National Day of Protest: No Digital ID Rally

,

A Triad of Tyranny

Three Bills are being rammed through the Senate to create legislation that will transform the UN-WEF plans for surveillance and control into a dystopian reality in Australia.

The first is the Identity Verification Services Bill 2023, which is designed to permit the use of biometric data to locate and track citizens and normalise it. The second, the Digital Identity Bill 2023, will ensure Australians have no choice but to succumb to setting up a digital ID. The third is the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill 2023. This is the censorship tool to make sure both the media and social media carries government sanctioned opinions only. The government in power is exempted and free to be the Ministry of Truth, spreading misinformation or disinformation. Remember how well that went during the COVID response?

The Driver’s Licence database is being upgraded to become the repository of your master identification record, which is already being used to establish your identity with a paper check and now with a facial scan.

I implored the Senate to vote against and to reject this Bill. This is the first of three Bills necessary to turn Australia into the world’s first World Economic Forum digital prison.

Transcript

One Nation strongly opposes the Identity Verification Services Bill 2023. Here’s why. The Albanese government’s great mate, Blackrock boss Larry Fink, and predatory billionaires at the World Economic Forum are fond of the phrase ‘you will own nothing and be happy’. What they really mean is that they will own everything and you will comply. Why would people voluntarily enslave themselves, give up their homes, cars and household goods and lose the right to travel freely, I hear you ask. The answer is that people will not be given a choice. They will be coerced—forced into it. That’s the purpose of this government’s triad of tyranny.

First is the Identity Verification Services Bill 2023, which will normalise and allow the use of biometric data to locate and track citizens. Second is the Digital ID Bill 2023, which will force every Australian into having a digital ID. Third is the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill 2023, which will ensure media and social media only carry government sanctioned opinions; the government will be exempted and can be free to spread misinformation and disinformation.

Biometric data is your face turned into a data file based on your physical characteristics. It allows for faster and more accurate identification. They will capture your face. The national drivers licence database is being upgraded to become the repository of your master identification record, which is already used to establish your identity with a paper check. Now it will have a facial scan.

Australians do not need to consent in a meaningful manner. The bill currently uses the word ‘consent’ without definition. Consent can be implied. Here’s an example. If a person sees a video of themselves on a self-service check-out at the supermarket and uses the check-out anyway, it’s considered implied consent. The government has accepted that implied consent is no consent at all and has upgraded the reference to ‘consent’ in their amendment on sheet UD100 to ‘explicit consent’. That isn’t good enough either. Explicit consent can be provided as blanket consent. An example would be MasterCard changing their terms and conditions to allow for facial recognition whenever their card is used. Once the card owner gets the email saying, ‘We have updated our terms and conditions. Click here to approve,’ and people click without reading it, one of those new terms could be permission for facial recognition. Did you give consent? No.

Banks currently record the image of anyone using their ATMs and then use that in the case of a fraudulent transaction. Banks will update their terms and conditions to give themselves the right to run your biometric
verification on each occasion before allowing access to your account. Refusing the new permission gives your bank or card company the right to refuse service. It’s that simple. It’s blackmail. This is why the government suggesting a digital ID or biometric data check will be voluntary is a complete lie. It’s compulsory, because not agreeing means you lose your bank account or payment card or service—just as those voluntary COVID injections were compulsory if you wanted to keep your job and your house and feed your family.

I foreshadow an amendment in the committee stage on sheet 2327 to change the definition of ‘explicit’ to ‘active’, meaning on each occasion your face is to be scanned they must ask permission before they scan it and make sure they get your permission each time. That’s active consent. This should be supported, because the government already says Australians will have to consent to their biometric data being used—unless, of course, that was misinformation.

This bill does not offer a direct link between the authentication action at a check-out, office, airport et cetera and the master file. A government hub receives a request and pulls the master file, meaning only the government has access to the master file. This seems to look acceptable, yet it means there’s a master file with 17 million records containing name, address, telephone, date of birth, drivers licence number, passport number and a biometric identification file all sitting in the same database. That’s all the information necessary to steal someone’s ID and impersonate them online—a hacker’s paradise.

Robodebt proved that our bureaucrats are incapable of even a simple one-to-one database match, and now they’re being trusted to pull this off. It’s impossible without a high level of compulsion and without completely ignoring victims of software or data-matching errors. If the look-up fails, then your purchase, travel, document, signing or whatever other use fails. If the purchase was for petrol, your family could be stranded late at night. We might as well start the royal commission now.

Downstream from the big government database are what I call intermediaries or entities with participating agreements. There are 20 of these so far. Their role is to take a request for authentication from a bank or card
processor, solicitor, real estate agent, airline—anyone needing you to prove you are who you say you are—and submit that to the national drivers licence database hub to run past the master database. In the original bill there were no effective checks and balances on those businesses. The government’s amendment of its own bill has added a few checks and balances to ensure that intermediaries must delete data received as part of the verification process.

Thank you, Minister Gallagher. That, taken together with my amendment to make the level of consent clear, takes some of the potential abuse out of the bill. A clear privacy statement would have helped. The government have promised they will do that later. There are trust issues around that promise.

Questions remain around the New South Wales government’s comment that this bill will allow them to verify that every person detected driving a car past a surveillance camera has a drivers licence.

The only way this can be achieved is if every driver is scanned every time they pass a detection camera and their image is compared to the national database. Does this mean those cameras going up around Australia are just the right height to scan the driver’s face and that the cameras will be used to scan and verify your identity each time you pass one? Yes, it does. Before they work out who you are and whether you have a licence, they have to scan and verify your biometrics. It’s the only explanation for the New South Wales government’s comment.

For those listening to this with incredulity, I remind you that this is exactly the system now in place in London, with Lord Mayor Khan’s ULEZ, Ultra Low Emission Zone, and in Birmingham, Manchester and other cities in Britain. It’s really the World Economic Forum’s 15-minute cities happening right now. Residents are locked into their zone and can only leave a certain number of times a year. This is happening in Britain. That depends on the make and model of the car you drive. If you drive a car they don’t like, you can’t move. Rich people who can afford electric cars can, of course, come and go as they please. Everyday citizens are locked in or, when they leave, the cameras detect them leaving and fine them on the spot. It’s a fine of 180 pounds a week for leaving over seven days.

That’s in Britain now. Already it has raised hundreds of millions of pounds because people will pay for freedom.

Look it up. Don’t just trust me: look it up. There are fines for not registering with the system and fines for breaching the 15-minute limits. It’s a virtual fence. It’s like an electric dog collar. It’s the foundation for a social credit system to completely control people’s lives. So don’t tell me this is a conspiracy theory. It’s real and it’s happening now in our mother country.

Cash is necessary to ensure these measures are ameliorated as much as possible, which is why the globalist wing of the Liberal Party tried to ban cash in the last parliament, which One Nation defeated. It should be obvious that predatory, parasitic billionaires and some of their lackeys in the Labor and Liberal Party are getting their ducks in a row because they want to be ready for the full implementation of their globalist masters’ control agenda, exactly as they promised. It’s not like they’re hiding any of this. When they tell us what they’re going to do, listen.

Remember this government’s triad of tyranny. Already entered into parliament is the Identity Verification Services Bill 2023 to normalise and allow the use of biometric data to locate and track citizens. Here it is. There’s the Digital ID Bill 2023 to force every Australian into having a digital ID. There’s the misinformation and disinformation bill 2023, which will ensure media and social media only carry government sanctioned opinions, and the government is exempted. I implore the Senate to vote against this bill and to reject this bill. This is the first of three bills necessary to turn Australia into the world’s first World Economic Forum digital prison.

/0 Comments/by

WHO Dialed Back Its Pandemic Powers – But Not Enough!

The World Health Organisation was late in producing the Pandemic Agreement (formerly known as the WHO Treaty and Pandemic Accord). The WHO was supposed to produce this final draft at least four months in advance yet only published it in mid April leaving little time for government’s to examine the draft. 

The Agreement is supposed to be voted on next month at the World Health Assembly and will be open for signature from July 2024. While it’s true that major changes have been made in line with some of the feedback and recommendations from the International Health Regulations, there are still areas of concern in this latest power grab from the United Nations WHO. 

The IHR recommendations and public outcry have resulted in a draft that’s not quite as severe as previous ones, but it does not go far enough to respect national sovereignty. No government or organisation should enter into agreement with this organisation. 

The WHO should not be making rules for the world. This is a corrupt organisation and exhibited shocking behaviour in the DRC Congo between 2018 and 2020 where WHO staff raped more than 100 members of the public, the largest known scandal among decades of abuses by UN staff. The WHO convened and funded an investigation into itself and none of the staff were criminally charged.

The WHO has removed the binding language, but it still says that pandemic prevention and collaborative public health surveillance is necessary. It gives itself the right to decide what is a pandemic. It can identify public health ‘risks’ including climate, environment and social risks. The WHO is driving this home with the One Health approach for pandemic preparedness. It wants to implement regular ‘reviewing’ of practices in member states and will send in educators to ensure countries are compliant. 

Article 18 is about communication and public awareness and hints at censorship. It has wound back its ‘infodemic’ language which demanded heavy censorship. Yet there are still the elements here to ensure the control of information and behaviours that could hinder acceptance of vaccines. 

The WHO still wants each member state to ensure that the laws in that country will allow the WHO and its One Health approach into the driving seat. This is a five year agreement and taxpayers will be paying for this according to what the WHO decides.

In Section 14, regulatory strengthening would create the framework in each country for the WHO to manage the products available during a pandemic. 

It’s abundantly clear that it is the pharmaceutical interests which are being put first. No need to wonder why when you look at who is funding the WHO.

Proposed WHO Pandemic Agreement

Proposed-WHO-Pandemic-Agreement-1Download
/0 Comments/by

Taking the Higher Ground – Chalumbin Win for Environment 

,

In a win for the environment, the proposed Chalumbin industrial wind project on the Atherton Tablelands in Far North Queensland has been rejected. Communities throughout Queensland are facing similar, environment-destroying proposals.  

This is a great win for the Community who have fought for years against this environmental vandalism. I’ve visited the area twice in the last 6 months, spoken to residents, and then represented their concerns in the Senate on a number of occasions. 

The rejection is a rare win for the environment over virtue-signalling green power schemes that simply do not stack up on an environmental or economic basis.  

Wind and solar are unreliable sources of power, poor investments when you remove the subsidies provided by taxpayer’s money, and terrible for the environment despite the sales pitch of ‘green’ energy, which is disinformation. We’re also seeing these so-called ‘renewables’ projects halting for financial reasons, with investors pulling out of large-scale wind and solar projects both in Australia and overseas, owing to their unprofitability.  

Local environmentalists made a fierce, years long campaign against plans to turn Chalumbin into a wind installation.  

Wind Farm (15/05/22). Top of ridge line that used to be in pristine condition now smashed.

Installing wind turbines is massive environmental vandalism. From grinding the tops off mountains for 250 metre high wind turbines to gouging 70-metre-wide roadways to access them and for the thousands of kilometres of transmission lines that run through national parks and private land. The net-zero plan for wind and solar cannot supply our energy needs and will destroy the natural environment Queenslanders love the most.

Wind turbines create disturbances to the air that prevent soaring birds from flying in the “tail” of these turbines. Kaban wind turbines near Ravenshoe are so large the disturbance interferes with soaring birds like Black Swans, Sarus Cranes and Brolgas for as much as 5 km.

Brolga (a member of the crane family) in flight. This species is found across tropical northern Australia, QLD, and parts of western Victoria, central NSW and south-eastern South Australia

This Labor government, with the blessings of both the Greens and the Liberal party, is accelerating its push to turn pristine Australian bushland into an industrial landscape for the Net Zero agenda. The foreign-owned Chalumbin industrial wind development would have put up monstrous 250-metre-high towers with the third longest blades ever seen in the world. The turbine blades are big bird killers and the noise from these machines is known stop wildlife breeding.

The Hypocrisy of Industrial Wind and Solar

The primary threat to wildlife globally is habitat loss. Koala and other endangered wildlife habitat has been taken. While the Greens talk frequently about saving the koalas, they pick and choose which koalas they care about. This vandalism must stop.

Top of ridge line that used to be in pristine condition now smashed. Chalumbin would have had 146km of new roads like this and Upper Burdekin will have another 150km of new roads

At the end of a mining operation, the mine can be filled in and remediated. In fact, legal contracts require it. This isn’t the case with the destruction created by wind and solar. They are not required to make good afterwards or remove toxic waste. There’s no replacing remnant forests or a mountain top after it’s been blasted off and bulldozed to make way for wind turbines.

The Chalumbin proposal was given a corner-cutting approvals process reserved for ‘renewables’ by the Queensland government. It set its sights on destroying 1000 of the remaining 8000 hectares of the buffer zone between rainforests and open plains to the south. The wet sclerophyll forest is home to the spectacled flying fox and northern great glider.

Chalumbin is not the only wind site needing our protection

As Nick Cater commented in his article in The Australian, 22 April 2024:

“Bulldozers were ripping swathes through hundreds of hectares of remnant native forest at nearby Kaban, blasting 330,000 tonnes of rock and dirt from the sides of hills to build access roads and turbine pads bigger than football fields.

All of this was occurring without a squeak from environmental groups, every one of which appeared to have swallowed the renewable energy Kool-Aid and, in some cases, its cash.”

Nearby Kaban excavations have disturbed arsenic found naturally in local rock formations. We simply don’t know what effect this will have on native wildlife in the years ahead.

The Woodleigh Swamp is an important wetland. Thousands of swans and brolgas normally rest here each year. Locals say that since Kaban opened, only a few kilometres away, the swamp has been almost deserted. Kaban and Chalumbin environmental impact statements make no mention of the catastrophic effects these installations have on uplift capacity for migratory and soaring birds, nor abandonment of natural upland habitat, despite a wealth of papers proving the link.

Sarus Cranes are only found in the far north-east of QLD in Australia

Common sense has prevailed for Chalumbin. Finally, it’s being recognised that you can’t save the environment by destroying thousands of hectares of forests as wind and solar projects will. But what about all the others that are in the pipeline?

It seems impossible that the equally sensitive Upper Burdekin project just 4.8km from the boundary of the Wet Tropics World Heritage area.

There are at least 30,000 hectares of remnant forest still earmarked for clearing across 52 wind farms on the Great Dividing Range in Queensland under current proposals.

This is the disgraceful reality behind the climate change agenda. A reality most Australians never get to see.

How do the Greens feel about vulnerable Greater Glider habitat being cleared in Far North Queensland? Will they say it’s for the Greater Good?

Critically endangered native plants making way for concrete, fibreglass, and steel that will be consigned to the scrap heap in 12-15 years is acceptable by-kill for the Green Agenda? Really?

Destructive projects like the Pioneer-Burdekin Pumped Hydro in prime platypus habitat at Eungella must be ruled out.

This should not be a case of rewarding the squeaky door. Projects like Smokey Creek Solar that were quietly approved against local protests because they didn’t have a talented nature photographer like Steven Nowakowski to tell their story must be revisited and put through the full environmental assessment.

I congratulate the local environmentalists for their campaign to preserve this unique environment. We support Friends of Chalumbin and Steven Nowakowski. I’ve had the pleasure of interviewing Steven and thank him for his work capturing these fragile and beautiful ecosystems. The environmental movement is waking up thanks to environmentalists like Steven who’re getting out and filming and recording the truth of the destruction of nature.

The government must stop killing the environment to “save it”.

Media Release: Environment Wins Over Destructive Chalumbin Wind Project

The proposed Chalumbin wind project on the Atherton Tablelands in Far North Queensland has been rejected on environmental grounds. This rejection calls the entire net-zero transition and other projects into question. Common sense has prevailed – you can’t save the environment by destroying thousands of hectares of forests as wind and solar projects will.

After local environmentalists made a fierce, years long campaign, which I wholeheartedly supported, Minister Plibersek looks like she is managing appearances rather than the environment.

30,000 hectares of remnant forest will still be cleared across 52 wind farms on the Great Dividing Range in Queensland under current proposals. Destructive projects like the Pioneer-Burdekin Pumped Hydro in prime platypus habitat at Eungella must be ruled out. Projects like Smokey Creek Solar that were quietly approved against local protests because they didn’t have a talented nature photographer like Steven Nowakowski to tell their story, must be revisited and put through the full environmental assessment.

Congratulations to local environmentalists for their campaign to preserve this unique environment. The net-zero plan for wind and solar cannot supply our energy needs and will destroy the nature Queenslanders love the most.

The government must stop killing the environment while claiming they’re saving it.

Media-ReleaseDownload
/15 Comments/by

Event: A Night of Solutions | Townsville

,

If you think you’re going backwards, it’s because you are! Join me as we discuss:

  • Student and Youth Poverty
  • Cost of Living
  • Housing
  • Education
  • Congestion
  • Hospitals

Friday, 26 April 2024 | 6 pm

For meals, book directly with The West End Hotel on (07) 4771 2872

RSVP here: senroberts.com/3xuhcaf

The West End Hotel
89/91 Ingham Road
TOWNSVILLE QLD 4810

/3 Comments/by

Australians Need Houses First!

,

In the middle of a housing crisis, why are we handing out hundreds of thousands of visas?

During Question Time, I asked Minister Watt about the number of homes that are required to house the 549,000 people who arrived on permanent visas in 2023, as well as the number of schools and hospitals that will be needed over the next five years to accommodate these new arrivals.

Minister Watt sidestepped my questions and instead underscored the government’s efforts to tackle migration-related challenges, notably reforms to the international student visa system. He once more criticized opposition parties for obstructing housing-related legislation and emphasised the government’s investments in health and education.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs and the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator Watt. Minister, what is the number of homes required to house the 549,000 people who arrived on permanent visas in 2023? How many houses? 

Senator WATT: Thank you, Senator Roberts, for your question. I know you asked a very similar question last week, and, as I pointed out to you last week, it is understood and expected that migration levels in Australia have peaked, that they peaked in 2022-23, and they are forecast to drop in half by next year. That is as a direct result of the changes made by the Albanese government to particularly to tackle the rorts that were occurring in the international student visa system that we inherited from the former government. The changes we made late last year are already having a significant and immediate impact, with student visa grants down by more than 35 per cent on last year’s level. 

We are obviously strong supporters of the international education system. It’s a very important export industry for Australia. It provides a wide range of benefits to Australia and the countries from which students come. But the reality is that the system unfortunately was being rorted by a number of companies and that needed to be tackled. It wasn’t tackled by the former government, but we are tackling it and that is having an effect. 

Senator ROBERTS, one of the things I also pointed out to you last week was that it’s a little bit ironic getting a question from a One Nation senator, a coalition senator or, at times, a Greens party senator about what this government is doing about housing numbers, because what we have seen over and over again is a coalition between the Liberals, the Nationals, One Nation and the Greens party teaming up to block action on housing by the Albanese Labor government. We saw it with the Housing Australia Future Fund. Senator ROBERTS, if you were actually sincere in your concern, you would have voted for the Housing Australia Future Fund to build more homes. If you were sincere in your concerns, you would be voting for the help-to-buy legislation that we’re currently trying to get through this parliament but which is being blocked again by the Greens party, One Nation, the Liberals and the Nationals. (Time expired) 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what is the number of schools and hospitals required over the next five years to meet the needs of these 549,000 new permanent arrivals last year? How many schools and hospitals—a number, please? 

Senator WATT: It obviously stands to reason that Australia does need more hospitals and more schools in order to deal with a growing population, whether that be a population growing through natural increase or a population growing through migration. Again, Senator Roberts, we are trying to tackle 10 years of under-investment by a coalition government in our health system and in our education system. That’s why Minister Jason Clare has only just recently reached agreements with a number of states and territories to increase education funding to them and why, through National Cabinet in the last few months, the Prime Minister has reached agreements with the premiers about increased funding for health care across Australia. 

Opposition senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Order! 

Senator Henderson interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Henderson! 

Senator WATT: We know that 10 years of coalition government, propped up by One Nation, saw underinvestment in health care, underinvestment in hospitals, underinvestment in our schools— 

Senator Henderson interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Henderson, I called for order and I called you personally. I would ask you to come to order and stop being disrespectful. 

Senator WATT: Senator Roberts, one of these days you and your colleague, Senator Hanson, might like to back in a government that’s actually delivering on health and education. (Time expired) 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, planning for immigration requires planning for the houses, schools, hospitals, transport, food and drinking water that new arrivals need. We won’t let you dump 2.3 million long-stay arrivals on the states and then wash your hands of them. This is the second time this sitting I’ve asked for the numbers and the second time you have failed to provide them. If you have them, please provide them. If you don’t have them then clearly this government is not up to the job of running Australia. 

Senator WATT: Senator Roberts, for starters, I would take issue with your description of migrants as people who are dumped on the community. I think that is an offensive way to describe the contribution of millions of Australians who come from a migrant background. 

Senator ROBERTS interjecting— 

Senator WATT: It’s not funny, Senator Roberts. It’s not funny to talk about dumping people or people being dumped. 

The PRESIDENT: I’ll come to you, Senator Roberts. Minister, when answering the question, please direct your answers to the Chair. Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: On a point of order: I’m not laughing at immigrants. I am laughing at the minister.  

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, that’s not a point of order. Minister Watt.  

Senator WATT: I think that is especially the case now that Australia—I think the figures are approximately one in two Australians is either born overseas or their parents are born overseas. We know migrants make a great contribution to our country. The reality is, though, that as a result of the increase in migration after the pandemic and as a result of the rorts in the international student system that were left behind by the coalition, action did need to be taken and that is what we’re doing. But what we’re also doing is investing in the houses that Senator Roberts and his colleagues in the Liberal-National Party and, most of all, the Greens party want to keep blocking. If you want more housing, there is a really simple thing you can do: vote with Labor for more housing, instead of always opposing it. 

/5 Comments/by

Queensland Labor Buckles Under Pressure

I’m grateful for the news that the State Labor government has buckled under pressure and agreed to withdraw its flawed legislative changes to homeschooling. 

The overhaul of Queensland’s Education Act was put forward in state parliament last month. Two of the policies within the Bill triggered a staggering 900 public submissions via state parliament. Along with the many horrified parents, the Home Education Association stepped in and criticised many of the key reforms calling for a Home Education Advisory Board in its submission.  

Australia is famous for its ‘homeschooling’ successes. By virtue of the vast distances, many rural and regional families have used distance learning for decades with a choice of curricula.   

Homeschooling is an important right for Australians – in many cases it’s the only way to solve problems with bullying, to help low achieving students and give high achieving students the stimulus they need. Homeschooling families are a rising demographic, and act as an important barometer to assess how schools are serving students and parents.  

Yet again, Queensland’s Labor government failed to consult with or listen to Queenslanders. The proposed Education Bill’s changes to homeschooling were a knee-jerk reaction aimed at cracking down on parents who choose to educate at home. Many of these parents reached out to me in alarm.  

The vast majority of homeschooling parents are deeply invested in their children’s education and wellbeing. It’s their motivating factor. These families strive for a diverse education that reflects the individuality of children. They’ve chosen not to adopt the cookie cutter curriculum available in state education and are aware the proposed changes would undermine the very reasons why they’ve chosen homeschooling as the preferred mode of education for our children.    

The Bill proposed to amend the Education (General Provisions Act) 2006 and other legislation to:  

Modernise and improve education services by:  

  • enhancing the regulation of home education and streamlining the home education registration process  
  • removing the use of gendered language  
  • acknowledging wellbeing, inclusion and diversity  

Below, I want to share some of the feedback I have received from homeschooling parents along with some research my staff has undertaken on this topic. Like you, I’m aware this threat to homeschooling has not gone away. Australians must retain the freedom to educate our children without the indoctrinating influences being pushed on Australians through the efforts of the UN-WEF-WHO conglomerate. That much is clear in the voices of parents who wrote to me.  

What did QLD homeschooling families say about the proposed legislation?  

“This proposed change to legislation is not in children’s best interests because it removes a parent’s fundamental right to home educate their child. It proposes that parents need to “prove” home education is in their child’s best interests. Who gets to decide this? The same education system that many of these parents see as having has failed their children? The same education system that is seen as ‘grooming’ children to become transgender and introducing them to inappropriate sexualised content and behaviour in response to guidance from the United Nations World Health Organisation – a foreign organisation with no jurisdiction in our country?”  

“The essence of homeschooling lies in the freedom it affords children to learn in a manner that aligns with their individual interests, abilities, and learning styles. By imposing a mandated curriculum, these proposed changes would impede my children’s autonomy and hinder their ability to pursue education in a way that best suits their needs. If governments want parents to act more like teachers and follow the Australian curriculum, should they not also receive proper funding and a wage? It’s been reported that home educators save the government, and therefore taxpayers, upwards of $22,000 per homeschooled child.”  

“One of the primary motivations for homeschooling is to provide our children with a personalized learning experience that fosters their intellectual curiosity and allows them to learn at their own pace. These new regulations threaten to restrict this flexibility and stifle their natural inclination to explore and discover the world around them.”  

“Enforcing a standardized curriculum fails to recognize the diverse interests and talents of homeschooling students. It overlooks the fact that every child is unique and may thrive in different subject areas or learning environments. By imposing rigid educational requirements, we risk depriving our children of the opportunity to pursue their passions and develop their full potential.”  

“In essence, these proposed changes would not only undermine the fundamental principles of homeschooling but also limit my children’s ability to learn and grow in a way that honours their individuality and creativity.”  

“Ms Di Farmer, the Minister of Education seems out of touch with Homeschooling Education and has not even consulted with the homeschooling parents concerning these amendments. She received over 1300 negative comments within a few days on her Facebook page from upset and angry homeschooling parents that do not want these changes implemented.”  

“These staggering amendments to this legislation are an attack on every homeschooling family and taking away the freedom to choose how to educate our own children in the best possible way. The current Australian Curriculum, with its rigid structure and overloaded content, often fails to resonate with many children and can lead to disengagement from the learning process. It is evident that a one-size-fits-all approach does not effectively cater to the unique learning styles, interests, and abilities of every student.”  

“The Australian curriculum is not in the best interest of every child and parents should have the right to choose the best way to educate our children. These legislative changes would have a detrimental effect on homeschooling parents and children. This is effectively taking away parental rights and the freedom of choosing the best way to educate children.”   

“Rather than imposing stricter regulations, Queensland should celebrate the individuals who are prepared to give their time and energy to their children. The results often speak for themselves, and Australia benefits from this commitment and must honour this freedom of choice.”     

“A collaborative dialogue is always a better approach. The committee could view the commitment level of homeschooling parents which constantly ensures that these children have access to a high-quality education that meets their unique needs.”   

“It appears that the committee would be better off prioritising understanding and addressing the root causes of homeschooling trends. This entails listening to and considering the feedback from homeschooling parents, who are directly impacted by these legislative changes. Their insights and experiences are invaluable in shaping effective policies that support the diverse needs of families while ensuring the well-being and educational success of children.”  

“We need to work towards a more inclusive and responsive educational system that respects the choices and concerns of all families.”  

Homeschooling across Australia  

Data from Queensland’s Department of Education shows a 20% increase during 2023, with 10,048 registered home schoolers up from 8,461. Over the last five years, there has been a 152% growth in primary students and 262% growth in high school students who are home schooled in the state.  

In New South Wales, 12,359 students were registered for homeschooling in January 2023, a 37% jump on the 2022 figures. In Victoria, the most recent figures show there were 11,912 homeschooled students as of December 2022, an increase of 36% since 2021.  

Across the country, there are more than 43,000 legally registered homeschooled students.   

Lion’s Education (a homeschooling site) says, the COVID-19 pandemic has shone a light on the way we educate children. The disruption to our lives forced people to throw convention out of the window and rapidly adapt to how we work, study and interact, shifting the dial on the ‘norm’. Homeschooling during this time is just one way that opened the door to new alternatives to help children learn and grow up to become productive members of society.   

As a result of the pandemic, many Australian parent’s hands were forced to adopt a hybrid education style as children could not attend regular school, causing various disruptions to their learning.  

Why are numbers growing?  

A 2023 Queensland government report shared data from a survey of more 500 parents in the state who homeschooled their children. It found 45% of families surveyed never intended to homeschool. It also found 61% had a child with a disability or health issue, including ADHD, autism, behavioural issues and mental ill health. Many also had concerns about bullying.   

Families also reported their child was not learning at school, and not wanting to go, so homeschooling became the only choice available. This reflects academic research, which finds most families who choose to homeschool have negative school experiences, withdraw because of bullying or are neurodiverse.  

While homeschooling was growing before the pandemic, the school-at-home arrangements during COVID led to a large growth in numbers. For some families, the experience showed them that learning at home was possible and enjoyable and they decided not to go back.  

Homeschooling is a valid choice  

International research suggests homeschooling outcomes are as good as at mainstream schools in terms of academic success. Homeschooling can work because it suits some children better and parents are motivated to help their children learn.  

  • The home-educated typically score 15 to 25 percentile points above public-school students on standardized academic achievement tests (Ray, 2010, 2015, 2017, 2024). (The public school average is roughly the 50th percentile; scores range from 1 to 99.)   
  • 78% of peer-reviewed studies on academic achievement show homeschool students perform statistically significantly better than those in institutional schools (Ray, 2017).  
  • Homeschool students score above average on achievement tests regardless of their parents’ level of formal education or their family’s household income.  
  • Whether homeschool parents were ever certified teachers is not notably related to their children’s academic achievement.  
  • Degree of state control and regulation of homeschooling is not related to academic achievement.  
  • Home-educated students typically score above average on tests that colleges consider for admissions.  
  • Homeschool students are increasingly being actively recruited by colleges.  
  • Research on homeschooling shows that the home-educated are doing well, typically above average, on measures of social, emotional, and psychological development. Research measures include peer interaction, self-concept, leadership skills, family cohesion, participation in community service, and self-esteem.  
  • 87% of peer-reviewed studies on social, emotional, and psychological development show homeschool students perform statistically significantly better than those in conventional schools (Ray, 2017).  
  • Homeschool students are regularly engaged in social and educational activities outside their homes and with people other than their nuclear-family members. They are commonly involved in activities such as field trips, scouting, 4-H, political drives, church ministry, sports teams, and community volunteer work.  
  • The balance of research to date suggests that homeschool students may suffer less harm (e.g., abuse, neglect, fatalities) than conventional school students.  
  • Adults who were home educated are more politically tolerant than the public schooled in the limited research done so far.  
  • 69% of peer-reviewed studies on success into adulthood (including college) show adults who were home educated succeed and perform statistically significantly better than those who attended institutional schools (Ray, 2017).  
  • Adults who were homeschooled participate in local community service more frequently than the general population (e.g., Seiver & Pope, 2022).  

Source: Research Facts on Homeschooling – National Home Education Research Institute (nheri.org)  

Summary  

If the state government wants more of a say in homeschooling it should consider doing more work with families. Listen to them, consult with them, and include parents in policy making about home education. Parents will see compliance with the legislation they helped create as a way to support their child’s education, not as a “punishment” for not sending them to a mainstream school.  

In Victoria and Tasmania, homeschooling families have been included on boards providing advice to government about regulation. This is what Queensland needs and hopefully what will happen now that the Bill has been squashed.  

No amount of documentation will help parents do a better job of homeschooling their children. The vast majority of homeschooling parents are capable and attentive to their children’s needs. The fact that these families are dissatisfied with the curriculum and the quality of education in the school system for their children’s needs says it all. It’s in the best interests of the state and federal governments to look to their own backyard and work out what they’re doing to ensure the best interests of the children put into their care are being met.  

Governments should also look more closely at why families leave schools. We know families are not homeschooling as an “easy option.” Often they are doing it because it’s a last resort and the school has let them down. Children who are being bullied or refusing school are better off at home.   

If you, as parents are prepared to make the effort to educate their children, the least the state can do is support you.  

  

/3 Comments/by

Increased Land Values in Queensland – Labor’s Tax Grab

,

I spoke with Daisy Cousens last Friday on increased land values in #Queensland and how the government benefits. As well as Digital ID and the upcoming rallies around Australian capital cities.

Watch ‘The Daisy Cousens Show’ live and on demand Fridays 7pm AEST at ADH TV: https://adh.tv/videos/the-daisy-cousens-show

Transcript

Daisy Cousens: Well, it’s abundantly clear by now that despite trying to con Australians with a $15 a week tax break, Federal Labor is ideologically perfectly happy to rob citizens blind by taxing them out the wazoo. The beginning example of that was the reinstating of the 37.5% tax bracket, which ensures bracket creep will continue in perpetuity. However, in an even sneakier ploy, Labor is now taxing by stealth by increasing land values. Joining me this evening is One Nation Senator, the wonderful Malcolm Roberts. Senator, fabulous to have you here this evening. How are you?

Senator ROBERTS: I’m very well, thanks Daisy and thank you for the invitation. It’s a pleasure to be with you.

Daisy Cousens: Well, it’s wonderful, wonderful to have you here. I’m very, very keen to get your take on this Senator. There has been a lot of upset up north about an increase in land value. And look, at first thought this might sound like a great thing for farmers, that their land is now worth more. But when you take tax into account, the tax hungry Labor government, this all you know, starts to make sense from their point of view, doesn’t it?

Senator ROBERTS: Well, I’d love to talk about the tax hungry Labor government, but we also must talk about the tax hungry Liberal opposition and former Liberal government. But we’ll come to that hopefully.

Daisy Cousens: Hmm.

Senator ROBERTS: Inflation, as you quite rightly pointed out, is a stealth tax.  It’s stealthy thing that people don’t see but it reduces disposable income and what we see is land values going up for, and I think an 11% increase in the number of properties that that will be subject to land tax because it’s a threshold of 600,000 and above, but also remember the land valuations are bases for rates and  councils right across the state are under pressure, some through mismanagement, some through mismanagement from the state government. But the systems are so complex and so confusing, and the accounting systems, that local councils will be increasing rates as well.  So, this will slug everyone – it’ll mean less disposable income.  So, people’s stand of living will be going backwards.

Daisy Cousens: Gosh, which is appalling in this cost-of-living crisis. I hate this sort of ideological bit that political parties have that it’s okay just to tax people into oblivion, because as you rightly mentioned, the Liberal Party. I’m always on about how, you know, Labor is so happy to tax citizens, but the same can actually be said quietly about the Liberal Party can’t it?

Senator ROBERTS: It can be. I moved a motion, an amendment, sorry, recently into one of the pieces of legislation that Labor had introduced to the Senate and that was simply to remove bracket creep. It was done properly. The Liberals even stood up and said they commend me for it, they like the way the bill was written, but they’re not going to support it because they love bracket creep and so does the Labor Party. They love bracket creep.  They love seeing people go unconsciously into higher tax bracket, not even doing being aware that that’s the case and that’s an immediate increase in tax and so people don’t realise that they’re being, that they’re having more money stolen from them.

And then Dave Sharma, the new Liberal Senator, when he gave his maiden speech, his first speech in the Senate recently, he said he’s all in favour of removing bracket creep, but just two weeks before he he voted against removing bracket creep.  So, there was nothing wrong with my bill, they said it was well done but they couldn’t do it. So, both the Liberal and Labor Party.  And we’ve also got to remember that net-zero, putting in place net-zero foreign policy, increases energy prices which flow right through the economy. The energy sector is the most important sector in the economy in terms of the foundation for prices of goods and services because they flow right through and when you increase energy prices, you decrease productivity, you decrease wealth and that applies not only to individuals – it applies to businesses, it applies to communities. And the Liberal Party is the one who first said in government that they would support UN 2050 net-zero policy. So, the Liberal government is putting heavy impost on every person who uses electricity and every person who lives in this country.

Daisy Cousens: Hmm gosh! It’s so hypocritical of both the major parties because they both go on this bent, don’t they, pretending they’re for the little guy, or we’re for the workers, we’re for ordinary people, but how can they possibly say that with a straight face when they’re so happily happy to tax people?

Senator ROBERTS: Well, they’re used to the lies that they’re putting out. The climate scam is a lie. The climate fraud is a lie. The whole basis for these energy policies is a lie. And then we see – every major problem, Daisy, in this country comes out of Parliament House, Canberra, every major problem. Some of the problems come out of states, but they’re exacerbated by the federal government. So, we see inflation, was driven by the federal government and the Reserve Bank of Australia by printing far too much money during the COVID mismanagement.  The whole of that COVID mismanagement shut down supply routes, the supply side, so we had fewer goods, which meant that raised prices, and we had more money chasing those fewer goods, which further raise prices. So inflation, which is a hidden stealth tax as you rightly pointed out, is the cause of people going backward in disposable income. So inflation is the number one enemy and it was created by the Morrison government with the Labor Premiers in hand and by the Reserve Bank of Australia.

Daisy Cousens: Ohe absolutely.

Senator ROBERTS: So what we need to so is actually open these people up to the truth.

Daisy Cousens: Hmm. Oh no, I agree with you and what people just I think conveniently shove under the rug or forget, certainly the Liberal Party does, was that it was the Liberal Party’s fault when they were in government a few years ago that we are in this inflationary position because they kept capitulating to the states’ demands for money for their ridiculous COVID policies. So, thank you for bringing that up and let’s never forget it. Now, Senator Roberts, according to this chart, the greater the rate of primary production, the higher the valuation increase. Is this justly proportional?

Senator ROBERTS: Daisy, let’s keep flogging everyone who’s successful. Let’s see how many successful people we have left in this country. That’s exactly what they’re doing. So, someone that works their land better, their business better, someone invests in their land, their business, and they have a higher productivity and what do we do? We slug them for it. That’s no way to reward talent. That’s no way to reward creativity and hard work and enterprise. That’s the opposite. It’ll cripple this country and it is crippling this country. That’s what we need to remember. This will do enormous damage to our primary producers and we call them primary producers for a bloody good reason. They’re the primary producers of the whole economy. Everything is based upon agriculture and mining, the two primary production sectors. Manufacturing is based on that. Goods and services in the services sector or the tertiary sector are all based upon it. So, we’re killing the primary sector and what it’s doing is it’s hollowing out the bush – they want us all to move from the bush and into the slums and cities – high density high rise living. Thomas Jefferson said it so well and Tim Ball, the expert climatologist from Canada, echoed those words. You can have farms without cities, Daisy, but you cannot have cities without farms. We are crippling this country.

Daisy Cousens: And that is such a good point. You know they are so important, our farmers, and they’re being treated so shoddily by the government and certainly, think of the cost-of-living crisis, as taxes increase for our farmers, won’t that in turn flow onto our grocery bills? Will they become even more expensive?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it will. And we’re seeing the prices increase already, quite dramatically, because of the recent increases in energy costs, which have been artificially driven by basically lies and also by inflation. And also, we must remember that we’re seeing the consequences of previous Liberal-National governments that stole farmers rights to use their land and to comply, that was the Liberal Party government’s way of complying with the United Nations Kyoto Protocol. They said they wouldn’t sign it, but that they will comply with it. The moment they did that they started putting in restrictions on land use. They got the state government involved, particularly in NSW and Queensland to put those land use restrictions in and now we see the Queensland government, two years ago, three years ago, bringing in legislation to cripple the farms right up and down the East Coast of Queensland which, as you know from our states layout, are fundamental agricultural areas.  They’re the richest agricultural areas – all in the name of the environment. And I asked questions in a Senate inquiry of the QLD experts -they don’t have any evidence for it. We must remember that the farmer, the owner of the land, is the most important custodian, the best custodian, because a farmer, if he ignores the environment around his land, his land deteriorates. The farmer is the best person for understanding the management of the environment.  The farmer is the one who’s going to miss out the most if he abuses that or she abuses that because they’re superannuation goes, they have got nothing to hand back to their kids. Whatever they want to do is gone. So the farmer is the best person to manage the land and the environment around his or her property. And what we’re doing is we’re putting it in charge of bureaucrats in Canberra, bureaucrats in Brisbane and bureaucrats in academia that are crippling our agricultural sector.

Daisy Cousens: Oh, absolutely. I mean, they’re just handing it over to people who have no idea what they’re doing. It’s outrageous! Now look, Senator, before we go, I have to talk to you about this Digital ID bill. You have been a real campaigner against the Digital ID bill. What is there left for Australians to do to stop this nightmare becoming imprinted as a reality?

Senator ROBERTS: Well, Daisy, I’m normally a very calm person and I don’t get upset too easily, but on Wednesday night, before Easter, after this bill went through without any debate, not one word of debate.  Amendments were moved and passed without one word of debate. And so that’s the first thing to recognise, the guillotine. So, I was shattered. But on Thursday I came into my office the next morning and found everyone in my office happy and I thought, what’s going on? And they said, Malcolm, the House of Reps was kept back late, the bill was introduced in the Senate and once it was passed in the Senate, it was supposed to go to the House of Reps, for passage through the House of Reps.  Well, it didn’t go to the House of Reps. And we believe that that’s the case because the public kicked up such a fuss, social media gutted Labor, social media gutted David Pocock the Teal, David Pocock the Teal senator and what we think is going on is that Labor is very, very worried about the consequences of passing this bill. And so, what we’re saying is 2 things. Every citizen get out there and hammer your local representative in parliament, in the House of Representatives. Not just the Labor Party but also the Liberal Party. Now the Liberals introduced this bloody bill into the parliament three years ago and I opposed it from the start. But the Liberals have voted with us against the bill two weeks ago in the Senate. So, we know the Liberals are sensitive in the lower house. We know that the Labor Party is sensitive in the lower house and the Teals and the Greens, so get out there and tell your lower house representative, your house representative member to vote against it.

Daisy Cousens: Absolutely.

Senator ROBERTS: The second thing is we saw the public rise up and I must congratulate everyone for doing that. We heard it in Canberra. Now what we need to do is – One Nation put out a petition opposing the digital identity bill. It got 60,000 signatures in the space of two days. Phenomenal.

Daisy Cousens: Fantastic.

Senator ROBERTS: And what we’re doing now based on that strength, we’re running a national protest day on May the 5th, Sunday May the 5th and we’ll be having protests in each of the major capital cities in Australia. So, it’ll be a very important that the public gets out and shows its voice.

Daisy Cousens: Absolutely. Thank you so much for letting us all know about those protests. And Senator, thank you so much for coming on the show this evening. You do wonderful work and I do hope we can see you again soon.

Senator ROBERTS: I look forward to it. Thank you very much and have a good weekend, Daisy.

/5 Comments/by

How to Contact Your Federal Members of Parliament

Has anyone ever showed you how to find the contact details for your local Member of Parliament so you can tell them how you feel?

Watch this to find out how anyone, anywhere in Australia can discover who their local MPs area and their contact details.

Members of parliament are there to service you — make your opinion heard.

Transcript

Fish says, what is the best way to apply pressure to our local representatives? Call them.

First of all, go to their office and say you want a meeting with your representative. You want a meeting with your representative.

Here we go. Identify where he or she is. Google it. Members. Put in your postcode. Find the MP, click on the MP, go down and get the number. There you have the number. You’ll also have the address of their electorate office. And you’ll have their email. Emails are almost useless.

This is the hierarchy I use. I recommend and I’ve done it myself. Visit their office, knock on their door and say you want a meeting. It shows real commitment from you and real strength from you that you’re turning up in person. Demand a meeting. Be polite, but be firm. They’ll give you excuses as to why the member can’t meet with you. Don’t put up with it. Do it again a second time. Leave your name, give your contact details, you want a meeting.

The second best way is to call them and demand a conversation. Just request it all very respectfully. And then the third one is write a letter, a paper-based letter signed. It doesn’t have to be typed, just has to be neatly written or typed, signed with a handwritten signature. put in the post and sent and if you really have something that you want evidence they’ve received it, put it registered post. It’ll cost a few dollars but that’s what I used to do. I’ve written thousands of these letters in paper and some some people have told me how much they appreciated my letters and some people tell me how much they didn’t appreciate my letters, but turning up is the best way.

/3 Comments/by

Murders at Bondi Junction Were Preventable 

Joel Cauchi, who stabbed and killed six people and hospitalised another 12 people was a known mental health patient from Queensland. 

With a long history of schizophrenia, Cauchi was living an itinerant lifestyle with deteriorating mental health and apparently not being adequately medicated or monitored. 

How could this disaster have been prevented? Significant questions remain unanswered.

Who was responsible for managing his mental illness while in the community?  

Had he been considered safe to be in the community and how could that decision have been so wrong? 

Had he been lost to the system and fallen through the cracks in the system? 

Was this because the Queensland mental health system is severely under resourced with insufficient trained staff and not enough mental health beds in a failed public health system? 

Was this tragedy a result of the closing of mental health facilities and a foreseeable consequence of a policy of treating mentally ill patients within the community? 

Was Cauchi being treated in Queensland under a Treatment Authority receiving enforced treatment and had he moved interstate to NSW to avoid treatment? 

Did the Queensland mental health system know he had moved out of the state to NSW? 

When was the last time his mental health had been assessed in Queensland? 

Fixing this broken system may help prevent a repeat of this horror story. 

/11 Comments/by

Disinformation From Labor on Nuclear Energy Costs

,

The Labor Albanese Government is destroying proven, low-cost coal power plants under the guise of “retiring them” and replacing this stable, secure, safe and affordable power with land-grabbing solar and wind installations which are proven now to be unreliable, environmentally-damaging and expensive.

If Labor’s ideology means that it won’t consider new generation coal, which China and other countries are busy putting in place, then why doesn’t it consider the nuclear option? Is it so blinkered that it refuses to see the data from around the world which demonstrates nuclear as a proven reliable, stable, secure, safe, environmentally-responsible and affordable source of power?

Why is Labor being dishonest about this? Are the solar schemes and subsidies so important to their mates that they would sell out the regular working Australian families for their mates at the WEF? What happened to the party of the workers?

Transcript

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister. The government has ruled out adding nuclear electricity to our energy mix based on the government’s calculations showing a higher cost of nuclear energy as against wind and solar. Minister, can you please inform the Senate of the levelised cost of generation of wind, solar and nuclear that informed the government’s position? 

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I will just remind you that questions need to go to ministers, not assistant ministers, so I’m directing the question to Minister Gallagher. 

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council): Thank you for the question. The advice the government has—and I think this is understood by everyone who’s been following the energy discussion—is that nuclear energy is very slow to build. It’s the most expensive form of new electricity generation. It cannot beat renewables, which are the cheapest, fastest and cleanest form of new electricity generation. The analysis that was done showed that there was a significant cost burden. Our position is about cost. We are looking for the cheapest form of energy generation, which is renewables, which includes wind and solar. Australia obviously has a very significant comparative advantage when it comes to that form of energy, with more sunlight hitting our landmass than any other country. We also don’t have a workforce to support that nuclear energy generation. So the time involved means it would be decades before anything became operational and it would do nothing to reduce the energy costs for Australian households and businesses in the meantime. 

So our position—and I think there is a lot of support for that position—is that this transition to renewable energy is the quickest and cheapest path as we shift away from fossil fuel generation. That is the path that the government was clear about before the election. That is the path that we are implementing under Minister Bowen’s and Minister McAllister’s leadership, leading for the government, and we will continue on that path. We will leave the nuclear energy debate for those opposite to convince people of. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is the figure for nuclear based on real-world data from the 440 nuclear power stations around the world or even from the last 10 stations completed in the last few years? If not, on what is it based? 

Senator GALLAGHER: As I understand it—and I will see if there’s anything I can provide—the government analysis that looked at the cost of nuclear energy was looking at how to replace the retiring coal-fired power station fleet. That figure resulted in about a $25,000 cost impost on each Australia taxpayer, based off 15.1 million taxpayers. So, according to many of the experts in the energy field, it’s more expensive, going to take decades to build and, in the meantime, will do nothing to reduce the power costs of households, which are clearly going to benefit from the shift to renewable energy generation and technology. That is the path the government will continue on because we are focused on cost of living and a sensible and orderly transition away from fossil fuels to new forms of energy. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: The government is using a figure for the cost of modular nuclear power that’s not based on any real-world data. Rather, it is mere speculation about a type of generation that doesn’t exist. 

Government senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Order on my right! 

Senator McKim interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator McKim! Senator Roberts has the right to ask his question in silence, and I will ask senators to respect that right. 

Senator ROBERTS: The government’s data is based on speculation about a type of generation that does not exist and completely misrepresents the cost of nuclear power. The government is spreading misinformation again. Minister, why didn’t the government use the real-world data from 57 conventional nuclear power stations currently under construction around the world, and why is the government not being honest about nuclear? (Time expired) 

Senator GALLAGHER: I don’t accept the question that Senator Roberts has put to me. We are providing information to the community, and that information is that renewables remain the lowest-cost new-build generation technology. That is clearly a fact. 

We have also done some analysis, and I think you will find it hard to find any expert that says nuclear isn’t expensive or isn’t going to take too long to build, including how you generate a workforce around this and the time it will take to do that based on the work that we need to happen now. We can’t delay this for decades. The transition was already delayed for a decade under those opposite, with 22 failed energy policies. In 18 months we have been getting on with it. We are in that transition. We will focus on renewables as the lowest-cost form of energy generation that will help households with those cost-of-living pressures. (Time expired) 

/15 Comments/by