. Period.’

Of course I’m not only inclined to agree, I agree.

The falling vaccination rates may well be the most damning evidence we have that Australian’s trust in the health bureaucracy has been irreparably damaged. So now people are voting with their feet.

And that’s justice, as I see it.

*Correction: 3.9% of 18 – 64-year-olds have received a Covid booster in the past 6 months. See Department of Health report.

If you’ve never listened to any of my other interviews, please trust me, and listen to this one with Professor Angus Dalgleish.