Ex-Liberal MP Takes 10 Percent in First Go, Stands Firm Against Mandates and Net Zero
New Liberal Party candidate Mary Aldred looks set to have secured the Lower House seat by the weekend, picking up 28,138 votes to the next-nearest Labor Party candidate Tully Fletcher, who had 17,809 votes.
Broadbent managed to secure 10.1 percent of the vote in his first outing as an independent.
The former draper and former small business owner held the seat for 25 years before he left the Liberals in November 2023.
At the time, he said the federal government's COVID-19 vaccination mandates during the pandemic years made him break away and run a solo campaign.
Related Stories
4/30/2025
5/1/2025
Speaking to The Epoch Times at his post-election gathering of supporters in Drouin, Broadbent said he held no reservations about his decision.
'The whole response to COVID over the past four years, as other people have responded in a different way, in regards to my position on COVID,' he said, when asked what policies resonated with voters.
'And I wouldn't take back a word. I actually challenged the narrative. ... They [Liberal Party] had probably had enough of me. They didn't like the position that I took on COVID.'
Former Liberal Party senator, Gerard Rennick, also broke ranks from the centre-right party and ran separately, in response to the party's support of COVID-19 lockdowns.
Liberal Party Should Have Fought Against Net Zero
Broadbent warned the net zero energy policy, which has been adopted by both the victorious Albanese Labor government and the Liberal Party, would 'break the country.'
Former Prime Minister Scott Morrison with then-Energy Minister Angus Taylor committed to reaching net zero by 2050.
The Albanese government has bankrolled a swathe of net zero projects during its first term, and will continue this initiative.
Broadbent has been a vocal critic of bipartisan support for this policy, believing that the gradual shutting down of coal-production sites will cause irreparable economic harm.
'The government hasn't prepared our economy. Labor has made decisions in subsequent budgets now which make it harder for the economy to function with international headwinds,' he said.
He said the Liberal Party missed an opportunity to create a point of difference in opposing Labor on this policy.
'They [Liberal Party] didn't differentiate themselves by saying they did not support net zero,' Broadbent said.
Many residents who have spoken to Broadbent say they struggle with higher energy bills, which he blames the energy transition for creating.
Net zero has seen state and federal governments pressure major energy producers to close down coal-fired power stations and to instead, invest in renewable energy projects as a source of 'cleaner' energy.
However, this transition does come at a cost to home owners, not only is it limiting energy supply (which drives up prices), there is a significant upfront investment in getting renewable projects off the ground, which has led to governments offering taxpayer-backed subsidies to make this happen.
'There are a number of people, not just here but around the place. They just talk electricity prices, electricity prices, electricity prices,' Broadbent said.
'And the more renewables there are, the more the prices will keep going up.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
6 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Guest column: Gary students deserve more than virtual replacements
As the president of the Gary Teachers Union, I have the privilege of representing the hardworking educators who are the backbone of our community. So it's with deep concern that I must address the recent decision by the Gary Community School Corporation to contract with Proximity, a virtual education provider. This is a move that will replace up to 45 local educators with a teacher-on-a-screen. The misleadingly named Proximity promises a 'licensed teacher in every classroom,' but let's be clear — the deal will only leave students more isolated. This online platform is no silver bullet for the challenges we face in education. It is a shortcut that sacrifices the real, tangible, in-person connections that are essential to student success. I know firsthand how deeply our educators care about our students. We do more than just teach: we mentor, we support, and we understand the unique challenges that each student faces. We know the names of their parents and siblings and can recite their struggles, and their triumphs. We sit through late-night meetings and community events, not because it's part of the job, but because we are part of this community. Our students' success is our success, and their failures weigh heavily on our hearts. This partnership with Proximity is not just a decision to 'go digital' — it is a decision to replace the soul of education with something far more distant. And it's a decision being made with no union collaboration, no teacher buy-in. As the exclusive bargaining representative for our teachers, I wasn't even consulted. Proximity may promise technology that works for some, but a 'virtual teacher' will never attend a school concert, offer a shoulder to cry on, or help a struggling student after school. They will not build the trust and the personal relationships our students need to succeed. The claim that Proximity guarantees a 'licensed' teacher is not an assurance of quality. Licensing is important, but teaching is more than having a piece of paper. It's about understanding the nuances of each student's individual learning journey, responding to their needs, and building a rapport that encourages growth — things that cannot be replicated through an algorithm or a screen. Did we not learn this during COVID? Our public school teachers are not just 'licensed' — they are deeply committed professionals who live, work, and raise families in Gary. They are part of our community. Replacing them with a virtual talking head is an insult to their dedication and to the families that depend on them. Let's not forget the financial implications of this decision. This may not even be cost effective for the school district! Everything we've seen says we'll still need a 'classroom facilitator' to be physically present. How much more will this cost? To the administration of the Gary School Corporation: I urge you to reconsider this decision. This is not just about saving money or adopting the latest technological trend. This is about the future of our children, the integrity of our schools, and the livelihoods of the teachers who are committed to making Gary a better city for everyone. We deserve more than virtual replacements. Our teachers and this community have built a school system that puts children first. We need to fight for our teachers and paraprofessionals — the people who have dedicated their lives to this work and to this city. Our teachers deserve better. Our students deserve better. And the community of Gary deserves better than to be sold short by a for-profit virtual platform.
Los Angeles Times
7 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump voters wanted relief from Medical bills. For millions, the bills are about to get bigger
President Trump rode to reelection last fall on voter concerns about prices. But as his administration pares back federal rules and programs designed to protect patients from the high cost of health care, Trump risks pushing more Americans into debt, further straining family budgets already stressed by medical bills. Millions of people are expected to lose health insurance in the coming years as a result of the tax cut legislation Trump signed this month, leaving them with fewer protections from large bills if they get sick or suffer an accident. At the same time, significant increases in health plan premiums on state insurance marketplaces next year will likely push more Americans to either drop coverage or switch to higher-deductible plans that will require them to pay more out-of-pocket before their insurance kicks in. Smaller changes to federal rules are poised to bump up patients' bills, as well. New federal guidelines for COVID -19 vaccines, for example, will allow health insurers to stop covering the shots for millions, so if patients want the protection, some may have to pay out-of-pocket. The new tax cut legislation will also raise the cost of certain doctor visits, requiring copays of up to $35 for some Medicaid enrollees. And for those who do end up in debt, there will be fewer protections. This month, the Trump administration secured permission from a federal court to roll back regulations that would have removed medical debt from consumer credit reports. That puts Americans who cannot pay their medical bills at risk of lower credit scores, hindering their ability to get a loan or forcing them to pay higher interest rates. 'For tens of millions of Americans, balancing the budget is like walking a tightrope,' said Chi Chi Wu, a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center. 'The Trump administration is just throwing them off.' White House spokesperson Kush Desai did not respond to questions about how the administration's health care policies will affect Americans' medical bills. The president and his Republican congressional allies have brushed off the health care cuts, including hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicaid retrenchment in the mammoth tax law. 'You won't even notice it,' Trump said at the White House after the bill signing July 4. 'Just waste, fraud, and abuse.' But consumer and patient advocates around the country warn that the erosion of federal health care protections since Trump took office in January threatens to significantly undermine Americans' financial security. 'These changes will hit our communities hard,' said Arika Sánchez, who oversees health care policy at the nonprofit New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty. Sánchez predicted many more people the center works with will end up with medical debt. 'When families get stuck with medical debt, it hurts their credit scores, makes it harder to get a car, a home, or even a job,' she said. 'Medical debt wrecks people's lives.' For Americans with serious illnesses such as cancer, weakened federal protections from medical debt pose yet one more risk, said Elizabeth Darnall, senior director of federal advocacy at the American Cancer Society's Cancer Action Network. 'People will not seek out the treatment they need,' she said. Trump promised a rosier future while campaigning last year, pledging to 'make America affordable again' and 'expand access to new Affordable Healthcare.' Polls suggest voters were looking for relief. About 6 in 10 adults — Democrats and Republicans — say they are worried about being able to afford health care, according to one recent survey, outpacing concerns about the cost of food or housing. And medical debt remains a widespread problem: As many as 100 million adults in the U.S. are burdened by some kind of health care debt. Despite this, key tools that have helped prevent even more Americans from sinking into debt are now on the chopping block. Medicaid and other government health insurance programs, in particular, have proved to be a powerful economic backstop for low-income patients and their families, said Kyle Caswell, an economist at the Urban Institute, a think tank in Washington, D.C. Caswell and other researchers found, for example, that Medicaid expansion made possible by the 2010 Affordable Care Act led to measurable declines in medical debt and improvements in consumers' credit scores in states that implemented the expansion. 'We've seen that these programs have a meaningful impact on people's financial well-being,' Caswell said. Trump's tax law — which will slash more than $1 trillion in federal health spending over the next decade, mostly through Medicaid cuts — is expected to leave 10 million more people without health coverage by 2034, according to the latest estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The tax cuts, which primarily benefit wealthy Americans, will add $3.4 trillion to U.S. deficits over a decade, the office calculated. The number of uninsured could spike further if Trump and his congressional allies don't renew additional federal subsidies for low- and moderate-income Americans who buy health coverage on state insurance marketplaces. This aid — enacted under former President Joe Biden — lowers insurance premiums and reduces medical bills enrollees face when they go to the doctor or the hospital. But unless congressional Republicans act, those subsidies will expire later this year, leaving many with bigger bills. Federal debt regulations developed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under the Biden administration would have protected these people and others if they couldn't pay their medical bills. The agency issued rules in January that would have removed medical debts from consumer credit reports. That would have helped an estimated 15 million people. But the Trump administration chose not to defend the new regulations when they were challenged in court by debt collectors and the credit bureaus, who argued the federal agency had exceeded its authority in issuing the rules. A federal judge in Texas appointed by Trump ruled that the regulation should be scrapped. Levey writes for KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism.
New York Post
10 hours ago
- New York Post
Trump suggests giving out ‘rebates' from billions in tariff revenue
WASHINGTON — President Trump suggested Friday that some Americans may receive 'rebates' from the federal government after the US Treasury took in $64 billion in tariff revenue in the first three months since his 'Liberation Day' announcement April 2. 'We're thinking about a rebate because we have so much money coming in from tariffs, a little rebate for people of a certain income level,' the president told reporters as he left the White House en route to Scotland for a five-day visit. Trump, 79, didn't detail who might be eligible for the government payment and the White House did not immediately respond to inquiries from The Post. 3 President Donald Trump speaks after disembarking Marine One, as he departs for Scotland, at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, July 25, 2025. REUTERS Any disbursement from the federal government would require congressional approval. The House is currently out of session until Sept. 2 and the Senate is set to follow suit at the end of next week. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the government issued three rounds of stimulus checks to assist Americans affected by widespread business shutdowns and furloughs. The first payments, of $1,200 to individuals making up to $75,000 and $2,400 to couples making up to $150,000, were issued in March 2020. A second round of payments, of $600 to individuals and $1,200 to couples under those thresholds, was doled out in December 2020. The third and final payment, of up to $1,400 to individuals and $2,800 to couples, was approved as part of the Biden-era American Rescue Plan in March 2021. In all, $814 billion in federal relief money was dispersed across those three handouts. In early 2008, most taxpayers making under $75,000 received $300 per individual ($600 for couples) in an unsuccessful bid to stave off a recession. EJ Antoni, the Heritage Foundation's chief economist, frowned on the possibility of taxpayers getting additional money back, telling The Post: 'While it's always politically advantageous to hand out money to constituents, the fact is the federal government has no money to give at this point. When the annual deficit is over $1 trillion, the priority has to be getting that down, not giving the Treasury another outlay. 3 Scott Bessent has estimated trade revenue could total $300 billion. 3 A container ship is seen leaving the Port Jersey Container Terminal, with the Manhattan skyline in the background, as viewed from Staten Island, New York City, on July 23, 2025. AFP via Getty Images 'The real 'rebate' for the American people will come in the form of less inflation from a reduced federal deficit,' Antoni added. 'That's how you solve the current cost of living crisis.' Trump imposed baseline tariffs of 10% in his 'Liberation Day' announcement and has set an Aug. 1 deadline for countries to agree one-for-one trade deals with the US or risk paying additional duties. While the White House has struck framework deals with the UK, Japan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Australia and Vietnam, and a preliminary deal with China, agreements with major trading partners the European Union, Mexico, Canada, Brazil and South Korea remain elusive. According to US Treasury data released earlier this month, the government has raised $64 billion in customs duties — with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and White House trade adviser Peter Navarro forecasting a windfall of $300 billion.
