Russell Broadbent's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Health Care: Immunisation | Statements by Members | House debates
Our government's no jab, no pay policy, which withholds the family tax benefit part A supplement and childcare subsidies from families who choose not to vaccinate their children in accordance...
Our government's no jab, no pay policy, which withholds the family tax benefit part A supplement and childcare subsidies from families who choose not to vaccinate their children in accordance with the national schedule, is unreasonable, unethical and unconscionable in a country like ours. This policy is the only law in the world that ties a person's access to social support payments to their compliance with a medical procedure. Welfare payments are being used as coercive leverage against parents' personal health choices, targeting parents least able to absorb the loss of payments. It punishes young families, single parents and low-income Australians, who are already doing it tough. Coercion is not a good policy; it's lazy and unethical governance. It erodes trust in public health and undermines informed decision-making—two cornerstones of safe and ethical health care. How is questioning your doctor about vaccines—'How safe is it? What's in it? Has it been tested?'—seen as a radical and extreme concept? Surely, having a conversation to weigh up risks and benefits and choosing to decline a medical product without facing fear of financial reprisal from your own government would be an automatic human right. We must be better than this. We must stand for informed consent not enforced compliance. Health decisions are personal, not political. Repealing no jab, no pay is not an antivaccine position; it's a pro-choice, pro-ethics position. The government should never hold your child's welfare hostage to your informed medical decisions. Where is the Human Rights Commission on this issue? (Time expired)
Member for Moreton | Questions to the Speaker | House debates
I have noticed with interest this week that your grace has been upon the member for Moreton in that you haven't ejected him from the chamber. I'm just wondering whether your grace will extend...
I have noticed with interest this week that your grace has been upon the member for Moreton in that you haven't ejected him from the chamber. I'm just wondering whether your grace will extend through question time today.
Petition: Freedom of Speech | Adjournment | House debates
Today I rise to pay my respect to and honour a remarkable group of Australians who have been unwavering in their support and have sustained me in my fight to protect our freedoms, especially our...
Today I rise to pay my respect to and honour a remarkable group of Australians who have been unwavering in their support and have sustained me in my fight to protect our freedoms, especially our fundamental rights to bodily autonomy and freedom of speech. While I know there's always a risk in naming individuals, I cannot possibly list everyone who's played a part. I want to acknowledge the extraordinary commitment, tenacity and courage of the following people. These are the people who have consistently stood for truth and justice, no matter the personal or professional costs—medical professionals like doctors Julie Sladden, Chris Neil, Duncan Syme, Jeyanthi Kundahasan, Melissa McCann, Phil Altman, Judy Wilyman, David Bell and Kara Thomas; professors Ian Brighthope, Gigi Foster and Kylie O'Brien; lawyers Katie Ashby-Koppens, Julian Gillespie and Tony Nikolic; journalists Rebekah Barnett, Maryanne DeMassi and Elizabeth Hart; and, of course, former Qantas pilot Graham Hood, former paramedic John Larter and firefighter Josh Hawkes, who, despite being terminated from their jobs due to COVID mandates, have turned their adversity into a powerful force for truth and justice. A special mention goes to Katie Ashby-Koppens, who, as part of a small but determined team at the Aligned Council of Australia, a peak group representing over 1.8 million Australians, led the charge against the chilling and Orwellian mis- and disinformation bill, a bill that would have legalised state sanctioned surveillance and censorship. In mid-2023, I wrote to all my fellow parliamentarians to sound the alarm about this heinous bill. Now, thanks to the efforts of thousands of Australians, the bill has been axed—for now at least. Today I'm proud to present to the House the 'Save the truth, Stop the Mad Bill' petition, which has been considered by the petitions committee and found to be in order. The petition read as follows— The proposed Misinformation and Disinformation Bill threatens to undermine freedom of speech and limit open public discourse in Australia. The Bill grants excessive powers to regulate online content, which could lead to censorship and stifling of independent opinions and media, putting our democratic values at risk. We believe that it is essential for the Australian people to retain the right to express their views without unnecessary government intervention. We, the undersigned, believe that the proposed Misinformation and Disinformation Bill poses a significant threat to freedom of speech in Australia. This Bill risks undermining open dialogue and censoring independent voices by granting excessive regulatory powers over online content. We urge the House of Representatives to reject this Bill and protect the rights of Australians to freely express their opinions and access diverse information without undue government control. from 908 citizens (Petition No. PN0630) Petition received. To all who signed: I applaud your courage in standing up for freedom of speech in this country. You recognised that this bill posed a grave threat to our ability to speak freely, exchange ideas and access information without undue government control—which brings me to another person I want to honour today. Professor Robyn Cosford, a functional medicine doctor, educator and researcher, with 38 years of experience in nutritional and environmental medicine, has been a driving force behind the 'David Declaration', a powerful initiative born from the voices of thousands of Australians calling on the government to investigate the safety of COVID vaccines. The David Declaration outlines 10 clear demands for open and transparent dialogue about the TGA's vaccine safety and testing processes and a further 13 statements calling for the restoration of the health and wellbeing of all Australians. When COVID hit, like many integrative doctors and health professionals, Robyn questioned why the world was being forced to take experimental vaccines for what was in essence a flu-like illness when safe and time-tested treatments like vitamin C, vitamin D, zinc and affordable, re-purposed drugs like Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine and antibiotics have been shown to work. Robyn has been key in rallying doctors and health practitioners globally in support of my letters to the Prime Minister and health minister regarding DNA contamination in COVID vaccine vials—something the government has stubbornly ignored despite the growing body of evidence. This contamination may be linked to the surge in turbo cancers and autoimmune and neurological diseases that are becoming far too common in Western countries. So why isn't the government at least following this up? Next week, the David Declaration website will go live. The name is a tribute to Dr David Speicher, the researcher who first identified the DNA contamination in Australian vaccine vials and to the David-and-Goliath struggle we're facing. Hundreds of medical professionals have already pledged to support the declaration, and soon the general public will also be able to sign. I'll share the link next week. I'm truly honoured to have worked alongside such remarkable and brave individuals, and those I have named are just a few of the many inspiring people I've had the privilege to stand with over the last three years in this 47th Parliament. Together we continue to fight for truth, justice and the freedoms that define us as Australians. I say: follow the money, find the truth, and the truth will set you free. I also acknowledge in the chamber tonight the member for Moreton, who I think is about to speak. I had the privilege of working with the member for Moreton on the House of Representatives human rights committee. I found him to be a person above reproach in his approach to the difficult issues we faced at the time. He is a gentleman in all his ways and a man who thought very deeply about the issues around human rights in Australia. He has been an adornment to this parliament. I thought it was very unfair and very uncharitable of the Speaker in this 47th Parliament to eject the member for Moreton from the parliament on his last day of sitting—the only reason being that his voice is a voice that can be heard.
COVID 19: Vaccination | Statements by Members | House debates
More than 140,000 Australians have lodged, on the TGA database, adverse reactions to the not-so-safe and ineffective COVID vaccines. But thousands of these Australians have been unable to access...
More than 140,000 Australians have lodged, on the TGA database, adverse reactions to the not-so-safe and ineffective COVID vaccines. But thousands of these Australians have been unable to access compensation due to the scheme's overly onerous requirements and very narrow eligibility criteria—people like Tracey, who came to my office today, and Bernice, Dirk, Jason, Jerry, Joel, Kara, Karen, Linn, Margaret, Michelle, Naomi, Orida, Rado and Sandra. But Chris, a 51-year-old father of two, was more fortunate; at least, he thought he was. With the help of a lawyer, Chris navigated his way to securing compensation after suffering horrific life-altering injuries from the COVID vaccine. This process included 12 months of compiling more than a thousand pages of documents and then a further 500 days for the claim to be assessed and settled. Chris's financial settlement is in the millions of dollars, compensating him not just for the short-term impacts of his injury but also for lost income, given he's unable to return to his career of 30 years. But Chris's horrific story doesn't end here. It turns out his compensation will be subject to full taxation in the year the payment is received. This means that around one-third of his compensation will be lost in tax and returned to the very government that mandated these unsafe and untrialled vaccines. In my opinion this is cruel, callous and unconscionable behaviour by government and completely at odds with the intent of the compensation scheme. These compensation payments should be tax free.
Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 | Statements by Members | House debates
The misinformation bill is dead thanks to the collective tireless efforts of Australians and a few of their representatives in this parliament. From the moment it first appeared in 2023, I...
The misinformation bill is dead thanks to the collective tireless efforts of Australians and a few of their representatives in this parliament. From the moment it first appeared in 2023, I slammed this bill, writing to the Leader of the Opposition to express my strongest objections. The legislation was and always has been an offence to democracy. What made the government think they could be the purveyors of their truth? Just look at the COVID track record. We were told 15 days to slow the spread; instead we had two years of border closures and harsh lockdowns. We were told masks weren't effective. Then they were. Then you only had to wear them standing up and not sitting down—madness. We were also told that, if you take the vaccine, you won't get COVID and you won't infect other people—more lies. Emails show that Australian experts knew the shots didn't stop infection or transmission, yet the vaccines were mandated anyway. The Australian Department of Home Affairs censored 4,000 social media posts under the guise of misinformation—posts that turned out to be completely and utterly true. Australia's COVID inquiry showed trust in government institutions has been decimated. Why? Because the government was the largest purveyor of misinformation over the past four years, and the people knew it. The people have spoken, and the mad bill is dead. Today we celebrate, but let's not rest. The social media bill is set to bring about digital ID by stealth. The government says, 'don't worry; it's voluntary', but the government will try to make life impossible without one. So they do at their peril; the people have spoken.
Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Thank you for the opportunity to speak on aged care once again, after many, many times. I support the member for Barker's remarks in full, in total, absolutely. Personally, I don't have a problem...
Thank you for the opportunity to speak on aged care once again, after many, many times. I support the member for Barker's remarks in full, in total, absolutely. Personally, I don't have a problem with where the Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill is headed, and the coalition have already announced that they will be letting this bill go through on the voices. Having said that, I have a major problem with the implementation of the bill and the processes we've come to, to this point. The last thing Prime Minister John Howard said to me before his government was defeated and he was defeated was, 'Russell, don't come and ask me for more money for aged care,' because the exponential increase of moneys put into aged care from the time I was first elected in 1990 until this time has been astronomical. So every government has had to increase the funds it outlaid on aged care. But I would put this to you: the implementation has always been the problem, and it is a problem today. John and Betty came into my office. He's now in his 90s and is living at home with his wife. All he wants is his lawn mowed, nothing else. He has a package, but the package can't be implemented because the agency that has the package hasn't got the staff to do it. We found out recently with another inquiry we had that the agency that is charged with the responsibility of delivering the package has 88 people on its waiting list to get their lawns mowed or their gutters cleaned or whatever it is; there are 88 people just for lawns. It may not seem like a big thing to get your lawn cut, and, yes, his son comes in sometimes and does it, but there are other times John would like the place looking nice. We as a government have outlaid funds for them to do that, which was the old HACC, the Home and Community Care, program. That program has been transferred into private hands, and the private people are in it for profit; therefore, there are less funds for the end users. I'm disappointed that I asked for a meeting with just an advisor to the minister at the start of this session, and nobody has come back to me from the minister's office. My question is this: if the provider is allocated that particular individual as a client of theirs, are they paid an administrative fee for the 88 people on their books who are not receiving the benefit? If someone has been given an aged-care package which has been agreed to by the government, the government thinks it's done the right thing; it has put the packages out there for the people—'Look what we've delivered'—yet the end user is not getting the service that the government believes it has provided. This is not my only request of providers. I've actually had them in my office, and they've said: 'Everything's fine. We're getting around to it. We'll get there. We'll do it when we get the staff'. One provider said, 'But we don't really provide into your area,' but they have the responsibility for our area, for Gippsland. They don't have the people in Gippsland to do the jobs that need doing for the people that live there, in my area. But the government believes that they've provided the packages. The government's done the right thing; it's provided the package. But where's the connection with the government response? One of the things I spoke to former prime minister Scott Morrison about was the number of people that have been taken out of the department that used to provide a direct service for troubleshooting in aged care. They're no longer there. A member of parliament like me gets an 1800 number to ring, or they're told to ring the minister's office, or they get a ministerial response, which can take ages. These people need the help now, not in the future sometime when someone gets around to it. When you have been given a package and that's been given to a provider to deliver, I want to know whether—I say again—that provider is getting an administrative payment for that package when they are actually not delivering the service. That's my message today. How can we as parliamentarians be responsible for government outlays, which the government has outlaid in good faith, right across this nation, so people can still live in their homes? Direct aged care in the home could save the government millions. Those people could still live at home and operate because we could make every service we have available to them, which would make their lives in old age better than they otherwise would be. But if those providers are receiving a benefit from government without providing the service, that has to stop, and it has to stop today. If, after a reasonable period—say, a month—they've been unable to provide the service, that package has to be withdrawn and given to another provider who will deliver the service. I don't think that's unreasonable. You can't keep someone's package in your hands if you are receiving a benefit—and I'm guessing they are, for the package—and not deliver the service. That's my point today. I know that every member of this House cares about older Australians, none more so than myself. I started volunteering and fundraising for an aged-care facility, and we called the program 'A cry from the heart'. We raised the money and built an aged-care centre that's connected to our hospital. It's not new for me. It's been ongoing. I won't give up. I will continue. Thank you very much. Debate adjourned.
Today I hold petitions signed by 54,464 Australians who are vehemently opposed to the government's mis- and disinformation bill—people who rightly believe this bill is not only a grave...
Today I hold petitions signed by 54,464 Australians who are vehemently opposed to the government's mis- and disinformation bill—people who rightly believe this bill is not only a grave threat to freedom of speech but also to our precious democratic values. I'll be delivering these petitions to the petitions committee today. To every Australian who is standing up and speaking out against the government's unprecedented and unparalleled intrusion into our private lives, I say thank you. Hold the line and keep up the pressure. Government overreach is in plain sight, for all to see. This bill should send a chill down the spine of every Australian. In my decades of service to this parliament I've never known such outrageous legislation, which I believe is both unconstitutional and breaches our human rights. It's simple maths. This mis- and disinformation bill plus the social media ban for children under 16 plus digital identity requirements equals tyrannical, state-sanctioned surveillance and censorship. Make no mistake, this is an election issue. Australians know that these bills are an insidious assault on our nation's way of life, sneakily presented under the guise of keeping us safe, but nothing could be further from the truth. They are dangerous, they are a violation of our privacy and they are an ominous sign of what could be in store for the people of this nation.
Medicare | Private Members' Business | House debates
Australia has a world-class health system: Medicare. The backbone of that system is the dedication of our highly skilled, hardworking healthcare workforce. These healthcare workers are subject to...
Australia has a world-class health system: Medicare. The backbone of that system is the dedication of our highly skilled, hardworking healthcare workforce. These healthcare workers are subject to intense conditions that wouldn't be acceptable in any other industry, but day in day out they get on with their job and do it wonderfully. They bore the brunt of the pandemic. Even though overwhelmed by immense pressure and unknown variables, healthcare workers stood as our first line of defence. But, four years on, healthcare workers are still overwhelmed in large part by unprecedented and unexplained levels of sickness right across the country. Why isn't anyone investigating this phenomenon? The Australian people deserve answers. Today I rise to speak on a matter of grave national importance which has, until now, been met with silence by those who should be taking decisive action. My recent correspondence with the Prime Minister highlights alarming findings in synthetic DNA contamination in Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 products, detected at levels of up to 145 times above the TGA's own stated limits. Let me assure you that I did not write those letters lightly. My letters were accompanied by a science summary co-authored by 52 eminent scientists including Dr David Speicher, a Canadian virologist, who authored the report investigating DNA contamination in Australian COVID-19 Pfizer and Moderna vials; Professor Angus Dalgleish, one of the world's leading oncologists; Emeritus Professor Wendy Hoy; Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy; Professor Alexandra Henrion Caude; and Kevin McKernan, former research director of the Human Genome Project. These distinguished individuals put their names and reputations on the line attesting to the overwhelming evidence of synthetic DNA contamination in these vaccines and the risks posed to Australians. The science summary speaks directly to the catastrophic implications of this contamination. Experts have determined that as few as three to 10 molecules of the SV40 promoter and enhancer sequences contaminating Pfizer's product can potentially trigger cell mutations, leading to cancer. Yet Dr Speicher's analysis of Australian vials detected billions of these molecules in a single dose. For the TGA to dismiss these concerns outright without credible testing or scientific analysis is a failure of duty to the Australian people. Even as the evidence was brought to the attention of the Prime Minister and subsequently passed to the health minister, we received no scientific denial, no testing and no thorough investigation, only a letter from Minister Butler's office referring to the TGA statement asserting the findings as so-called misinformation. The TGA statement has since been revealed as misleading and wholly unreliable, containing at least 14 false assertions, as documented in the comprehensive analysis co-authored by investigative journalist Rebekah Barnett and leading scientific experts. We are at a crucial juncture this day. The TGA is yet to perform appropriate tests to confirm or deny Dr Speicher's report findings. The TGA has been using a testing method for DNA contamination that grossly undermeasures the levels of DNA contamination, a method Moderna itself seems deems inadequate for this purpose in its own patent documents for these drugs. No further evidence has been presented to allay the concerns of scientists or the public. Instead, we see avoidance, misleading statements and a complete lack of accountability from our regulators. I must also draw attention to the extraordinary efforts made by the Town of Port Hedland Council, who, after hearing from cancer expert Professor Angus Dalgleish and from their own community experiencing a sevenfold increase in deaths, passed a historic motion calling for the suspension of these products and for the TGA to conduct independent testing. They took a stand not out of political agenda but from their ethical duty to protect our community. It was the testimony of Professor Dalgleish, observing an alarming increase in aggressive cancers among vaccinated individuals, that gave weight to this decision. Professor Dalgleish's observations are echoed by other medical professionals worldwide who are documenting what they term 'turbo cancers', cancers of an aggressive nature never seen at this scale before. So, for the health and safety of all Australians, I call upon this House and the Prime Minister to act now. Invoke the precautionary principle and suspend these products until independent testing can confirm or dispel these contamination findings. Australia cannot afford the risk of another crisis, one that would eclipse even the devastating Thalidomide disaster. We must protect the health of all Austrians, and that requires transparency, accountability and action.
Parliamentary Representation | Statements by Members | House debates
At six o'clock last night in my office we quietly celebrated the closing of the polls in 2004, which saw me re-elected to the parliament after being defeated twice before and being a oncer...
At six o'clock last night in my office we quietly celebrated the closing of the polls in 2004, which saw me re-elected to the parliament after being defeated twice before and being a oncer twice—and the member at the table was a participant in one of those election campaigns. It has been an honour to serve the people of McMillan and Monash, accordingly, in that time. Of course, in my 25 years in the parliament, I served as the member for Corinella for three years as well. It's been a very difficult time, in that two great achievements were, firstly, being on the wrong side of every leadership ballot for the whole 25 years because I supported the leader, and, secondly, being in a place where policy was particularly important to me and I was prepared to speak out on those issues, no matter who the government of the day was. I've never stepped back from the time that I spent in this place in the alternative, and I look forward to continuing in that role.
Covid-19: Response | Constituency Statements | House debates
It's a pleasure for me to speak today on a critical issue that has been an issue for me for some time. Today I hosted in the House, from the Australian Medical Professionals' Society, AMPS, Dr...
It's a pleasure for me to speak today on a critical issue that has been an issue for me for some time. Today I hosted in the House, from the Australian Medical Professionals' Society, AMPS, Dr Chris Neal, Dr Jeyanthi Kunadhasan and Kara Thomas. With them were Professor Angus Dalgleish and Dr Paul Marik. Professor Dalgleish is an imminent virologist; immunologist; medical oncologist; general physician; professor at St Georges, University of London; fellow of both the UK and Australian Royal Colleges of Physicians; and fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists. He has over 500 publications in peer reviewed literature and over 25,000 citations. Dr Paul Marik is a former tenured professor of medicine and chief of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School. His training is in internal medicine, critical care, pharmacology and anaesthesia. He has over 500 peer-reviewed journal articles, 80 book chapters and four critical care books. He's been cited over 54,000 times in peer-reviewed publications and is a founding member of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance. These two gentlemen have an amazing message for us. They are eminent doctors who have made significant contributions to medicine and the advancement of patient care over the decades of their lives. We would do well to pay attention to their message. But the problem is that their message, if given out only a few short months ago, would be deemed as misinformation or disinformation under the bill that's coming before the House, which is further censorship of scientists, censorship of health professionals and censorship of doctors and nurses. It's been a pleasure to have them in the House and hear the message that such eminent people gave around the whole history of the COVID response, not only the COVID response but the effect it's had on so many millions of people across the world. We would do well to listen to such eminent people, to change the way we're going about things and change the narrative—I say again: change the narrative—so that we can help vax-injured people like Kara Thomas, who this morning, out on the front lawns of the parliament, had the face of the fallen, and all those who have been severely affected by vaccine injuries. Thank you, Professor Dalgleish and Dr Paul Marik, for coming to this parliament today. It is greatly appreciated.
Freedom of Speech | Adjournment | House debates
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...
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.
Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Paid parental leave is an avenue for, in particular, women to participate further in their opportunities to work, their families to have better opportunities and, as has been described in the...
Paid parental leave is an avenue for, in particular, women to participate further in their opportunities to work, their families to have better opportunities and, as has been described in the legislation, women to have greater opportunities for a better retirement than they would otherwise have had. The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024 is to be supported and is laudable. It brings in fairness and justice, which 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's for those far more knowledgeable than I. However, what I do know and what has come to my attention through the voices of over 1,000 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; at worst, cruel. Kirsten is one of many who have reached out to me whose story is 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 the 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, was unconscious and stopped breathing. This was later described as a SIDS episode. Imagine the terror of that moment when she was 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 experience, 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. There have been no more SIDS episodes and 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 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, penalised financially and denied the opportunity to fully participate in society. Of course, if you don't work, you don't get paid parental leave. Then there is Elizabeth's story, which is a testament to the broader impact of these policies on communities. Elizabeth is a mother who, with support of her GP, made the informed decision to delay vaccinations for her children and found herself unfairly disadvantaged by this choice. As 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 have 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 deprive the community of the contribution she can 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 that Indigenous children thrive in early years and 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 seeks 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 child care 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 of 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 'constitute the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and wellbeing of the indigenous peoples of the world'. 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 nation, must respect these rights and work towards policies that support rather than diminish the dignity, survival and wellbeing of Indigenous families, ensuring they have access to the same opportunities for growth and success as all Australians. Here's where the irony cuts deep. In some regions, wealthier families have found loopholes in these are very policies. If they can afford to pay full fees, their unvaccinated children are still able to attend child care and after-hours care. They are 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? It gets worse: while unvaccinated children are excluded, health workers and parents are not required to be vaccinated to enter the same childcare settings. 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 inequity 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, Deputy Speaker Freelander, 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 decision. I commend this proposition to the House.
Donnelly, Mr Cecil | Statements by Members | House debates
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...
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: 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 did—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.
Energy | Constituency Statements | House debates
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...
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 that 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 maybe not brownouts but 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 and exercise into looking after those power plants.
Climate Change | Statements by Members | House debates
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...
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.
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...
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.
Society, Nuclear Energy | Adjournment | House debates
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'....
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 watchkeepers 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.
Wages | Private Members' Business | House debates
I have risen to speak on motions like this probably many times in my time in the parliament, and it is very clear to me now that this is another promotion that has come straight out of polling....
I have risen to speak on motions like this probably many times in my time in the parliament, and it is very clear to me now that this is another promotion that has come straight out of polling. The Labor Party repeat, 'We want you to have more money and keep more of your money.' They have proposals here in the budget. But I would like to take them up on just a couple of things. While the energy bill relief is targeted and helpful for people, energy bills have gone through the roof so badly that these measures haven't got the punch that they would have had if we hadn't had the increases that we're experiencing now through inflation. Household insurance and business insurance doubled in many cases last year and had a further increase this year. But it's the hidden costs that I want to talk about today. What are the hidden costs that are hitting people very hard? I'll give you two examples. I know they're both state issues, but families are families are families. We're responsible for them, state governments are responsible for them, and local governments are responsible for them. Everybody's taken their chip, to the point where a report from the other day, from a welfare agency that provides food and welfare for the community, said, 'The people that used to donate to us are now coming to us for food parcels.' That's an indictment on everything that we're doing at the moment. In the first example, a builder is picked up on a camera—a speed camera or a camera checking registrations et cetera—and they find out that the tandem trailer is two days over its registered date and that the builder was driving around with a trailer that had been unregistered for two days. Fair enough. You would think you'd get a reasonable fine for that. The registration for that trailer is $75. The fine is $772, and if you don't pay it within the given time then it's another $65 on top of that for compliance. I'll give you another example of what's happening to people out in the community. This guy is speeding; he's eight kilometres over. He gets a fine, because his car is registered under a business name, of $3,698. That is a fine for being eight kilometres over. Just take those two instances and recognise that that's happening to thousands and thousands of people and families right across Australia. Where do governments get off with such outrageous challenges to anybody just going about their daily business? Every one of us has probably been eight kilometres over and not been fined or been 14 kilometres over and been fined. We never know where the cameras are, but, just the same, we all try to be law-abiding citizens. Fines like that are outrageous. They have to be paid, and the families that are on lower and middle incomes don't have $3,000 just sitting around. They don't have $772 just sitting around waiting to be paid to the state government. I've got to say: in all the representations we make as parliamentarians on behalf of our community, we have to decide how we're going to better distribute the funds that are available to us. Where are the priorities of this nation on where we're spending our money against the pensioners and single-income earners in Australia that should be getting the best support we can possibly give them? I don't think we should be sending our good money to places where there may be disagreement within our community on where that money should go. We didn't vote to send money overseas to places we've been sending money to; you might have voted in a different way had you known that was going to happen. It's time we put families first. It's an old saying—that we put families first—but I mean it, from grandma and granddad all the way through to children. It says in here—not enough, apparently.
Home Ownership | Private Members' Business | House debates
Over the past year or so, I've been following Matt Barrie, an award-winning Australian technology entrepreneur who has his finger well and truly on Australia's housing pulse—a pulse that is...
Over the past year or so, I've been following Matt Barrie, an award-winning Australian technology entrepreneur who has his finger well and truly on Australia's housing pulse—a pulse that is weak, sluggish and in desperate need of immediate resuscitation. As Matt said recently: The root of all evil in this country is the astronomical price of housing. Once you understand all the ramifications of that—it really is the problem that is the root of all problems. I couldn't agree more, Matt. Matt also delivered a sobering message. He said: … it is now mathematically impossible for a household on the median income to pay off a mortgage in Australia … What happened to the lucky country? What happened to the clever country? Since when did the offer of a car park to sleep in for homeless women and children become a solution? The current situation is that, despite the Reserve Bank increasing interest rates to get a hold of inflation, property prices in capital cities in Australia continued to surge another 20 per cent last year. Matt Barrie said a home is considered astronomically unaffordable by economists if it costs more than five times the average salary. In Australia, the average capital city home is nine times the average salary of Australians and, in Sydney, it's an eye-watering 13 times. So who's to blame? This has been an issue on the horizon for decades now, so the blame has apportioned to all sides of politics, but Labor's immigration policy—bringing in 518,000 people in 2022-23—has served only to inflame this already hot issue to the point where now homeownership is unaffordable for the vast majority of the Australian population. What is the solution? Economist Yanis Varoufakis has told the Equity Mates Investing podcast that another one million homes were needed in Australia within the next three years. He said that any measures to increase the affordability of housing, such as lowering interest rates or government grants, would only increase prices. Australia is in the middle of a dire housing crisis, and the impact on families with young children is particularly distressing. Not only is housing ridiculously expensive both to rent and to buy but the homes are simply not there. In response to this, the government claim they can build over a million houses in just five years. As it said in the great story, 'They're dreaming.' Australians need these homes desperately, but there are significant limitations that will prevent this ambitious target from being met. Firstly, new housing starts came in at the lowest level in more than a decade last year: 90,000 below an annual target of 240,000 homes. Secondly, Australian builders and construction firms are collapsing at an unprecedented rate. According to ASIC, between July 2022 and April 2023, 1,709 building and construction companies across Australia went into administration. These aren't just small companies. These are big names like Porter Davis, ProBuild, Pivotal Homes and many others who have been operating for decades. Thirdly, across New South Wales, migrant families are apparently taking up more than 35,000 social housing tenancies—over 22 per cent of all tenancies in the state. And, on top of this, there's a dire shortage of skilled building workers. Between collapsing construction companies, the scarcity of skilled workers and booming population, how on earth can we build enough houses for Australians and for the hundreds of thousands of migrants hoping Australia will give them a better life? The government of the day can make all the promises they like, and they can throw billions of taxpayers' funds to the states but, at the end of the day, the homes are simply not being built. We need to rebuild our collapsing construction industry, and we need to do that quickly before the housing crisis becomes a humanitarian crisis. The facts show there is stark inequality in my generation's ability to own a home compared to that of much younger generations. Wages are not going up at the rate that the cost of housing is going up. In fact, at the moment, wages have the greatest ever decline in terms of purchasing power. For 20- to 24-year-olds, the real purchasing power of wages went back to 2008 levels in the last year. We all know that governments love to talk about how they're going to solve our problems, but actually doing it a different story. The truth is that, contrary to what we are told, Australia's housing crisis isn't a very complicated problem to fix. In fact, the solution is rather simple. Australia's priority should be to create an environment where the RBA is encouraged to reduce interest rates, which the recent federal budget certainly hasn't allowed. With lower interest rates, levels of investment in housing can return to what they used to be. Naturally this will encourage more houses to be built, thus increasing the supply of houses to build and to rent. There is also another underlying problem for our young people which no doubt also has its role to play in the housing crisis at hand. Young people—even those with high-level qualifications—are struggling to get into the jobs that they want. This may be due to things like the receding economy or the increased presence of international students, but the point is this: the barrier to home ownership and job choice, which are significant parts of growing up, is too high and is and is affecting our kids' attitude to life.
Whilst I disagree with some parts of the motion the member for Macarthur has put forward to the House today, I would never doubt his sincerity towards the issues around health and the wellbeing...
Whilst I disagree with some parts of the motion the member for Macarthur has put forward to the House today, I would never doubt his sincerity towards the issues around health and the wellbeing of his community and the community in Australia, and I applaud him for that. He asks for improvements to our health system. Well, we're clearly in desperate need of improvements, given the way that flu, RSV and COVID are currently sweeping across the nation and overwhelming the public health system. Elective surgeries have been cancelled under South Australia's emergency 'code yellow', with plans to transfer some patients from overwhelmed Adelaide metropolitan hospitals to regional centres—in large part because frontline workers are sick. But how can that be, if they're all vaccinated? Clearly I do not understand how vaccinations work. An improved and supportive health bureaucracy is not the experience of Chris Nemeth, a vaccine-injured gentleman who has been suffering great distress and financial hardship since he was injured by the COVID vaccine. Chris is so desperate that he's given me permission to use his full name. Chris was diagnosed with a COVID vaccine injury called chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, which resulted from his first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine. He will have this condition and need treatment for the rest of his life. This is the same vaccine that was removed from pharmacy shelves after its manufacturer conceded, in a United Kingdom court last month, that the vaccine causes blood clots. It bewilders me that there hasn't been more of an uproar from Australians who received the AstraZeneca vaccine. Chris has been engaged with the government's vaccine injury compensation scheme and is getting nowhere. Working with a lawyer, because the system is so difficult to navigate, Chris compiled a thousand-page submission, which he submitted to Services Australia on 2 March 2023. That's 459 days ago. In those 459 days, his application passed the initial review stage and then also passed the external medical review done by the TGA on the first try. After passing the external medical review, he was asked three times for additional information, and his application then went through another external legal panel review and an internal legal review. The most recent external legal review was completed on 23 May, and the advice was passed to Services Australia on that day. Last Thursday, day 455, Services Australia advised that they cannot offer any further update—nothing—no indication of what the advice from the external legal panel was, no indication of the next step and no indication of when they will be able to provide any further update. The scheme was supposed to be an easy-to-access safety net, with quick administrative processes. These were the words of Greg Hunt, then health minister, when he announced the scheme. The government knew there would be vaccine injuries, but this cautionary initiative was drowned out by the fear propaganda machine and the 'safe and effective' mantra. Chris is an innocent victim of a bureaucratic nightmare. In Chris's words: the vaccine injuries scheme is administered with cruelty and callous disregard for the human beings who have been injured by these vaccines that were taken in good faith when asked by our government to do so Chris told me he speaks with other people facing the same challenges with the scheme and its administration. Are we seeing another robodebt? Will it take a suicide to draw attention to this horrendous situation? Dare I say that the vaccine compensation scheme looks to have similar hallmarks to the robodebt scheme, which was referred to as a 'crude and cruel' mechanism. Haven't we learned anything as a parliament of people? Chris hasn't been able to work since September 2021 and has not had any income since April 2022. While he did receive a modest TPD payment from his superannuation, it's money that diminishes with every passing day. Chris called me last Friday at his wit's end. He is a strong, capable and professional man who has been pushed to the brink, and he's not the only one. He said he's at the edge of his ability to cope with the additional harm that this claim scheme is inflicting upon him every day. Chris's situation is a shameful blight on our nation—one that has not reached its zenith.