The Rise of One Nation

THE RISE OF ONE NATION

One Nation under One Flag

This article follows on from my previous posts The Fall of the Two Party System and The Rise of Antisemitism.

The Rise of One Nation

Enter One Nation. A party formed by once fish and chip shop owner, Pauline Hanson. This down to Earth, outspoken and at times controversial Queensland senator was first elected to the house of representatives in 1996 as a dis-endorsed Liberal candidate and served her term as an independent, forming her party in 1997. She was defeated at the end of that term  and spent the next 18 years outside parliament, but was never politically inactive. She ran unsuccessfully  for the lower house and the senate during her wilderness years, finally winning her role in the senate in 2016. Pauline Hanson Was re-elected in 2022, and her current term terminates in 2028.

Pauline and One Nation’s history have been chequered, a rollercoaster ride that would discourage even the most committed. Many of her earlier woes were due to a poor choice in the leadership team and advisors around her. It is fair to say, Pauline learnt more from her failures than successes which revealed her strength and determination. She never lost faith in her beliefs and her love of nation. Wearing her heart on her sleeve, and her forthright approach, was often considered abrasive. Her consistent Australia first and foremost approach to immigration in an increasingly woke society, made her an easy target from all quarters, branding her racist and divisive. In fairness, Hansen has been known to make unfiltered comments but she has the grit to own them. And yet, in hindsight, they resonate because they formed the basis on why she has found the support she has today.

As a mother of 4, small business operator, employee, bookkeeper, and procurer with an education in the university of life, she is well grounded in understanding the challengers of what we the people face in an increasing challenging environment. This is far from the career path of most politicians have travelled today. Especially those of the left.

Pauline Hanson

The Bondi massacre dramatically changed how Pauline Hanson and One Nation were viewed. Already gradually rising in the polls because she had been openly talking since the late 90’s about the elephant in the room, immigration, on how many, and who, should come here and why. This resonated with the public. Now there was a tragedy that underpinned her years of warnings. Something all other political parties had ridiculed and punished her for as they avoided the immigration issues she had warned about  at all costs. Pauline and her party were now being seen as consistent, genuine, beyond petty smoke and mirror politics. She was transparent, clearly committed to what she says and believes in and somewhere the public could turn to.

The question the media asked was, would her meteoric rise in the polls translate into votes. This was answered in the South Australian state election. They did. And convincingly. The media narrative changed in that One Nation was taking votes from the conservatives where a more accurate statement would have been that the conservatives had lost those votes to One Nation.
A protest party? An establishment wish. They have evolved much further than that.

Those conservatives and even Labour supporters who respected Hawke are feeling disenfranchised, abandoned in the values that bound them, are looking for the security, social cohesion, national pride and character, we once enjoyed. And while the coalition offers some and Labour’s modern Australia none, it is not enough. And if Labour and the coalition remain in denial of this, those abandoned will continue to flock to One Nation.

The next test for One Nation would come in the seat of Farrer, the former seat of retired opposition leader Sussan Ley. With One Nation, the Liberals, Nationals, Greens and a number of independents running, one of whom was endorsed and funded by the Teals but insisted she was an independent, and with no Labour candidate, it would be an interesting contest with preferences playing a major role.

One Nation won convincingly, strengthening its prime vote beyond predictions while the Liberal Party was decimated with a massive loss of support.

It was not a clean election with regard to One Nation. The timing of the information that Pauline Hanson had employed a convicted, but released sex offender in her Brisbane office. That her Farrer candidate, David Farley had dealings with the Labour Party, including a donation. And a physical but minor scuffle between a pensioner One Nation booth worker and Liberal senator James Paterson which received national coverage and question over who was the protagonist failed to hurt the party’s standing with voters.

What becomes apparent in One Nation’s upward trend is that personal attack on Hanson and her followers are counterproductive. Hanson presents a clear, consistent, down to earth position without the embellishment or equivocation of a career politician. She looks, presents and represents exactly what she is and believes in. Hanson’s position on immigration have been consistent since she first came to parliament. That of this government and the conservatives are not. Where they equivocate in mentioning the core of the issues before us, radical Islam, thus also avoiding open and necessary debate on it for fear of either political backlash or not having real conviction in the first place.

The electorate knows this. They also know this issue is a core element of the breakdown in our social cohesion and a major catalyst in the Bondi massacre which continues to be pushed into a political darkness by Labour and a lesser extent the conservatives in their reluctance to openly and consistently call it out by name, a reluctance stemming from perceived political consequences.

What the Farrer election has shown is that there are more One Nation voters out there that have not declared. That the polls are not identifying them and that they will, in increasing numbers, reveal themselves as this people movement grows. Attacking them only reinforces their conviction, and unlike them, that the major parties lack clear and decisive conviction in what they say.

Labour has done itself no favours either. Its boasted centre rule is about half way to the left of Hawke’s centre, a Labour PM who enjoyed votes and support from even hard core conservatives, in recognition of what he promised and achieved. Hawke’s larrikin personality, that reflects the Australian culture, helped, where today on either side there is little or none. And as for the Liberals and Nationals, they remain unquantifiable at this time because they had abandoned their values and betrayed their base supporters where words do not necessarily mean future action in consideration of their performance of late and the mixed messages that the politically aware are hearing.

Both Liberal and National parties claim their goal is to remove this socialist Labour government. But their actions are in conflict with that statement. If the Liberals, Nationals, Labour, Teals or Greens cannot see that the two party system is in its death throes, then they are poor representatives for we, the electorate. Labour has some understanding of it, knowing and needing the support of preferences it has shored up its success with the Greens, Teals and the odd independent.

Preferences will win the next federal election, not going it alone.  And with three conservative forces, each with  different core values, but not that far removed from one another, they must find an accord between them to remove this government.

Where to from here 19.5.26

Treasurer Jim Chalmer’s  Intergenerational Budget hit the ground like a cow patty with Labour being accused of lying about not changing negative gearing, accusations to which they responded with, “We have changed our position”. In response to this in his opposition parliamentary budget address, Angus Taylor did more than address the budget by announcing a raft of new policies covering immigration, and those elements that destabilized social cohesion with a caveat of his coalition winning the next election due before May 20^th  2028.

While these policies hit the right tone, the delivery was dispassionate, a notable observation shared by many commentators. The policies were also noted to be similar to those in the One Nation playbook and not mentioned on the Liberal/conservative website, but easily identifiable on One Nation’s. These points are a problem for Taylor. Firstly by not acknowledging One Nation’s influence on his policy and secondly by delivering a policy speech that lacked a sense of conviction that presented a bland contrast to Pauline Hanson.

While Taylor is of the centre right, his broad church of members still contains a strong and influential faction of centre left that are also represented in his national coalition partners. Rumours that this faction is considering forming its own party is also unhelpful. Challenged from within and without, can he hold the party together for the next two years? And should he win that election, can he enact those policies?

Labour’s much vaunted campaign/propaganda machine will put both the coalition and One Nation under considerable attack recognizing that any preference deal between them presents the greatest danger. Both member parties in the coalition must recognize this as the two party system continues to unravel. The electorates aim is simple, It want’s change in direction, it is rejecting socialist ideology, woke culture, failed economic policies, Net Zero, unfettered immigration, and all they represent which are clearly defined, opposed, and prosecuted by One Nation.

By the coalition attacking One Nation, it is setting itself apart from the aims of the electorate, a point of view supported by borrowing their policies without so much as an acknowledgment and thereby declaring it is business as usual. Even John Howard borrowed One Nation policies in the past, going on to win. That, taken in the context of the coalition’s significant drift to the left over the years since Turnbull, does not instill what they need most, trust. And it is also hard to trust a party leader who, under pressure, suddenly makes a 180 degree turn and angelically preaches  party founder Bob Menzies’ policies along with borrowing those of One Nation while at the same time not acknowledging both.

The message Taylor is sending is the wrong one. That only his conservative party can change the Status Quo. The electorate views it as arrogance. He should instead focus on those things in common with One Nation, like the policies he has borrowed, not what divides them. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Either party will need a preference swap to win the next election. To ignore that will deliver another Labour government. The electorate knows this. And frankly, according to the polls, they don’t really care which of the two takes the senior position as long as they get the result they want. And if they don’t, it’s not hard to calculate who they will hold to account.

Taylor as leader must decide which is most important, the pride and ambitions of his party or delivering what this nation needs.

14.6.26

The prediction that more One Nation supporters would reveal themselves has proven accurate with 3 separate polls having them as the most popular party in the nation as they cut into the Labour primary vote.

Barnaby Joyce’s error in defining One Nation’s home ownership policy on the Bolt Report in saying that non-citizens could lose their homes, and then going off air, making a call, and returning, retracting and correcting his statement did them no harm either. I haven’t  seen anything like this since former Queensland Premier, Peter Beattie said, “I’ve stuffed up, but I’ll fix it. Politicians don’t usually admit their mistakes, or lies for that matter and Barnaby’s honesty actually gained One Nation a couple of percentage points.

Tony Abbot has taken over the Liberal Party leadership and called for a preference swap with One Nation but moderate elements within the parliamentary party are reluctant to concede this which underpins Pauline Hansen’s earlier comment that Abbot has no power while outside parliament and the Liberal parliamentarians are still factionally divided.

A comment by Sky news Presenter Peter Credlin while dissecting the Albanese tax lie was taken up by guest and One Nation backroom political guru, James Ashby who on signing off put those 3 words into action. “Fire the Liar” became a fund raising juggernauts  which within 3 days has raised over $3.7m and rising. This money is all set aside to bring down Albanese and his close cohorts. When questioned about the size of the donations reported to have come from over 60 thousand donators, Albanese replied  in a questioning and condescending tone, “Did she really”? I wonder how many more primary votes that will cost him in the next poll.

A little over 70 minutes later, opposition leader Angus Taylor in an interview with Sharri Markson did no better when asked similar questions. He did not answer the questions, again not acknowledging One Nation. He banged on, ad infinitum, about what his focus was, telling Markson what we were concerned with and wanted. The problem here is that in the first place he told us what we want, and in the second, he was a part of the problem that brought us here and now recants using many of One Nation’s policies in his delivery. Angus also implied that Pauline was now a 30 year career politician, and that he was relatively new to the game of only 10 years. Perhaps he forgot or skipped over that those 10 years of his were those when the coalition lost direction, its values, betrayed its base, and public trust as it raced pell-mell to the left and socialism.

And then highlighting the divide within Taylor’s opposition, Deputy Opposition leader Jane Hume spoke strongly against any accord with One Nation and alluded to some caveats on announced opposition policy. Taylor has his own demons in his party to deal with before he can convincingly guarantee the policies he is preaching the public.

What we are seeing here dispels the put down that One Nation is only a protest party. One indication, other than the polls, is that over 60 thousand people have invested their hard earned money to have it win. We are witnessing is a dramatic shift of the political landscape. A political and cultural revolution without the guns. but as Pauline Hanson puts it, a movement “built on hope”.  Hanson has opened debate on those conversations we have to have, the very ones that both sides of the house were too cowardly to even whisper about.

19.6.26

It took thirty years in politics and a cultural revolution reshaping the political landscape to get Pauline Hanson an invitation to address the Australian National Press Club. Expectations were high from supporters and detractors alike. Could this raw and controversial party leader and senator stand strong under the pressure of the journalism elite?

Pauline Hanson at the National Press Club of Australia

Hanson began her speech and the nerves showed. But as she moved through familiar territory she settled. While no Churchill or Disraeli, nor employing the expected point pause to solicit accolade, her words ripped into forbidden territory. She tore off the band aids over festering wounds rotting our social cohesion, economic security and political complacency. No quarter asked for or given. It was the same unrelenting, unequivocal, and steadfast Pauline Hansen we have watched for the past 30 years. A constant anchor in a decaying political system.

Question time proved no different. If the gallery expected the usual political deflection, equivocation or  “take under advisement”, there would be none. Who could forget The Guardian reporter, Sarah Martin who asked Hanson if she had interfered in the appointment in her daughter, Lee Hanson getting a $15000.00 taxpayer job as senior advisor to One Nation Senator Sean Bell.

Sarah Martin was left standing with a frozen smile on her face as Hanson tore apart her professional ethics and standards, totally and effectively reversing this personal attack. And then Hansen slammed the door shut by answering this poisoned question by explaining the substantial merits under which her daughter Lee won the job in her own right.

The swift condemnation from the journalists union regarding Hanson’s combative response
goes to the falling standards in journalism today. A question that could be damaging to a person’s reputation can become subject to defamation law, but it is difficult and costly to prosecute due to interpretation of context and potential level of harm, so few pursue it for those reasons. If Martin had undisputable proof that Hansen had clearly interfered in her daughter’s appointment, why not write the story? But that would leave Martin and her paper open to  a clear case of defamation while asking a question would still have a similar effect on Hanson with less exposure. Hanson’s response to Martin was a wise and effective way to deal with a personal attach on her, her daughter, and her reputation.

Now, 2 days after the rumble in Canberra, the aftermath is dominating the headlines. Hansen pretty much covered it all and as expected sections of the media with deceitful editing or omission have fiddled with the context of her words, especially with regard to immigration.
And it is here where the greatest erosion of the Australian character and values reside.

“We cannot be a multicultural society. We are a multiracial society. We must be monocultural. Australia must live under the one culture umbrella”. These words by Pauline Hanson sent shockwaves through the left, and along with her insistence that migrants should learn and be competent with English raised the usual call of racist. But what does monoculture mean? And why should migrants be forced to learn English?

Monoculture has conflicting interpretations. But Hanson has  clearly articulated her position over the past 30 years as a core policy. Monoculture manifests as the active preservation of a country’s national culture. As simple as that. And learning English has practical, social and economic implications. Being able to travel extensively and communicate with the broader population. Gaining knowledge of our nation and the people who live within it. Getting a job. All of which is necessary to become and commit to being a productive Australian citizen.

The alternative is, in not speaking the common language forces an individual to seek and continue to live within the comfort of a community and culture they know, which some call tribalism. The result of which creates enclaves of likeminded individuals adhering to the cultures and practices familiar to them. Not unlike a country within a country where the cultures may be at opposites which creates social disruption and as the pressure increases through growing immigration and cultures, or elements thereof that are significantly dissimilar, the collapse of social cohesion.

What Hanson is saying is the equivalent of, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do”. “If you don’t like it here, you are free to leave”.  “If you are not a citizen and break our laws, you will be deported”. “And if you are a citizen, break our laws, you will face the full force of the Law”. None of those are racist, an excuse used simply because they are applied to an immigrant. And a tactic of the left to negate debate on a critical issue. Everyone from anywhere is equally subject to our laws. If someone came invited into your home, then became disruptive, belligerent or radically challenged your values, would you invite them to an overnight stay and breakfast in the morning or ask them to leave? This is Hanson’s point.

In contrast we have PM Albanese’s ideological policy on immigration. “Diversity is our strength”  And his response to criticism thereof, “There are some, including some in political life, who want to turn back the clock to an Australia that is no longer who we are and we need to call out these people”.

Given that Australia has never been so divided, even more so since his watch and considering the discernible success of immigration during the 50’s through to the early 70’s until the Whitlam government changed the immigration parameters, Albanese’s comment has no justification. In fact, it casts aspersions on those immigrants who have given so much to the success in building our great nation in trying to justify what has become an abject policy failure rightfully criticized for the damage it has caused.

We face a bottomless abyss in the direction we are heading. Moving back would be wise. And if we are here, no longer what we were as Albanese puts it, why would we not learn the lessons from our successful past and choose to replicate it? Perhaps a case of flawed ideology meeting common sense and reality?

Love her or loathe her, Hanson did many things at the Australian Press Club. She opened festering wounds so that we could air and expunge them and have the conversations we should always have had. She has come under far more scrutiny than Labour’s Albanese, Chalmers, Wong, Bowen, and Burke, or the coalition’s Taylor, or Canavan ever have, and demonstrated she is up to it. And she did it without the evasion or obfuscation of her rivals by clearly answering every question. Is she a potential prime Minister? She certainly presented many qualities of one. And has she the policy detail and the team to put her in that position? It’s a long way to the next election and time will allow her to round off her challenge provided the media allows her that courtesy.

But it should be remembered that Pauline Hanson does not stand alone. She is a catalyst and rally point for the people who have had enough. Those who are dismayed about our cost of living, rising national debt, hatred of our history, destruction of our culture, race towards socialism and the betrayal of our conservative parties. They trust her. And this could not be said for our remaining political system.

This story is not over. It is the beginning and last throw of the dice as to where our future lies. There is one question we must all consider. Can we trust those who have consistently failed us or choose a new direction? Somewhere between now and May 2028 we better have the answer.

© 2026 Bob Janssen | BobJanssen.com.au

The Rise of Antisemitism

 

THE RISE OF ANTISEMITISM

This article follows on from my previous post The Fall of the Two Party System

The Rise of Antisemitism

But that issue was only a precursor of more social destabilization to come where with the horrendous 7.10. 23 Hamas, attack on Israel, just 7 days before the Voice referendum, would rip what social cohesion remained to straining point. This declared terrorist regime that controlled Gaza would dominate the headlines for the years to come.

Within 24 hours of this terrorist attack two events that would herald a total loss of moral clarity for the better part of the next two and a half years occurred. A Moslem cleric, Sheikh Ibrahim Daudon, before a crowd shouting “Allah Akbar” shouted “I’m smiling and I’m happy. I’m elated, It’s a day of pride. It’s a day of courage, a day of victory we’ve been waiting for.”

 

Sheikh Ibrahim Daudon

And then the march on the Opera House, where Australian Jews were to meet in a vigil of mourning, a Palestinian flag waving mob shouting “Where’s/gas the Jews” (indistinguishable) burnt the Israeli flag set off flares and celebrated the murder, by gunfire stabbing, strangling, beheading and immolation. 1200 men, women, children, babes and elderly were killed and 251 hostages taken with many deceased victims raped and desecrated. All this, two weeks before Israel had taken any retaliatory action against Hamas and witnessed by NSW police without intervention other than one Israeli man held for carrying an Israeli flag.

For the next two and a half years similar events would occur regularly throughout our nation with the shouts of “from the river to the sea”, “globalize the intifada” and later, “Death, death to the IDF”, all of which are calls for the destruction of not only Israel but Jews worldwide, including Australian citizens.

With the government giving little more than lip service to this rising antisemitism, and incapable of mentioning the former without including a non-existent islamophobia, and despite Jewish Australians calling for action in fear of increasing vandalism, hate speech and violence it was allowed to continue under the guise of freedom of speech and political implications.

The hater’s words turned to action, the stabbing of a priest, the burning of synagogue, a child care centre and finally the predictable outcome that forever will be known as “The Bondi Massacre”. Hitler’s final solution had taught us nothing. All the signs were there but our government was unwilling to see.

There was one failed attempt by this government to deal with a cleric, Wissam Haddad, accused of hate speech. He was not alone in delivering it. His broadcast ended in “the trees will speak, the stones will speak, if you see a Jew behind you, kill him.”

The cleric walked away free because he was quoting verse in The Koran.

As what for the moment remains predominantly a Judeo-Christian country, many of we Australians would have issue with that ruling. While the cleric focused his hate on the Jews, the text includes kafir/ infidels which translates to non-believers of Islam. That identifies all other denominations, atheists and agnostics alike which are represented by 96,8% of our population.

While our vast Moslem population do not adhere to this text, some may well. And many of us would delve into the minds of the two alleged Bondi massacre shooters, both of whom were reportedly part of the Wisam Haddad’s group of adherents. What was their motivation?  We may never know. Clearly, in retrospect, this quotation from the Quran needs far better attention in understanding its effect in radicalizing those who act upon it in the belief it is justified as God’s work.

Even the historical lessons of the catholic Holy-Medieval Inquisition, continuous between the 12^th and early 19^th century. Those who did not strictly adhere to the scriptures and teachings of the church were at times subjected to torture and death in draconian ways whether they were within or outside the church have been forgotten. Even those of science who challenged the teaching of creation in the study and revelations of our solar system became victims. Astronomer/mathematician Copernicus who placed the Sun as the centre of our solar system and not the Earth was one who went before the holy inquisition trial. As a canon of the church, highly connected and with care his observation was put aside and he survived, but his observation was banned 70 years later in favour of the churches doctrine of creation.

 At a time in our history when we espouse to racial and religious tolerance our government seems to tolerate the very thing that contradicts it, a text that allows no tolerance of another religion under potential pain of death to the non-believer. In that alone, preaching this text surpasses hate speech in what it may induce one to commit in the name of and with the blessing of God

After years of woke ideology, the incremental breakdown of our social cohesion, attacks on our national heritage, fear of being called racist or uncaring for objecting to the abandonment of long held values there came a pivotal moment in our history. A bloody, confronting, and tragic one. 14 December 2025, The Bondi Massacre.

Two alleged gunmen, father and son, late in the afternoon during a Jewish Hanukkah festival shot to death 11 men, 3 women, a 10-year-old girl and wounded 44 others. Australia was in shock. But accompanying it was a cocktail of sympathy, mourning and anger that would have lasting recriminations.

Many saw that this heinous act fell partially to the lack of positive action by the government, which despite the signs, and warnings, failed to act appropriately to the rising temperature of rampant antisemitism. There were calls for a royal commission which prime minister, Anthony Albanese rejected until weeks later, he was dragged, reluctantly to institute one, yet claiming it was always his intention. It was a win for justice, though the time frame and terms of reference did not satisfy all.

And then, although few may realize or admit it, another emotion came into play, guilt. The Bondi massacre and other factors that proceeded it played on people’s minds, and many realized we had allowed it to happen by not doing enough ourselves in preventing them by pushing the Albanese government harder on immigration and the hate filled weekly protests. Sure, we got our Royal Commission but there was more to do.

With the royal commission yet to play out and an interim report receiving mixed reviews in its lack of detail on the contentious issue of the radical Islam and the role it played in favour of lesser catalysts, those who hold to a realist approach in calling out the obvious cause that for political expedience have gone unacknowledged, grow in number.  

This article continues in my next post The Rise of One Nation.

© 2026 Bob Janssen | BobJanssen.com.au

The Fall of The Two Party System

 THE FALL OF THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM

FORWARD

Between 63-70% of Australians say we are heading in the wrong direction. Our country has never been more divided and at a time when geopolitical influences are threatening.
But our greatest challenge comes from within, influenced by radical changes in various policies that have impacted on our economy, cost of living, defense, and culture.

We live under a Democratic Representative Government. But increasingly it does not feel so. We stand at a crossroad where our political landscape has changed from the two party system to an emerging something else.

Obviously there must be change to meet the expectations of the majority of the people, the very essence of a democracy. The following story is a brief of how we got here and what has developed since. It is a work in progress that will be upgraded as circumstances change or new developments appear.

 Do we remain with the status Quo, or revisit our successful past for guidance in our choice of a new path? And who do we choose and trust to take us along that path?

The facts are there, opinions mine, and the choice ultimately yours. But somewhere between now and May 2028 we all must make that choice.

____________________________________________________________

We are no longer the open minded and tolerant people we once were. We have become polarized. There are no shades of grey.  Freedom of speech flows one way where to challenge or criticize this modern Australia has significant consequences. Where once we had robust debate, today we have “Cancelling”. The following is recent history but decisions much earlier would form the cornerstones that would change our nation, its character and values.

The Whitlam government changing the conditions of immigration was one of those cornerstones. Speaking our language was no longer a condition nor was assimilation into our culture or a reasonable understanding of our history. Where second generation immigrants had previously moved out from their parent’s homes to live and work within a broader community,  they became further exposed to and assimilating into Australian society. Whitlam’s change created ethnic enclaves where traditional culture, language, and religion predominated throughout following generations. With less focus on assimilation there was bound to be  a clash of cultures where a predominantly Judeo-Christian culture met radical elements of Islam.

Climate change science has been around since the late 18^th century but it took one Al Gore and his 1992 book “Earth in Balance,” his campaign in 2000 and the documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” in 2006 for it to reach worldwide attention with predictions of a dying planet. The impact would create a cult-like global movement that would divide society and potentially impoverish nations in addressing fears built on assumptions and modelling.

Julia Gillard’s parting gift to society when losing office to Kevin Rudd in a hostile spill, was the Sexual Discrimination Act, a change to the definition of sexual identity, where a man could be legally defined as a woman. This ignorance of biology and contradiction to the laws of procreation have since offered stepping stones to the division, loss of space, identity, rights and social upheaval biological women are faced with today.

Whether consciously or subconsciously everything we do in life is measured against our values. If we abandon or compromise them, or they are taken from us, we are set adrift. Values determine who and what we are how our lives are affected, now and into the future.

The eventual realization of that gives us hope.

A roller Coaster Downward Spiral for Conservative Politics

Two prime ministers, and two opposition leaders played roles in the downward spiral of the Liberal National coalition. PM Malcolm Turnbull who would later be thought of as a brilliant Labour or Teal candidate. PM Scott Morrison, who famously extolled the virtues of a lump of coal in parliament but then drooped it to the pressure of climate change moderates within his party.

Opposition leader Peter Dutton who showed promise with his opposition to The Voice and later
a proposition for nuclear energy but failed to follow through on the latter. And finally, Opposition leader Sussan Ley, the beneficiary of a humiliating defeat, a moderate, faced with objectively dissecting Liberal’s failure, reviewing policy and strategy, for a hard road back to relevance, stalled, split the coalition twice and paid the price.

                                                  

Prime Minister Tony Abbot 18.8.2013 to 14.8.2015

Tony Abbot was the last Liberal prime minister of the Howard mold. He won a landslide victory (90 coalition seats) from Kevin Rudd’s second term in office who took it from Julia Gillard in a  hostile spill. Abbot, a centre right, is best remembered for implementing Operation Sovereign Borders, an upgraded version of Howard’s 2001 Pacific Solution, repealing the Gillard’s carbon tax, free trade with Japan, China and South Korea. And no one could forget his biting into a full jacketed raw onion. Abbot’s government was cut short in a spill engineered by Malcom Turnbull who had been his Minister for Communications. In a following election Turnbull won 76 coalition seats.

Tony Abbot

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull 14.8.2015 to 24.8.2018

Turnbull, a well-heeled resident of Point Piper held several degrees was experienced across a range of professions and oozed charm and led the lobby for Australia to become a republic. A talented communicator, he became the darling of the media, especially the ABC.
Turnbull was a moderate, supporter of renewable energy and open to elements of the growing woke ideology. Slowly, with support from the moderates, the party began drifting to the left as the party’s values began to change under Turnbull’s watch.

 There were two observable aspects for a Turnbull legacy. his hard drive on economic policy and his renewable energy policy brainchild of Snowy 2.0 hydro-electric scheme, announced to cost $2 billion. Today that project is 70% complete at a cost of $12 billion and estimated to finally cost $45 billion to complete. As for Turnbull’s economic drive, it became part of his spill strategy when ousting Tony Abbot accusing him as unfit in lacking sound and targeted economic policy which, Turnbull charged, explained Abbot’s 30 consecutive falls in Newspoll’s.
The latter would come back to haunt Turnbull when he surpassed Abbot’s downward Newspoll record.

Challenged in a spill by Peter Dutton, Turnbull survived 48 to 35. But the party was dissatisfied and within weeks demanded another spill with Peter Dutton, Scott Morrison and Julie Bishop the challengers. Turnbull upon seeing the numbers called no contest. Bishop lost the first round, and Morrison won against Dutton 45 votes to 40.

Today, Malcolm Turnbull maintains his charm, communication skills and remains the darling of the media. He comments on anything that interests him but especially the Liberal Party he once led where he is mostly seen on the ABC, much to the coalition’s dismay.

Malcom Turnbull

Prime Minister Scott Morrison 24.8.2018 to 23.5.2022

Scott Morrison went on to win the 2019 election he attributed to a miracle winning 77 coalition seats against a strong polling Bill Shorten who was declared by pundits and large sections of the media to be in an unlosable position. Shorten, Labour right. stepped down as opposition leader in favour of Labour hard left, Anthony Albanese.

Morrison, a religious man who dubbed himself as a “daggy dad”, came under immense pressure of the renowned Labour propaganda machine that had clearly started their next election campaign within days of Morrison’s swearing in. What was Howard’s centre right party had drifted to the left where the moderate faction began to dominate which led Morrison to compromise, the policy change in accepting net zero being an example. Morrison began to stumble.

When the Brittany Higgins case became a national scandal bolstered by Labour’s false allegations of a cover up, Morrison publicly apologized for the handling of the case. A decision that was unwarranted as it turned out, and unwise as it offered Labour a credible argument against Morrison and his government. His family holiday in Hawaii, was ill timed as sections of Australia burned, but his comment “I don’t hold a fire hose mate” burned into the public psyche.   Both stumbles were gold handled flays for the Labour’s propaganda machine, and Morrison was severely flogged, with them.

The Labour attacks, Morrison’s stumbles and the party’s move to the left which began the branding of the party as Labour light saw Morrison lose the 2022 election to Anthony Albanese leaving the coalition with 77 seats and Labour to govern by a slim margin. Peter Dutton became opposition leader.

Scott Morrison

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton 5.6. 2022 to 3.5. 2025

Peter Dutton comes from the centre right of the Liberal party. A former policeman, soft spoken but passionate about his politics, was left with a difficult task. The party continued to drift to the left either adopting or bowing to Labour policies with fading resistance when it came to vote on those policies even when its rhetoric would seem otherwise.  The party faithful noticed. And so did Labour emboldened by their win and having an expectation of more than two terms they wanted to ensure it.

Whatever Dutton said or did he was ridiculed. Labour's propaganda machine was in full swing, and the ridicule had no bounds, often becoming personal. Dutton suffers from alopecia, a disease that causes baldness in spots or total. In 2015 he was cruelly called Mr. Potato head. That slight reappeared with a vengeance. But the greatest slight of all was when government minister Anika Wells accused Dutton of being a protector of pedophilias.

That said, Dutton did some damage to the party’s standing himself. Following the lead of the Nationals Dutton prosecuted the No case for “The Voice’’ and rose in the polls but then rested on his laurels. He then presented his nuclear energy concept which was met with ridicule and misinformation by Labour and faltered. During the 2022 election his policies did not resonate as the difference between Labour's, if any, were marginal. And his final failure was to demolish Liberal’s economic credentials by entering an escalating bidding war with them. More of the party faithful began to look elsewhere and felt the party had abandoned them.

 Albanese dominated the election winning 94 seats leaving the coalition holding 58, Katter party 1, the greens 4 and the independents including the Teals,10. The Liberal Party were the greatest losers. With the backing of the Greens and the Teals in the lower house and the Senate, Albanese had a clear path to establish his ideological goals.

Peter Dutton

Opposition Leader Sussan Ley 13.5.25 to 13 2. 26

Shocked, stunned, almost to the point of catatonic the Liberal party took 10 days of deliberation to choose it next leader. But who would drink of the poisoned chalice. There were two challengers, Susan Ley and Angus Taylor. Susan Ley became Opposition leader. Whether that was a win or lose, history will decide. Even the most astute followers of politics considered it a temporary chair.

Ley, a moderate politician of long standing and experience, held the seat of Farrer, a large rural electorate. She enjoyed the enviable reputation of a woman who achieved much through sheer determination in her pursuits, profession and self-development. Unfortunately, at times in addressing an audience, she would overcompensate in her delivery by over gesturing and pronunciation which came across as insincere. This rightly or wrongly was perceived as rehearsed, lacking sincerity, and not the heart the people were looking for.

Ley had to face a coalition in turmoil, self-focused, unable to objectively discuss what went wrong and arguing whether it should move to the right or left, the latter of which Labour was encouraging. And in this seemingly bottomless well of indecision the coalition forgot its prime responsibility of holding the government to scrutiny thereby failing its base that remained let alone the rest of the nation. Howard’s broad church was in disarray and effectively dysfunctional.

The first coalition split between the Nationals and Liberals over policy to which observers thought Ley overacted was not long resolved when there was another. Ley’s reaction and rhetoric was confusing seeming to on one hand indicate that the liberals could be an opposition alone. The centre right within the party had enough and challenged Ley. Two candidates were favoured, Angus Taylor and Andrew Hastie, but Hastie had no interest. Angus Taylor won that challenge 34-17 and Sussan Ley would step down as an MP.

Sussan Ley

The Impact of Woke Culture

The impeding coalition downfall was exacerbated by “woke culture” that made offending a crime, socially by being as commonly described, “cancelled”, and in some cases, legally. Sexual identity became legally recognized upon declaration. Biology or chromosomes no longer applied. Transgender males were given the right to women’s spaces, and to compete in women’s sport, even the Olympics. To deny them was punishable under the law. Racism, inequality, discrimination, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia etc. were seen everywhere no matter how remote the action or word. And words used for generations were changed because they may offend someone’s interpretation of woke political correctness. Having a conversation or making comment became a minefield of social cancelling or even legal recriminations.

Nowhere was this culture more prevalent than in the academia, legal and political class. As a friend of mine once said of academia, “There is nothing worse than an educated idiot.” I trust he forgives me for the change to “useful idiot” as it turned out. The legal fraternity had to either prosecute or defend it, And the politicians, well some would never offend with votes at stake, while the realists had the Echidna approach, and dealt with it very carefully, though not enough to cause any serious damage. And the media was not spared this corruption either. The ethics of journalism became viewed through a woke filter within elements of the broad media. News reporting could become statements of opinion peppered with bias rather than objectivity and balance. This, in my opinion, is especially prevalent in our ABC

The impact of woke culture here changed our once admired national character, our unique sense of humour, our tolerance levels and open trust formerly shared between Australians in stifling how we communicated. Equality, Inclusion and Diversity changed our workplace, our parliament and military forces where merit, incentive, and individual ambition became secondary. We were becoming part of a heard, doomed to be herded at the government’s discretion. We were travelling the path towards the very essence of socialism.

Anthony Albanese, the Socialist’s Socialist

Anthony Albanese’s early life is well recorded being bought up by his single parent mother and grandparents reliant on their combined pensions. His political journey began when at 15 he joined Young Labour and continued his role as an activist while studying economics at the University of Sydney. Other than a short employment with the Commonwealth bank, Albanese embarked on his political career taking up a position as a researcher with Labour stalwart Tom Uren. He became entrenched in the Labour far left faction which had ideological connections to the Australian communist party.

Albanese won his seat of Grayndler in 1996 and worked his rise through the ranks and various ministries to become deputy prime minister under Rudd’s second term in 2013 but lost that role later that year when Rudd was defeated by Tony Abbot.

Following Labour rules, leadership of the party was declared vacant and Albanese declared his candidacy with the other challenger Bill Shorten of the Labour right. Shorten was declared the winner. Under Shorten Albanese was nominated as Shadow minister of infrastructure and transport, Shadow minister of tourism and a year later, Shadow minister of cities. Albanese held those shadow ministries throughout Shortens leadership term.

Malcolm Turnbull’s narrow victory in the of 2016 election would normally attract a Labour leadership challenge with Albanese as the presumed favourite, but Albanese declined the challenge and Shorten remained the opposition leader.

A further conservative leadership change saw Scott Morrisson win his 2019 “miracle election” gaining one more seat (77) than Turnbull’s (76) where Shorten resigned his leadership. Both Albanese and Chris Bowen announced their candidacy but Bowen withdrew realizing he did not have the numbers. Albanese became Opposition leader which heralded a dramatic change in Labour’s ideological pursuits and one that the conservatives failed to address.

The lead up to the 2022 election saw the Labour propaganda machine in full swing with Morrison under continuous attack. The misinformation, accusation, manufactured evidence, and bullying of the Higgins affair. The mistimed holiday by Morrison and his “fire hose” hose comment were all played out by Labour. And none of these were adequately challenged by the conservatives.

Capping this all was the presentation of a new Anthony Albanese. Gone was the hard left persona, replaced with a thinner man, better dressed with his new, younger partner on constant show to further soften his image. He presented himself as a new man with safe economic hands who had a plan that would address all the nations challenges. A plan that was strong on rhetoric but bereft of detail, a tactic that would continue as his base strategy.

Never one strong on detail and caught out at times on that shortcoming, the Labour's machine adapted with the united team strategy by surrounding Albanese with various ministers to whom he would defer in press engagements when frequently unsure of his ground.

Albanese had three main issues to his campaign, safe and responsible economic management, cost of living and the importance of renewable energy from the perspective of the environment and the nation becoming a global renewable powerhouse that would save $275 pa in our power bills.

The electorate bought it and Anthony Albanese became prime minister.

Anthony Albanese

The Statement from the Heart that would Rock Australia

 Election night Saturday 22 May 2022. Anthony Albanese becomes Prime Minister of Australia. In his victory speech he makes a surprising declaration, he will prosecute the case for the Uluru Statement from the heart. the details of which comprised a lengthy document, and the process to achieve it named The Voice.

Uluru Statement from the heart

Even his party was surprised. This was far removed from the main focus of the campaign. It was interpreted as Albanese’s clear stamp in initiating his legacy for his term in office.

 The Voice was explained as a means for aboriginals and Torres Strait islanders having a stronger voice, within parliament in what affected them through legislation, past, present and pending. This would be achieved by an elected body that would council government within the process of parliament and their rights and powers would be incorporated within our constitution. The challenge was, that any constitutional change, requires a referendum. Pollsters were quick in determining support for any such change which revealed a national support base of around 65%. There was a need for public debate on the issue which developed into an organized yes, and no campaign. The yes campaign spent $60M with most money coming from the corporate sector while the no campaign spent $20-25M. The cost (federal) of the referendum was $411M.

The referendum was soundly defeated with a 60.06% majority and the only winning yes vote  registered was by the ACT.

The no vote was generated by a confluence of objections and positions taken by certain players as well as the failures of Albanese in prosecuting his case.

The racist argument The yes campaign worked on the basis that those opposed were racist, uncaring, or both, while the no case deferred to the constitution as colourblind in the equality of all Australians regardless of colour, race or creed, and placing any race above any other was in fact racist.

The fairness argument There were already 11 indigenous representatives in federal parliament, (3 in the house of representatives and 8 in the senate) who were elected by the population through our representative government process. By percentage, their representation was greater than any other ethnic group within our nation.

Albanese’s argument that doing the same has the same result  This was challenged by stating that adding another layer to an already broken system was not a solution and there needed to be a Royal Commission into where the tens of billions of funds were going.

What the voice actually was and what its goals were The yes case put out a one page document explaining what the voice was and what its goals were. Aspects of the goals of the document were missing in a document, 26 pages long that had been reduced to one. Challenged by SKY News commentator, Peta Credlin, PM Albanese denied this and dug in on the one page argument. This had the effect where some in the population sourced the full document and saw the discrepancies.

Albanese’s open cheque approach Following the revelation of a much larger document, and Albanese’s trust me approach in asking the electorate to vote yes where the government would fill in the details of how it would proceed later, the electorate began to turn sharply.

Peter Dutton's Liberals join the no campaign With the Nationals already entrenched in the no campaign, well presented by  and calls for the Liberals to join them on basic ethical grounds rather than their hedging to date, Dutton went all in further strengthening the opposing case.

The Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Anthony Mundine effect Price and Mundine played major roles in the no campaign acting as credible players having lived and experienced the plight of aboriginal peoples and witnessing the continuing failures of various government/indigenous systems in addressing them. There was more than their objection to the voice in that they offered alternate solutions which, sadly were not taken up after its ultimate defeat.

There was no greater cause for the defeat of the voice than Albanese himself. It was not thought through. Had many flaws. Was based on, and relied on emotive virtue signaling. Offered no real solutions. Did not stack up under scrutiny. And any government that asked for an open check legislation, especially in the constitution was a government either taking the people for granted or treating them as fools. This was not Albanese’s first exposure of lack of transparency or looseness with the truth, and nor would it be his last.

This article continues in my next posts The Rise of Antisemitism and The Rise of One Nation.

© 2026 Bob Janssen | BobJanssen.com.au

Queensland Government Has Killed Off Competition To Get Its Own Way

QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT HAS KILLED OFF COMPETITION TO GET ITS OWN WAY

The Queensland government continues its well orchestrated campaign to build a Brisbane cruise ship terminal base port despite being offered a far superior and cost free proposal on the Gold Coast the details of which can be found on Facebook.

To compare the two proposals and their benefits, below is an extract from and a link to The Urban Developer story. This is followed by what is questionable about the government’s handling of what is fundamentally the future of the Gold Coast and how it effects our entire State.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Extract:

Plans for a mega cruise ship terminal near the mouth of the Brisbane River have progressed after stakeholders reached an in principle agreement with Port of Brisbane Pty Ltd.

Treasurer and Minister for Trade and Investment Curtis Pitt said the agreement with the State Government, Brisbane City Council and Queensland Urban Utilities meant the project had taken a significant step forward in the government’s Market- Led Proposal assessment process.

‘This milestone shows this government, through our Market-Led Proposal initiatives, is in the business of creating jobs and working with the private sector to facilitate good ideas” Mr. Pitt said.

_________________________________________________________________________________

It’s a pity that this government did not follow the same principles and self congratulatory initiatives when the Gold Coast based Breakwater Group submitted its cruise ship terminal Market-Led Proposal in December 2015.

The submission went unread, was rejected outright, and without any consideration at all, dismissed, good idea or not.

Gold Coast residents can be excused for believing that this government has once again put its political aspirations before the good of their city and for that matter the State. These political overlords still count us as a Regional Center, an extension of Brisbane not the 6^th largest city in the country.

The manipulation was well done. First this government did not just move the goal posts but removed the entire playing field. Before the last election Opposition Leader now Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said; “There will be no development of Wavebreak Island or an area north of SeaWorld.” The Premier has repeated that ill considered statement and now adopted government policy ‘ad- nausea’. 

Adding insult to injury and in response to the Breakwater Group submission, Minister for State Development and Minister for Natural Resources and Mines, Anthony Lynham said; ‘The people of the Gold Coast do not want a cruise ship terminal.” The Gold Coast Mayor Tom Tate’s 72% landslide election result certainly puts paid to that assertion.

The Premier firmly hammered the final nail into the coffin when she said; “If there is a cruise ship terminal in Brisbane, I see no reason for having one on the Gold Coast.” In other words, screw you, Brisbane comes first no matter how good your offer. It’s actually an insulting statement when you consider that the Gold Coast is the tourism capital of the country with the assets and 13 million visitors last year to support that claim and reputation.

It’s not the first time a government has passed over the Gold Coast and if we let this happen it won’t be the last.

This is not about a development as the anti-everything lobby would like us to believe and should not be the lynchpin the government uses to justify its position. 

It’s about our future, our jobs, opportunity, critical infrastructure and generating security. It’s about our right and ability to compete in the tourism industry that built our city, an industry that continues to support our economy and way of life. Most of all it’s about securing the future of our children and theirs.

Competition delivers better prices, better services and generates new ideas. This government has, by manipulation and decree, circumvented competition making their Brisbane cruise ship terminal the only game in town and making a mockery of Minister Pitt’s latest statement.

To put it mildly, this is unacceptable behaviour for a government whose members are sworn to faithfully represent and govern for and on the behalf of the people.

Is it any wonder why we are increasingly disillusioned with mainstream politics? But there is a choice. We can accept the status quo and forever dance to the tune of those who would suppress our desires and ambitions or we can speak out clearly, loudly and often by all means available to us including Facebook, contacting the media and your local member. Change only happens when you make it happen while doing nothing delivers exactly that. NOTHING!

© 2017 Bob Janssen | BobJanssen.com.au

What is the Breakwater Group Cruise Ship Terminal Proposal?

Gold Coast Cruise Ship Terminal & Associated Infrastructure 

Media Release 18th April 2017 

The Breakwater Group Cruise Ship Terminal proposal is a future building infrastructure project that delivers an all-weather port capable of berthing 4 of the largest (362m) cruise ships simultaneously, for example; ‘Royal Caribbean’s ‘Harmony of the Seas’ 5,479 passengers plus 2,300 crew. This offers the cruise ship industry the security to advertise, worldwide, the Gold Coast as a guaranteed port of call. The port is also configured to accommodate 8 Azzam class (180m) super yachts within a dedicated area of the swing basin. Strategically designed as a base port, and in that form, the proposal is projected to generate 875,000 night stays per year and achieve a $475 million income stream for the city by its second year of operation.

Long standing traffic congestion and public transport issues are addressed by new traffic signals and reconfiguration at Main Beach, creating a dual carriageway along the Spit with further connection to an underwater tunnel from the Spit to Wavebreak Island and a bridge to Brisbane Road Labrador. A dedicated easement is preserved for possible future light rail connection and a ferry terminal is constructed on the Spit and Wavebreak Island to encourage supportive water transport.

The proposal creates additional land on the Spit and Wavebreak Island, increases existing public open space that is transformed to safe, family friendly fully appointed parkland including toilets benches, barbecues, bicycle ways, pathways, parking areas, lighting, security cameras, shade trees and gazebos.

The existing pet friendly beach is relocated and enlarged and further enhanced with facilities commensurate to its use. Dog showers to remove sand and fresh water stations will be provided.
A 1km long cove protected by artificial reefs is formed on the ocean side to accommodate those visitors who, not used to turbulent surf seek calmer ocean swimming conditions. These reefs once covered by marine growth will present new and easily accessible diving sites.

This proposal is designed to replicate the great Australian surf icons of Margaret River and Angourie by purposely shaping headland outcrops and reefs to capture and hold sand in all but the most extreme weather conditions. The proposal includes provision for a first of its kind surfing stadium and arena to bring spectators closer to the world's best athletes as they compete on the high performance waves, similar to TPC Scottsdale's famous party hole the 16th.

The 31 year old sand bypass system soon in need of maintenance will be relocated and replaced with one that has the latest equipment and technology saving the city millions of dollars in ongoing costs.

To finance the entire project, the balance of the reclaimed land is sold to third party developers for mixed development to create supportive infrastructure such as international hotels, restaurants, retail and other accommodation uses. This mixed development as in any such proposal is subject to the approved consultation process. The Breakwater Group’s project is based on a design that limits buildings to a 5 story height to compliment the ambience of surrounding precincts. The Project is further designed to create a memorable and welcoming ocean gateway to the city.

All parkland, and carriageways will be handed back to government on completion.

Allowing the Breakwater Group the use of State land to construct and develop this future building infrastructure delivers the following benefits;

• Broadens our tourism base with an all weather port that berths 4 cruise ships simultaneously, the swing basin also includes a major facility for super yachts
• Public space is increased and transformed into safe family friendly fully appointed parkland
• Traffic congestion issues are addressed and resolved in perpetuity 
• Wavebreak Island is transformed into our ‘Green Heart’ when completed will become the city’s “Central Park” framed by our stunning Broadwater and the skyline of Surfers Paradise 
• Offers new dive sites, new world class surf breaks and what will be a remarkably beautiful safe swimming cove a tourist destination on its own 
• The existing pet friendly beach is relocated and enlarged and further enhanced with facilities commensurate to its use 
• Introduces water transport to the Spit and Wavebreak Island 
• Creates a self sustaining tourism and safe family friendly precinct certain to be a world class destination on everyone’s bucket list 
• Generates over 8,500 new jobs and a long term income stream for the city and State 
• Benefits from worldwide brochure advertising generated by the cruise ship industry to display their ports of call 
• The project comes at no cost to the State, City or community 

The original Breakwater Group proposal was summarily rejected by the State Government when it was submitted as a Market Led Plan in December 2015. The rejection was accompanied with a comment by Minister Anthony Lynham that; “the people of the Gold Coast do not want a cruise ship terminal.” As a result, this original proposal was never presented in an objective manner to the broad community, it was effectively suppressed. 

Attempts to establish a cruise ship terminal on the Gold Coast since mid 2004 have turned out to become nothing short of a monumental debacle. Proponents who had made considerable capital investment in their projects were severely limited by successive government’s expression of interest briefs. Either by design or a lack of understanding of the issues involved, this frightened off potential investors. 

• Cruise Ship Terminal proponents were given little opportunity to reassess and adapt their proposals in a way that could address well documented community objections and concerns 
• As a consequence, and in light of the revised Breakwater Group proposal, those objections and concerns are based on concepts that are unviable and outdated rendering those objections or any public consultation process that excludes the Breakwater Group Proposal redundant 
• By closing off the optimum areas for a cruise ship terminal and rejecting the fact that a cruise ship terminal was a core element in the former Newman government’s expression of interest, the Queensland Labor government has unilaterally denied the city and State the opportunity to make an informed choice and decision in determining its future 

Below are some of those objections raised since mid 2004 and rebuttals that address them; 

“This project is a land grab” 

No, the land is reconfigured. State owned land is increased and enhanced to become safe family friendly parkland and a cruise ship terminal facility serviced by upgraded traffic management solutions. This soft and hard infrastructure is handed back to the government on completion. The additional land set aside for commercial development is the minimum required to pay for the entire project thereby removing the need for stressed State, Council or community funding. This project delivers job creating social and economic infrastructure and is essentially a Public Private Partnership. 

This pristine land should be preserved for future generations! 

Parts of the Spit and Wavebreak island are man-made as part of the Gold Coast Seaway Project completed in 1986 and therefore do not qualify as pristine. The Breakwater Group Project not only offers a much improved public landscape but creates sustainable job prospects and infrastructure that accommodates and supports future generations. 

Cruise ship passengers do not spend significant money ashore! 

Cities that have a cruise ship terminal publish the income derived from this infrastructure, those reports contradict this claim. Each passenger that comes ashore is a potential ambassador for the city generating a personal recommendation network that is far superior in attracting visitors than any costly advertising campaign. 

What about the environmental impact? 

The Breakwater Group proposal is the least intrusive concept as it has little impact on the environmentally sensitive Broadwater while the Spit contains introduced or recently migrating flora and fauna. The Breakwater Group has designed the project and will develop it in such a manner as to ensure best practice principles that have minimum environmental impact. 

The people of the Gold Coast do not want a cruise ship terminal! 

This is an assumption based on outdated concepts that were limited by an Expression of Interest brief that failed to recognise constraints which hampered the ability to address genuine objections and concerns. By stepping outside this restrictive brief, the Breakwater Group proposal was able to address those concerns and more. This revised proposal has never gone out for broad public consultation or consideration and therefore any comment is presumptuous. Mayor Tate, the city’s biggest advocate for a cruise ship terminal, went to an election on a cruise ship terminal platform against strong opposition from the State and his mayoral opponents. He delivered a 67% majority win giving him an irrefutable mandate that contradicts the claim that the community does not want one. 

The State Government has made it a policy that there would be no development of Wavebreak Island or an area North of SeaWorld! 

If the government has implemented that policy on genuine community objections and concerns, the policy is outdated in light of the revised Breakwater Group proposal. If the government is genuine in its bid for job creation and building sustainable social and economic infrastructure it should revisit that decision and investigate the proposal in a transparent process that is open to public input and scrutiny. 

Gold Coast Mayor Tom Tate has already put forward a compromise cruise ship terminal proposal! 

Keeping his election promise and confined by the State Government’s position Mayor Tate was left with little alternative but to put forward a compromise solution by suggesting an off shore terminal situated outside the Government’s restricted areas. This leaves the question of why should our Mayor and we be forced to accept any compromise when a potentially better prospect is put forward. Why should we pay for a moped when we can have a Ferrari for nothing? 

The project is too big! 

The Netherlands has reconfigured or reclaimed over 7,000 square kilometres of land, much of it before modern machinery was available. In the providence of Jiangsu China a project that began in 2009, 1,817 Square kilometres of land will be reclaimed and reconfigured by 2020. The list of these massive projects throughout the world is extensive. The Breakwater Group proposal only represents 2.44 square kilometres which by comparison is insignificant in scale. It is no larger than the original Gold Coast Seaway Project completed in 1986. 

Has the Breakwater Group the means to fund the project? 

There have been several proposals to establish a cruise ship terminal on the Gold Coast since 2004. In each case, proponents have spent millions of dollars in putting forward their concepts only to be rejected by government intervention. This has made investors extremely reluctant to commit investment in this and other projects. The Breakwater Group has been advised that funding will become available once the government indicates it is open to the establishment of a Gold Coast Cruise Ship Terminal. 

The Breakwater Group is a home grown Gold Coast company whose directors live, work and raised their families here. They are emotionally invested in the city’s future. One of those directors and some associated consultants held senior positions in the design and construction of the Gold Coast Seaway Project. That distinction renders the Breakwater Group first hand knowledge that supports credible insight and comment relating to the possibilities and practicalities of its cruise ship terminal proposal. 

As one Gold Coast councillor put it; “this opportunity has gone around in circles for far too many years without broad community involvement or objective open discussion.” The majority of residents would agree, they would also agree that opportunity should always be given serious consideration and not be subject to political manipulation or outright dismissal. 

The Breakwater Group proposal remains the intellectual property of the group but it welcomes exposure of its proposal to public scrutiny and appraisal allowing the broad community the opportunity to express their point of view and enter into an open public debate as to the value of the project in benefiting current and future generations. 

So what will the Breakwater Group proposal do for you? 

The Gold Coast is recognised as the tourism capital of the nation and therefore represents a significant contributor to its gross domestic product which through the trickle down effect has a positive local, state and national socio-economic impact. 

Whether we were born on the Gold Coast or came here, we all benefit from what those who came before us built. In doing so, they created the opportunities, security and lifestyle we enjoy today. Like it or not, we live in a highly competitive global market place and society and must evolve if we are to remain relevant and competitive. 

To continue enjoying that job security and lifestyle for ourselves our children and theirs, we must learn from the past by building our future today as those who came before us have done. 

The Breakwater Group project offers many benefits but its greatest long term asset can be summed up in that it creates the infrastructure and those opportunities that will serve many of our individual needs and aspirations well into the future. 

Bob Janssen

Spokesperson / Media Relations  

© 2017 Breakwater Group