These politicians need to be on a minimum wage With no security No free transport

What can I say that hasn't been said before in regard to this subject. It amazes me how politicians, the media and the United Nations can pull the wool over the eyes of the majority of Australians while the big polluting countries continue to burn coal for their national advancement. We are bloody idiots.

Their plan is working fine... de industrialise our country so we are 100% dependent for everything abroad. China playing the long game with our corrupt politicians.

If labor has had a hand in it, you can bet it no good.

Labor, the party of UI's. Fair dinkum, how dumb are they. Go nuclear, go coal. Plenty of both and safe. CO2 is life.

Don’t forget Abbott signed us up to Paris and Morrison signed us up to Net Zero. Get rid of both Labor and LNP.

We are governed by idiots. 😡

Would 1 nation return the constitution and the power back to the people?

Can't make wind turbines from wind power anyway

It is absurd, total stupidity of the extreme kind!

Some would say its just the way they want it to be

What happens with wind turbines once Labour and Libs are kicked out at next election? Why can Labour rush through policies with debate in the Senate

What makes Chinese steel more polluting than steel made by anyone else and isn't the iron from here in the first place

the perils of relying on subsidies instead of a sound business proposition

STOP USING FOREIGB IMPORTS?SUPPORT LOCAL ?

Its money. They chosen cheaper steel so there would be extra money to reach someone’s pockets. The enemy is your own businessmen, not China

All these politicians pushing the scam NetZero narrative, are no doubt puppets of the communist regime. These policies have zero to do about the environment, all to do with $.

Same in Uk most Coalmines Gone! But hey Ch i na uses lot!!

All these politicians are the one punishing the labor's it does not make the economic grow

China are the biggest manufacturers and exporters of solar and wind but they still import coal to use electricity. Interesting.

Not one single wind turbine tower will ever generate enough power to ofset the pollution greated by all that is required to build it!

Why not the space labour from Chile is cheaper and more profitable the government allowed this system just each done insane coal tarrifs on top of your worried

Listen to this very carefully. I have checked it out on various govt web sites. All the info is there. You just have to do basic searches on their own sites.

They probably all voted for one of the lnplaborgreens uniparty UN puppets

This very well might be the undoing of Libs federally. One Nation had better have some great candidates for next year's election.

Government’s must get out to the peoples lives! The only authority that they have under our original Commonwealth of Australia Constitution, is “limited legislation” and even that must comply with our Commonwealth Constitution. Page 795, second last paragraph, of the Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth clearly states: the burden of authority has to be proven by those who are asserting any authority. Under what “supposed” authority did the government instigate this intended censorship and digitisation of the Australian people, given that we, the Australian people, have never given any government this authority 🤔 Sounds very similar to: The Australia Card was a proposal for a national identification card for Australian citizens and resident foreigners. The proposal was made in 1985, and abandoned in 1987. "Many Australians may object to this option on the basis of privacy concerns. It could be viewed as a digital version of the unpopular Australia Card initiative, which was rejected in 1987, or the Access Card, which was terminated in 2007."

There is no difference between Labor and the Libs.

I’ll never vote labor as they are untrustworthy and unqualified to lead a country. But I won’t vote for liberal either. At the end of the day, it’s a uni party and they are both told what to do by globalists and Australia has no sovereignty under either of them

If it does go ahead, so many will leave social media, maybe set up an email that is constant updates of exactly what is happening, like what you are posting online regularly. It will be the only way to communicate to those that leave it for good

Glad to see one nation is against it

The gov doesn't give a crap about kids or anyone...it's just a smoke screen to kill what freedom of speech we have left..total Como control is what it is about..

They need a referendum & the Australian people will tell them to GFT's

We need Trump Both main Australian parties are like American democrats Useless !

Absolutely shameful performance from the Liberals. They will go the same way as the Conservative party in the UK. Clearly these parties have completely forgotten what CONSERVATIVE values are.

1. how many parent do you see give their phone to kids as young as 18 months at restaurants and otherwise to keep them quiet. 2. what happens when you have a group of teenagers where one is 16, guess what. 3. People do get false licenses and age ID. 4. At my age why do I have to prove my age.

Identifying who is using a phone must be done with face recognition. Every Australian will be subjected to face recognition before they use social media platforms. If your an adult make sure your not in the bath when you contact a loved one

The coalition remains incapable of providing a united and coherent way forward for our country. They do, however, remain preferable to the incompetent rabble of disgraceful ideas who inhabit the corridors of power. The minor conservative parties are not yet (if ever) a Force majeure, but the times they are a changing…..

Senator Malcolm Roberts this is misinformation. Australia does not have a constitutional “right to free speech” in the same way as the United States. Australia’s “freedom of political communication” is a more limited, implied right rather than an absolute freedom of speech, and its scope is determined by judicial interpretation rather than a specific constitutional guarantee. The implied right is primarily about ensuring that people can freely discuss political matters. It does not extend to general free speech, meaning speech is subject to restrictions, particularly in areas like defamation, hate speech, national security, and public order. The U.S is where the First Amendment provides broad protection, Australian law allows for more regulation of speech in areas like: Defamation law (which protects reputations) Hate speech laws (which limit speech that incites violence or discrimination) National security laws (which restrict certain types of speech that may endanger national security) If you did the work I did you would understand why the ban is so important and stop politicising it. I work with on average 3000+ kids a week. Who also think we have free speech here because they are fed online content steeped in American law.

It’s THE Digital ID Bill. The government are absolute crooks, the entirety of them. Sneaks.

Under this proposed law none of the above opinions will be legal… let that sink in.

The duopoly has to fall, or we do!

Both parties traitors ! Plus the Greens never vote those 3 parties ! Incompetent and no regard for the people ! VOTE THEM OUT !

Not much opposition from the coalition in this country.

Australian Human Rights Commission. The UN General Assembly adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on 16 December 1966. ICCPR Article 19 states: 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. 3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals. Freedom of Opinion and Expression General Comment 34 on Article 19 emphasises that freedom of expression and opinion are the foundation stone for a free and democratic society and a necessary condition for the promotion and protection of human rights. This General Comment addresses in detail: · freedom of opinion · freedom of expression · freedom of expression and the media · the right to access to information · the importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society · the application of Article 19.3 on permissible limitations on freedom of information and expression · the scope for limitations on freedom of expression in certain areas · the relationship between articles 19 and 20. Freedom of information, expression & democracy General Comment No. 25 deals with freedom of expression in the context of participation in public affairs and the right to vote. The Human Rights Committee has stated that: Citizens also take part in the conduct of public affairs by exerting influence through public debate and dialogue with their representatives or through their capacity to organize themselves. This participation is supported by ensuring freedom of expression, assembly and association. In order to ensure the full enjoyment of rights protected by article 25, the free communication of information and ideas about public and political issues between citizens, candidates and elected representatives is essential. This implies a free press and other media able to comment on public issues without censorship or restraint and to inform public opinion. It requires the full enjoyment and respect for the rights guaranteed in articles 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant, including freedom to engage in political activity individually or through political parties and other organizations, freedom to debate public affairs, to hold peaceful demonstrations and meetings, to criticize and oppose, to publish political material, to campaign for election and to advertise political ideas. Legal Protections for freedom of expression Common law protection A well-established principle of statutory interpretation in Australian courts is that Parliament is presumed not to have intended to limit fundamental rights, unless it indicates this intention in clear terms. This includes freedom of expression. See our page on common law rights and parliamentary scrutiny. Constitutional law protection The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals. In Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills (1992) 177 CLR 1 and Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v the Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106, the majority of the High Court held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an incident of the system of representative government established by the Constitution. This was reaffirmed in Unions NSW v New South Wales [2013] HCA 58. Protection in State and Territory human rights laws Section 16 of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) states that: 1. Everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference. 2. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of borders, whether orally, in writing or in print, by way of art, or in another way chosen by him or her. The rights in this act are subject to section 28: 1. Human rights may be subject only to reasonable limits set by Territory laws that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. 2. In deciding whether a limit is reasonable, all relevant factors must be considered, including the following: 3. the nature of the right affected; b. the importance of the purpose of the limitation; c. the nature and extent of the limitation; d. the relationship between the limitation and its purpose; e. any less restrictive means reasonably available to achieve the purpose the limitation seeks to achieve. Section 15 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) provides: 1. Every person has the right to hold an opinion without interference. 2. Every person has the right to freedom of expression which includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, whether within or outside Victoria and whether- (a) orally; or (b) in writing; or (c) in print; or (d) by way of art; or (e) in another medium chosen by him or her. 1. Special duties and responsibilities are attached to the right of freedom of expression and the right may be subject to lawful restrictions reasonably necessary- (a) to respect the rights and reputation of other persons; or (b) for the protection of national security, public order, public health or public morality.

They have the same donors, stop political donations!

Ah Mr Dutton. So much promise, so little result. Scott Morrison mark 2.

They are 2 wings of the same bird. They have been for quite awhile. Menzies would be rolling in his grave. It’s a disgrace.

Left and right wings of the same dirty bird and the greens are the lice on the bird!

Well you know what I think this is very very needed sooner the better they will survive with out a phone