We’ve won significant battles against WHO’s power grab! The original ‘zero draft’ has been gutted – 50 pages removed including intrusive measures. But we can’t rest. This UN agreement is still designed to hide truth & promote propaganda. One Nation says NO to WHO control over Australia. Prime Minister Albanese must not sign!
UPDATE: On 21 May 2025, the World Health Assembly (WHA) approved the Pandemic Agreement. The agreement was carried by acclamation (applause), rather than a formal vote. Of the WHO’s 194 members, only 154 participated. Eleven countries, including Russia and Israel, abstained, while others—such as the United States—did not attend.
This outcome gives the WHO the numbers to proceed with the Agreement, but it also highlights a lack of support that may hinder implementation of the measures.
Australia’s Health Minister, Mark Butler, has signed the Agreement on behalf of Australia. However, it must still be ratified by both Houses of Parliament before it can take effect.
One Nation will lead the campaign to oppose the Agreement in Parliament.
Transcript
We’re winning the war we started on the World Health Organisation in April 2022. Yet it’s not over. Here’s an update.
Earlier in 2022, with support from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Britain and the European Union, the United States proposed A Pandemic Treaty to the UN’s World Health Organisation, known as the WHO.
This “Zero Draft”, as it was called, proposed giving WHO unprecedented powers to come into member nations like Australia and impose vaccine mandates, forced vaccination, forced medical procedures, lockdowns, border closures and business closures to supposedly control the next pandemic. Even though such measures failed abysmally in the 2020 to 2024 response. Fortunately African nations came together to defeat and block the treaty.
To Australia’s eternal shame, our elected representatives though from the Liberals, Labor, Teals, Greens and Nationals, with support from health bureaucrats, voted in favour of selling out Australian sovereignty in an act of national betrayal. Treachery!
For the last three years the Treaty has been progressing through the convoluted WHO. It’s undergone many reviews and attempts to gain consensus support. This has now occurred. A watered down consensus agreement is on the agenda at the World Health Assembly (WHA), which starts tonight.
Fortunately though, the consensus document looks nothing like the original “Zero Draft”. 50 pages have been taken out of the document, including all the intrusive measures and the powers to police those intrusions.
This consensus document no longer sets the WHO up as the world health police. My concern though, is that our Australian health bureaucrats, with their globalist loyalties, will respond to the next exaggerated health emergency with measures that take away our basic human rights and attempt to justify that saying “The WHO made me do it”.
This agreement does nothing of the sort. It is, though, still garbage. Information sharing is a major part of the document. Let’s not forget that the WHO covered up the last pandemic’s origins and covered up the harm that resulted from the responses – vaccines, masking, lockdowns, restrictions, mandates, removal of basic human rights and fundamental medical principles and rights. It’s a long list, an inhuman list.
So we must ask – what information will the WHO spread? The truth?
No way. This UN agreement is designed to make it easier to cover up and hide the truth, and just in case there’s any doubt about the purpose of the agreement, the use of propaganda is promoted at Clause 6.2.D
Trust in the UN’s WHO is shot. It’s a pointless, corrupt organisation with a former terrorist as its head to line the pockets of WHO’s corporate sponsors specifically to sell vaccines on behalf of the vaccine companies who fund the WHO. The agreement is designed to put a respectable wrapping around naked crony capitalism – fraud, theft, and One Nation is having none of it.
One Nation opposes the pandemic agreement. It’s not up to the UN’s WHO and it’s 8000 bureaucrats living the high life in cities like Geneva to tell or advise Australia what our response to a health emergency should be.
Prime Minister Albanese must not sign The Pandemic Agreement. Instead withdraw completely from the WHO and bring our permanent delegation home from Geneva immediately.
While the media declares the election over on Saturday night, One Nation always has to wait a lot longer for our results where we have the best chance of being elected – in the proportional representation of the Senate.
Senate races can take up to 5 weeks to count, meaning we may still be 3 weeks away from a formal declaration of the result.
In the House of Representatives, One Nation’s nationwide result is very satisfying with a nationwide average vote of 6.39% (+1.43).
A particular shout out must go to Stuart Bonds in the Hunter NSW, who beat the Nationals and was the last candidate standing for the two-party preferred count up against Labor.
With some final counting still to come, 970,000 Australians chose to mark One Nation as their number one choice for the House of Representatives alone. I am eternally grateful to all of our fantastic candidates, volunteers and online supporters that made this result possible.
I know Labor’s victory may not have been what a lot of you were hoping for. Yet, amidst the uncertainty, there’s a clear and encouraging outcome: The Greens have lost three of their four lower house MP’s – Max Chandler-Mather (Griffith) and Stephen Bates (Brisbane), as well as the leader of the party, Adam Bandt in Melbourne.
For too long, the Greens have pushed divisive ideologies that have hurt our industries, undermined our values, and driven a wedge between Australians. Their agenda has been out of touch with everyday Australians, and this result shows that voters are ready for a change. This is a win for common sense and a win for hardworking Australians who’ve had enough of being ignored. It’s time for policies that put Australia first.
My re-election in the Queensland Senate is looking strong. The counting process is still underway and is expected to take a couple more weeks to finalise.
A number of One Nation candidates for the Senate in other states have made a commendable effort. They will be more reliant on very strong preference flow to get over the line, which we won’t know the result of for a number of weeks.
Despite a significant increase in the One Nation vote, Jennifer Game in South Australia finds herself in a challenging position—through no fault of her own. This situation is largely due to the way Senate seats are being filled, following a dismal performance by the Coalition and a strong surge from Labor. Unfortunately, this has made the path to securing a seat more difficult.
I’m crossing my fingers for an extra strong preference flow towards Warwick Stacey in NSW, Lee Hanson in TAS, Warren Pickering in VIC and Tyrone Whitten in WA.
None of the micro parties have a chance at getting a Senator in, however the parties that recommended to their voters to preference against One Nation may stop us getting over the line in those states. We remain hopeful.
In short: the race isn’t over yet!
I am deeply grateful for everyone especially in Queensland who supported One Nation and my campaign.
We saw a rise in support, thanks in large part to our comprehensive policy platform, the dedication of our incredible volunteers who gave their time, energy, and resources to help spread the message and man polling booths. Their commitment made a real difference, and this result is a testament to their hard work.
Once the Senate count is finalised and there’s more news to share, I’ll be sure to keep you updated. In the meantime, rest assured—we’re already hard at work planning our strategy for tackling the new Parliament. Our focus remains clear: restoring common sense to the decisions that shape our country’s future.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/hunter2.png?fit=478%2C269&ssl=1269478Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-05-15 17:07:422025-05-16 10:32:12So, how did One Nation actually go? (the count is still on)
22 year olds today are going to be caught up in Labor’s new super tax supported by the greens.
Inflation means eventually almost everyone will be paying the doubled tax rate and unrealised gains tax means the government wants to come after money you haven’t even earned yet.
Index the threshold, abolish taxes on unrealized gains or better yet, throw out the whole bill and start again.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/22YrOld.jpg?fit=625%2C863&ssl=1863625Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-05-15 16:15:282025-05-15 16:20:28A Shock New Tax on YOUNG People
Before the election, I met with Sarah McGuire and other concerned landowners and introduced our fire ant policy. Sarah is a knowledgeable advocate for landowner rights and understands the fire ant eradication program details.
Landholders in SE QLD need more control over fire ant measures on their properties.
One Nation supports stronger efforts to eradicate fire ants, and believes working closely with landholders is key.
We’re calling for local workshops and tailored biosecurity plans. Landholders should have the right to refuse government programs if they can show effective alternatives.
Policy Release
Landholders should have more control of measures to manage and eradicate red imported fire ants on their properties and more assistance to comply with difficult biosecurity requirements.
One Nation Senate candidate for Queensland Malcolm Roberts said local farmers in the southeast Queensland were struggling with difficult fire ant restrictions imposed by authorities which impacted their profitability.
“Landholders in southeast Queensland need more control over what happens on their properties with regard to fire ants,” Senator Roberts said. “While One Nation supports a stronger overall effort to contain and eradicate red imported fire ants, we believe these efforts would be more effective if authorities worked more closely with landholders rather than just imposing blanket restrictions and rules for everyone.
“We’re calling for a series of local landholder and farmer workshops at which they can work with authorities and decision-makers directly and troubleshoot these issues. We’re calling for the development of individual fire ant biosecurity plans, approved by the landholder, tailored to the unique operations of every property. Implementing and complying with these plans would be the responsibility of the landholder.
“Local landholders should be able to refuse government baiting and chemical programs provided they are able to demonstrate other effective control methods with the support and guidance of authorities, and ensure fire ants cannot spread. For those who have had the pest successfully eradicated, authorities should be able to quickly provide certification to this effect and remove unnecessary restrictions on the movement of produce from these properties.
“Landholders also have concerns about the dangerous nature of some chemicals being used by the National Fire Ant Eradication Program, and want alternatives that directly target fire ant nests rather than blanketing their entire properties with these pesticides.”
Senator Roberts said One Nation would give landholders more control over eradication efforts on their properties.
“Our policy will support individual biosecurity plans for each property, with responsibility for compliance resting with the landholder,” he said. “They have every reason to ensure a pest-free property, and should be helped (and supported with funding if necessary) to implement them and comply with them. One Nation also plans to vigorously pursue questions into the effectiveness of the NFAEP, with a focus on landholder concerns, when Parliament resumes after the election.
“We will also investigate options for farmers whose profitability has been impacted by fire ant eradication to be compensated for their losses.
“One Nation has always supported the right to farm. One Nation has always known that farmers are the ones who know their land best, and how to best look after it. The NFAEP and biosecurity authorities risk alienating the very landholders they are trying to help with this heavy-handed top-down approach that ignores the wealth of expertise farmers and landholders possess.”
https://img.youtube.com/vi/e_dNzZc93rY/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-05-15 08:56:012025-05-15 08:56:05A Collaborative Approach to Fire Ant Eradication is Needed
The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) has announced another electricity price hike – between 2.5% and 8.9%. For 20 years, we’ve been told wind and solar are the cheapest forms of energy, yet prices keep going up!
I questioned the AER about when Australians might see relief from these crushing power bills. Their response? No clear path to returning to the affordable prices we had just 5 years ago. Even more concerning – they recently added “emissions reduction” to the national electricity objectives alongside price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. When I asked for examples of projects that were approved because of this new emissions target that wouldn’t have been approved before – they couldn’t name a single one!
The truth is clear: We’ve gone from having the cheapest electricity in the world to being among the most expensive. These price increases aren’t accidents – they’re the direct result of failed green energy policies.
Australians deserve affordable, reliable power. Not expensive virtue signalling that drives up costs for families and businesses.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here today. The default market offer for electricity prices is going up yet again. You published a draft notice, I understand, contemplating rises between 2.5 per cent and 8.9 per cent. For 20 years, Australians have been told that wind and solar are the cheapest form of energy, yet electricity prices are going up again. Mr Oliver, are you seeing any kind of indications in the bill stack that show you will be able to actually cut the default market offer for electricity prices in the near future?
Mr Oliver: There are a few different components, as you mentioned, in that stack that go to comprise the default market offer. It is ultimately, of course, only the benchmark offer that’s applicable to standing offer contracts. That’s less than 10 per cent of customers in most regions. Most pay less, of course, because they’re on market offer contracts, which typically sit under those default levels.
Senator ROBERTS: It is representative, isn’t it?
Mr Oliver: Not representative, no. I’d say it’s more of a safety net. So it’s more at the upper end of what most consumers would pay. For example, a customer might not have gone into the market, not shopped around for a market offer, and might be on a standing offer contract. As I say, that’s generally less than 10 per cent. But the vast majority of consumers pay less than the default market offer price. Indeed, the ACCC put out a report in December last year as part of their electricity price monitoring saying that roughly 80 per cent of consumers could pay even less than they are today if they continue to shop around.
Senator ROBERTS: So do you see any signs of the default market price coming down?
Mr Oliver: There are a few key components. The biggest variable is wholesale cost. Network costs are reasonably steady year on year. Retail costs have gone up, at least in our draft decision this year, but we’re still studying those. In terms of the wholesale cost component, we have seen over the last year some high-price events in the spot market, some volatility in the spot market. That is continuing to put upward pressure on the forward contract market, the prices that ultimately are responsible for setting a lot of the wholesale energy cost. They’re difficult to predict year on year. We don’t necessarily see them continuing to increase. If market conditions alleviate, that wholesale cost can potentially come down. We will, of course, look at those again more closely before we put out our final decision.
Senator ROBERTS: My next question was going to be this, but I think you’ve answered it: in the data you’re seeing, is there any realistic hope that electricity prices can go back down to what they were five years ago under the current policy settings?
Mr Oliver: Well, it’s a question of time. We don’t anticipate that kind of decline between now and the final decision. But there are obviously plans in place to continue the rollout of renewable generation and other forms of generation as well across the energy market, across the NEM, and, as we see more of that generation capacity coming into the system, that will alleviate pressure on wholesale costs. There’s work underway at the moment to look to orchestrate and utilise all of the consumer energy resources that we have in the system at the moment—20 gigawatts of rooftop solar, for example, which could be utilised more effectively to also bring down those wholesale costs as well. There are various ways. It’s a number of pieces that need to be looked at to do that. But yes, all of those trends will, over time, see the wholesale cost of energy come down.
Senator ROBERTS: So those trends will help reduce the full bill stack?
Mr Oliver: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Emissions reduction was recently added to the national electricity objectives of price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. Can you provide an example of a project that went ahead after the emissions objective was added that would have been rejected under the previous objectives, or a project that was prioritised higher?
Mr Oliver: I can’t think of one specific project that would meet that criterion. We would probably need to take that on notice to see if we could identify one. It is, as you described the objective quite correctly, one that has a number of different facets. So, whenever one is making a decision that requires the application of that objective, it’s about weight and deciding how various things are taken into account. What the amendment does is say quite explicitly that one of the things to be considered is emissions targets and objectives that are enshrined in policy and legislation, but that doesn’t necessarily point to a project which then gets up that might have otherwise failed. I can’t think of one now, but we might take that on notice as well, just to confirm that.
Senator ROBERTS: So you had four factors: quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. You’ve had added now emissions reduction. So you can’t see any project that has been brought forward because of emissions reduction at the moment?
Mr Oliver: I can’t think of one now. I’m glancing at my colleagues and they’re not nodding either, but we’d perhaps take that on notice just to see. It may well be that the answer would be that there’s no project that would meet that specific criterion. It affects other things of course, in terms of proposals for expenditure in a network proposal, for example. There might be a stronger case for investment in a particular area that might otherwise not have been as strong a case. But those are very complicated and multifaceted decisions where you’re looking at a lot of different things.
Senator ROBERTS: How do you assess the relative weights of those now five criteria?
Mr Oliver: We don’t do it in any specific quantitative sense. If, for example, it is an expenditure proposal, we would be looking at the driver behind the proposal, why the network, if it is a network project, says that they wish to undertake that expenditure, who they’ve consulted with, which of the objectives they’re trying to meet, and whether they’re doing it at the most efficient cost.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/AXVUCyHVs_E/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-05-14 17:38:002025-05-15 15:20:24Price Hike: The Cost of Green Energy Policies on Australian Power Bills
I questioned the Department of Parliamentary Services about the concerning departure of former Secretary Rob Stefanic who I questioned over serious issue previously. The President confirmed he was terminated due to “lost trust and confidence” – but both the President and current Secretary Ms Hinchcliffe dodged questions about whether Mr Stefanic intercepted a public interest disclosure letter, potentially contradicting his court affidavit.
Even more troubling: 14 senior executives have left DPS in just three years. This follows my previous questioning about serious cultural issues within the department.
As your Senator, I remain committed to ensuring proper oversight of taxpayer-funded positions. The Australian public deserves full transparency about what occurred under Mr Stefanic’s leadership and exactly why he was asked to step down, especially given his $478,000 salary was funded by taxpayers.
I’ll continue pushing for accountability. If you’re a current or former DPS staffer with concerns, you can contact me confidentially at senator.roberts@aph.gov.au
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing again. Ms Hinchcliffe, last November I asked you a series of questions, and you and your department have plain refused to answer the questions I’ve put to you. You’ve raised no public interest immunity claim. Ms Hinchcliffe, you are the Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services. You cannot expect us to believe that you don’t know the proper process is to raise a public interest immunity claim, not simply flat-out refuse to answer questions. You know a public interest claim is the correct process, don’t you?
Ms J Hinchcliffe: The questions on notice that you’ve raised—and, I’m sorry, I need to find them—
Senator ROBERTS: Question 116.
Ms J Hinchcliffe: We have provided an answer to those questions and those answers have been submitted. I suspect what you’d like to say to me is that those answers are not the answers that you’re looking for and you’d like to press me in relation to those. But we have provided answers to those questions.
Senator ROBERTS: In question on notice 116, I asked you about your predecessor, Rob Stefanic, who
stepped down in absolute controversy, yet you still won’t explain why he stepped down. That’s the answer I’m looking for. Why did he step down?
Ms J Hinchcliffe: That’s not a question for me.
Senator ROBERTS: Who is it a question for?
The President: It’s a question for the presiding officer.
Senator ROBERTS: President, why did Rob Stefanic step down?
The President: I provided an opening statement at the last estimates, at which I said we had lost trust and confidence in Mr Stefanic.
Senator ROBERTS: I asked whether Rob Stefanic intercepted a letter of an employee making a public
interest disclosure, contradicting an affidavit that he made in court. The answer to that question is contained in documents that you have access to, both of you.
The President: Do you mean me, Senator Roberts?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
The President: I don’t have access to those documents.
Senator ROBERTS: Who does?
Ms J Hinchcliffe: I’m not sure what documents you’re talking about. As I said to you at the last estimates that you raised these, these matters are matters that pre-date me. I don’t know what occurred. It seems to me that question, of what Mr Stefanic did, is a question for Mr Stefanic rather than a question for me.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s either you or the President, the presiding officer.
Ms J Hinchcliffe: In terms of Mr Stefanic’s actions?
Senator ROBERTS: Why Mr Stefanic stepped down.
Ms J Hinchcliffe: Sorry, what—
Senator ROBERTS: Why did Mr Stefanic step down?
The President: I’ve answered that question: because the presiding officers lost trust and confidence in the secretary.
Senator ROBERTS: Did he intercept a letter of an employee making a public interest disclosure, and did that not contradict an affidavit given in court? Did he or not?
The President: Who’s the question to, sorry?
Senator ROBERTS: You.
The President: I’ve indicated that those are proceedings I have no knowledge of and nothing to do with. That is not my role as the President.
Senator ROBERTS: Who would have knowledge of that?
The President: I have no idea, I’m very sorry. That’s not a question for me.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you have knowledge of that, Ms Hinchcliffe?
Ms J Hinchcliffe: I don’t, and I’ve said before that I don’t have knowledge of that.
Senator ROBERTS: So no-one knows why he stepped down.
The President: I’ve answered that question twice now, and I’ve answered it a third time. I made an opening statement at the last estimates at which I said the presiding officers had lost trust and confidence in Mr Stefanic.
Senator ROBERTS: What are the details around that, and was his intercepting of a letter of an employee making a public interest disclosure, contradicting an affidavit given to court, part of the reason for losing trust?
The President: I indicated in my opening statement that I was not able to provide any further information. The letter that you’ve talked about, I have absolutely no knowledge of at all. I know nothing about it.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I think that answers your question—in that it was not a relevant factor in losing confidence if the President didn’t know about it.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re required to produce to this committee any information or documents that we request. There’s no privacy, security, freedom of information or other legislation that overrides this committee’s constitutional powers to gather evidence. And both of you are protected from any potential prosecution as a result of your evidence or in producing documents to this committee. As I understand it, President, the default position of senators is that the Senate prevails. So unless you can come up with a public interest immunity, we are constitutionally empowered to fulfil our duty to taxpayers.
The President: I’ll re-table my statement from last time. I made it clear that the presiding officers had lost trust and confidence in the secretary and that it was not able to discuss, at that point, further matters in relation to the secretary. In relation to the matter that you are raising, a legal matter, whether it was me as a presiding officer or the previous presiding officers, which is where I understand this matter has its genesis, none of us would have—it’s not our role as presidents to have that level of depth of knowledge about court proceedings or DPS operations. That is not the role of the presiding officers.
Senator ROBERTS: Who oversees that? Whose role is it? Surely there’s someone with that role?
The President: A court matter is a court matter. It’s nothing to do with the department.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m talking about whether or not he intercepted a letter of an employee making a public interest disclosure. Did he or did he not, and who would be aware of that? Surely, someone must be?
The President: Ms Hinchcliffe has answered the question to the best of her ability. I have indicated, on a number of occasions, it’s not my role as the President. I have no knowledge of the matters you’re raising. We have answered your questions. I don’t know what else I can do.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, I’ve got a new question.
The President: These are matters which go back to previous presiding officers and previous DPS executive officers.
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Stefanic left a rotten legacy. I want to know whether or not he intercepted a letter to an employee making a public interest disclosure, contradicting an affidavit he gave to court.
The President: Senator Roberts, I would hate for the DPS staff who are watching this to think that they are dirty and rotten. They are fine officers. They do an amazing job.
Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t say that.
The President: I think that’s what you’re implying. I took that as—
Senator ROBERTS: I said he left a rotten legacy.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, don’t speak over the President.
The President: I’m not making a comment about that. The Presiding Officers acted swiftly. We lost trust and confidence, and he was terminated. We acted very swiftly in filling the position with Ms Hinchcliffe, and what we hope and what we’re looking forward to and what is currently happening within DPS is that we are restoring trust and confidence within that department. That is our role.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll say it again. He left a rotten legacy. Many of your fine employees have come to me telling me of that, and still they’re very concerned about the legacy he left—what he actually did. I will ask if you can take it on notice to find out whether or not he intercepted a letter of an employee making a public interest disclosure, contradicting an affidavit given to court.
The President: I can’t take that on notice because it’s not my business.
Senator ROBERTS: If you don’t know, then tell me who does know. Who should that question—
Ms J Hinchcliffe: I’ve already said to you that I don’t know that information and that the person who would know that information is Mr Stefanic.
The President: This is a court matter. It’s not a DPS matter. It was a court matter.
Senator ROBERTS: He was paid by taxpayers, as are we—all three of us. We all have a responsibility, don’t we, to taxpayers?
The President: Absolutely.
Senator ROBERTS: Why are you disrespecting the Senate and the taxpayer in this?
The President: Senator Roberts, you are asking me about a court matter. If you ask me about a DPS matter, of course I will answer to the best of my ability, and it will be a truthful and transparent answer. I can’t comment in court matters. They’re not my purview. I am responsible for the running of Parliament House, DPS, the PBO and the Department of the Senate. That is the extent of my responsibilities.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking a simple question. Who is responsible? Who can I ask this question of?
The President: Ms Hinchcliffe just told you: the previous secretary. It’s his matter. It’s a court matter. It’s not a DPS matter.
Senator ROBERTS: Someone oversaw it. He intercepted a letter of an employee making a public interest disclosure. Surely that affects everyone, ultimately.
Ms J Hinchcliffe: Senator, I’ve answered your question. I don’t have any knowledge of this. The person who you would need to ask is Mr Stefanic. If you’re asking about his actions, you would need to ask him.
Senator ROBERTS: Ms Hinchcliffe, your department and what you do is immune to freedom of information requests. The only chance the Australian taxpayers and the fine employees of DPS have to hold you and the department accountable for your conduct is through questions we, as senators, ask. I’ve asked you to provide answers, and you’ve point blank refused. How are you meant to be accountable and transparent if you don’t answer questions this senator puts to you?
The President: That characterisation is incorrect. The secretary has not refused. She has answered questions to the best of her ability. Both Ms Hinchcliffe and her staff are working very, very hard to restore trust and confidence not only within DPS but with all senators in this room. Of course we have a responsibility to answer your questions as they relate to DPS. This does not relate to DPS. It relates to a former secretary on a court matter. I can’t be any clearer on that.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand that, but it still remains the fact that apparently he intercepted a letter of a DPS employee making a public interest disclosure. That must bother someone. Please, someone.
Ms J Hinchcliffe: I’ve answered the question about my knowledge of this matter and who you would need to ask about whether or not Mr Stefanic intercepted the letter. I don’t know the answer to that. You would need to ask him.
Senator ROBERTS: So there is no-one—
The President: I think the actions that the Presiding Officers took in terminating the previous secretary indicate that we are very concerned about DPS and its reputation, so to suggest that no-one cares is, again, an incorrect characterisation. We acted as swiftly as we could. The secretary was terminated. We’ve acted extremely quickly to replace him, and I am very optimistic that with the new leadership at DPS we have a very, very exciting future.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we will need to conclude. We may be here next week for you to continue
questioning.
Senator ROBERTS: Can I just have one more question?
CHAIR: One more, and then the coalition has the call.
Senator ROBERTS: It must bother your employees—taxpayer employees, whom you serve and for whom you are responsible—that someone wrote a letter and that letter was intercepted in making a public interest disclosure. Why does that not raise a simple answer in you to say, ‘I will find out’?
Ms J Hinchcliffe: I’ve answered your questions here today about my knowledge of this matter and about who you would need to ask about your suggestion that the secretary intercepted a letter. I’ve been very clear with this committee about my views on the use of taxpayers’ money: that everything that we do as a department is spending taxpayers’ money and we need to be very clear that we are getting value for money. You heard the conversation I just had with Senator Hume on that matter and the work that I’m doing to ensure that we are really clear in the department that we are spending taxpayers’ money wisely and well to support each of you in your business here in
parliament. That is what we are here to do.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve had 14 senior executive service staff leave their senior positions in the last three years. That tells me something.
The President: If I could state—I think it should be on the record—I think the matter you’re referring to is a matter that goes back to 2018.
Senator ROBERTS: And when did Mr Stefanic leave? When was he removed?
The President: In December.
Senator ROBERTS: Of 2024. That’s six years in which he was doing—
The President: But none of the officers at the table, including me, including the current government, had anything at all to do with this matter.
Senator ROBERTS: That speaks to low accountability in your predecessors.
The President: It’s seven years ago, Senator Roberts.
During the last Senate Estimates, I questioned ARENA about their massive spending of taxpayer money. The numbers are staggering – they’ve now committed $2.15 billion in subsidies to supposedly “cheap” renewable projects.
Despite claims that solar is “the cheapest form of electricity generation in history,” Australians’ power bills tell a different story. The reality is they don’t account for all the extra costs of firming, storage, transmission lines and general unreliability. This is what happens when government agencies focus on pushing unreliable renewables instead of ensuring affordable power for Australian families.
We used to have some of the cheapest electricity in the world, but these massive subsidies and failed green energy policies are driving up costs for everyone.
The net zero fantasy is already hurting our regions, ruining small businesses, and driving up the cost of living across Australia. It’s time to ditch these wasteful subsidies and return to reliable, affordable power.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Do you ever think about how much taxpayer money your agency has spent on net zero policies, only for power bills to continue to get more expensive?
Mr Miller: Senator, that doesn’t occupy much of my time. We’re working on innovation to help lower the cost of the core technologies that go into lowering power bills in the long term. And, as you would appreciate, this innovation cycle takes a while. We’ve obviously seen the success of solar PV, which was maybe written off many years ago, but has come through as the lowest cost form of generation in history, as we’ve noted in past conversations. I’m very confident, actually, that wind technology, solar technology and battery technology, which is coming down the cost curve rapidly, combined at scale will actually reduce energy costs for Australians.
Senator ROBERTS: Is your job to bring down power bills or give money to solar and wind energy? How much does the Australian Renewable Energy Agency currently administer in deployed capital in terms of loans or equity stakes?
Mr Miller: The objects of ARENA, the agency, are set out in the act. They are to improve the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies, increase the supply of renewable technologies and support Australia’s decarbonisation emissions reduction objectives. You’d be aware that we’re a granting agency, so none of our funding is provided through debt and equity. It’s all through the provision of grants. In some circumstances, those grants are recoupable based on performance of the projects, and we make that decision on a case-by-case basis.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How much did ARENA issue in grants in the most recent year?
Mr Miller: I can get you that in a minute or two. My colleague Mr Faris could probably find that number in the pack. When we think about the progress of our work in terms of project projects, we look at approval rates, which is the key milestone for ARENA when I, under my delegation, or our board, or the minister—
Senator ROBERTS: Getting a project to approval stage.
Mr Miller: When we provide an approval, we then, in most circumstances, are working through to a contract, which ultimately lands to be grant money flowing. But that can take months and years in some cases. But I think in the last financial year we provided approvals of $497 million, and I think in the year before it was $540 million. So, per our annual report: funds approved in 2023-24 total $445 million, and contracts written, which is a later stage, were $392.5 million in that financial year.
Senator ROBERTS: So what did you call your key measurable indicator?
Mr Miller: Approvals. Well, it’s one of many, but, yes, that’s an important one.
Senator ROBERTS: What do you categorise as an approval?
Mr Miller: An approval is a decision by the CEO, the board or the minister, with respect to their relative delegations, to provide funding to a particular project in that amount.
Senator ROBERTS: Approve the funding?
Mr Miller: Approve funding, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you know what your total budget allocation is over the forward estimates, the next four years?
Mr Miller: That will be in the PBS, and we will get that number for you if we can. Otherwise, we’ll take it on notice and provide it.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that located in one area? Are all the different components of the money located in one area?
Mr Miller: It’s an aggregation of various programs and funding pools that we have been provided with by the government over time. Well, let me say governments because we were well supported by the coalition government a number of years ago, and have been even further supported by this government. But it relates to what we call our baseline funding, which is the money that is provided to ARENA where ARENA’s board, essentially, is the primary decision-maker on policy and programmatic objectives. And then, in addition, there are about a dozen programs that ARENA is running, with specific funding amounts, and with specific instructions through the policy instruments, and we’re managing all of that through the funding. But it all gets amalgamated, ultimately, into the forward estimates amounts. So I’d be very happy to read you the figures in the forward estimates for each year, revenue from government, if that would help you. The current year’s revenue from government is $425 million. The budget for next year is $709 million. The year after that, it is $735 million. Then we’re at $1.1 billion, and then we’re at $1.117 billion for the final year of the forward estimates.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s a lot of money.
CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Ever since ARENA came on the scene—when was that?—you’ve been issuing grants and loans in solar and wind. Have people’s power bills actually got cheaper?
Mr Miller: It’s not my jurisdiction to talk about power bills, but we came on the scene on 1 July 2012, and as I—
Senator ROBERTS: In 2012?
Mr Miller: Yes, 2012, and, as I mentioned before, we don’t do loans. We do grants.
Senator ROBERTS: You don’t do loans—well, issuing grants then. So you’ve been spending billions of
dollars, and power bills have gone up.
Senator Ayres: Well, Senator, you should—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking Mr Miller. You don’t need to—
Senator Ayres: Yes, and I’m entitled to drop in from time to time. It’s one of the inconvenient bits of
estimates for senators who ask questions. If you go and talk to your constituents in the main street of a country town somewhere in Queensland—
Senator ROBERTS: Which is what I’ll do.
Senator Ayres: Yeah, I know. We saw you beaming in. But if you talk to them and then listen to the answer that they give you—engage in a conversation—what you’ll find is that many of them have solar technology on their roofs, which substantially decreases their electricity costs.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, I actually was talking to a shopkeeper yesterday, and she said—
Senator Ayres: Fascinating as that is, I am just going to keep answering your question.
Senator ROBERTS: power bills have gone up tremendously.
Senator Ayres: That is technology that was invented in Australia. All of the IP in solar panels all around the world—it’s Australian, right? It’s something that we should be proud of as a country—invented here, substantially reducing costs for households, with some of them earning a quid because they are under residual agreements.
Senator ROBERTS: Without your subsidies, without your energy relief, the costs would be higher than ever.
CHAIR: Okay. And we are running out of time.
Senator Ayres: They are substantially benefiting from that technology. Now, it’s different for different households. Our job as a government is to make sure that the lowest-cost technology is in the system, and also to make sure that more of those Australian inventions are commercialised here in Australia and manufactured in Australia, and Mr Miller and ARENA’s work is to make sure that more of that technology is commercialised in Australia, and they’re doing a very good job indeed.
Senator ROBERTS: Your policies are driving up prices
If you haven’t voted yet, save paper and get your One Nation ‘how to vote’ suggestions straight to your email or phone.
Copy the link to your browser or open the link: 
Type in your address or select your electorate if known.
Find Locations | Your ‘how to vote’ will appear on the screen, along with pre-poll and election day voting centres.
Type in your first name and email address or mobile phone number.
The ‘how to vote’ will be sent to you exactly as you would receive it at polling booths.
