Both the Liberal and Labor parties have left Australia unable to properly defend ourselves. As a result, we are entirely reliant on other countries to come to our aid.

One Nation believes we should have a Defence Force that is lethal, capable and well resourced to defend Australia and our approaches, not join forever wars in foreign countries.

In this speech, I share the story of RAAF pilot Daniel Dare, a man with an unblemished record, who has been forced into exile and will be arrested if he ever steps foot in Australia again.

Why? Because the Defence Department was just a few days late in approving his sick leave — and now they want to throw him into a maximum-security prison for not reporting to work while he was dealing with mental health issues caused by Defence.

This story is a clear example of out-of-touch generals and politicians destroying morale and the very people who sign up to put their lives on the line for this country.

No politician has the right to stand up on ANZAC Day and invoke the memory of our fallen if they aren’t willing to call out the gutless cowards in the upper brass who are destroying our Defence Force today.

Transcript

The Defence Housing Australia Amendment Bill 2025 is an admission of failure on two fronts: the housing crisis and our ability to defend ourselves. Defence Housing Australia is the agency tasked with putting a roof over the heads of our Australian Defence Force personnel, the fine people who serve all Australians. This bill will extend that mission significantly to include housing foreign military personnel. This bill is a flow-on consequence of the housing crisis, a catastrophe. 

It has been generated particularly out of concern for the situation in Perth. They, like all of our capital cities, are in an acute housing crisis, with a rental vacancy rate of 0.7 per cent, which is frankly shocking. Only Darwin and Hobart are slightly worse. Perth is lined up to cop the brunt of foreign personnel increases related to AUKUS under Submarine Rotational Force West, which is expected to accept thousands of foreign military personnel and contractors in relation to AUKUS preparations. This bill, though, isn’t just related to Perth. It extends the ability of Defence Housing Australia to house foreign personnel anywhere in the country. 

Concerns have been raised about Defence Housing Australia’s ability to take care of our current soldiers. I want to now focus on Defence’s wilful, sustained, ongoing lack of care and accountability. 7 News Townsville reported on the story of Mitchell Connolly, a Townsville soldier who has been asking Defence Housing to fix black mould in his house that has been making his children and pregnant wife sick. After being ignored on all proper channels, he went to the media as a last resort and is now facing retribution for raising those complaints. That goes to the key problem with the Liberal and Labor approach to defence. Boats, submarines and fighter jets are all important, yet the people in our Defence Force are vital, and they are spat on by the upper brass. 

To demonstrate this point, I want to read parts of a letter from a pilot who can’t return to this country because Defence will arrest him for being AWOL after they delayed approving his sick leave for a couple of days.

This is from his letter to me: 

Dear Senator Roberts

My name is Daniel Dare and I served for more than eleven years as a pilot in the Royal Australian Air Force. 

I am writing to ask for your help and to place on the parliamentary record how senior Defence officials handled my case after a serious abuse of administrative power by my Commanding Officer (CO). 

My immediate aim is a simple: To be able to return to Australia safely and be with my family and support network, so that I can recover, as I have not been able to return to Australia for over eighteen months. 

I am not seeking to excuse my conduct. 

I am asking Parliament to consider whether the response was appropriate, proportionate, consistent with what Defence leaders tell Australians about empathy, prevention and member wellbeing. 

Like many other ADF members, I joined straight after school. 

I deployed in flying and non-flying roles overseas and at home, including the Middle East and support after bushfires, floods and cyclones, and work during Operation Aged Care Assist. 

I am grateful for those years and for my colleagues. 

My concerns are not with them but with a leadership culture that, when confronted with an avoidable problem, chose escalation over resolution and appearances over duty of care. 

In March 2023, after more than a decade of unblemished service, my CO accused me of expressing a negative view of the Squadron to another member. 

The allegation was based on a text message I did not write, disseminate, or even know existed. An extremely flawed “fact find” was conducted, which did not include interviewing me. 

On that basis the CO attempted to impose a twelve-month formal warning and cancel an already-approved flying instructor posting, despite lacking the authority to cancel the posting and despite the Air Force’s desperate need of flying instructors. 

Through later freedom-of-information requests I learned that legal advice was sought by the CO only after the punitive action had begun. The effort was abandoned only when I retained a civilian solicitor: Cameron Niven, of Soldier’s Legal Counsel, who persuaded the CO’s direct superior to drop it due to the deficiencies. 

But by then the damage was already done. The episode was plainly maladministration. 

It shattered any trust I had left in the organisation, leaving me completely disillusioned and was the point at which my mental health began to deteriorate. 

Rather than pursue a medical discharge, I first tried to leave in a way that protected the taxpayer and kept me available if needed. 

I applied to transfer to the Air Force reserves from December, totalling twelve years of full-time service, and agreed in advance to repay any service debt. 

My new chain of command supported the application. 

A delegate in the Directorate of Personnel – Air Force, denied it without even bothering to ring me and initially refused to return the application with his written reasons, in an apparent attempt to prevent me from redressing the denial. 

My lawyer Mr. Niven was once again required to intervene, simply to get a document that should have been provided in the first instance. That became the pattern: stonewalling, delay and an aversion to transparent decision-making. 

By late 2023 I was on medical sick leave. The grievance and review processes dragged with little substantive progress. As 31 March 2024 approached, being the date for medical review, I requested an extension of sick leave and, as a contingency, applied for long service leave from 2 April. 

The application for long service leave was refused, and I was directed to report for duty on 2 April despite documented medical concerns. 

Returning under those circumstances would have breached basic work health and safety obligations. 

In the absence of a timely decision on my sick-leave extension, I made the difficult decision not to present for duty on 2 April in order to protect my wellbeing. 

The response was senseless. 

Military and civilian police were sent to my home to arrest me and return me to base in handcuffs, but I was overseas by this point. 

The next phase escalated further. 

An international pursuit was coordinated, drawing on ADF, Australian Federal Police, DFAT and foreign law-enforcement resources, all at the taxpayers’ expense. Group Captain Maria Brick, then Director of the Strategic Incident Management – Air Force section, coordinated actions; a five-year arrest warrant was issued by Air Commodore Bradley Clarke, Commander Air Mobility Group, 

I do not contest Defence’s power to enforce discipline. 

I question the appropriateness and proportionality of deploying such resources against one unwell member whose recent maladministration, attempt to voluntarily discharge and medical circumstances were known to the chain of command. 

One act in particular crossed a line. 

Air Marshal Robert Chipman, then Chief of Air Force, now Vice Chief of the Defence Force, wrote to my private overseas employer in his official capacity disclosing personal information about me and notifying them that I was subject to an arrest warrant under military law. 

That letter is now the subject of a complaint to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. 

It is difficult to reconcile such an approach with what Air Marshal Chipman told the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, only weeks earlier, on the 13th of March 2024 about harm prevention, member wellbeing and empathy in leadership. 

Publicly, Air Marshal Chipman emphasised avoiding the conditions that lead to ill-health and named empathy as the most important attribute of command. 

Privately, he chose the most harmful and destructive punitive options available. 

A key fact also emerged through Freedom of information. 

Although my sick-leave extension was undecided on 2 April 2024 when I did not present for work, Defence medical approved a further six weeks on 6 April. That determination was not disclosed to me— 

Isn’t that deceit?

No effort was made to de-escalate or correct the record. Instead, the pursuit continued as if I had no medical status at all. 

With salary withheld and my employment prospects damaged, I had little choice but to pursue medical separation.  

That process itself became an unresolvable ordeal. 

I was told I needed a Defence medical officer assessment to support approval of sick leave, which would resolve the absence, but I was denied telehealth access while overseas. 

If I returned in person to obtain it, I would be arrested and incarcerated before I could be seen. 

In April 2025 a medical delegate determined that I was unfit for further service and should be medically separated, with sick leave until separation. 

Five days later a separate administrative process was initiated to involuntarily separate me, relying on the record of absence that had already been resolved by the medical decision and commencement of sick leave five days earlier. 

Defence appeared to be weaponising the military justice system to maximise harm. 

I continue to seek review of that administrative decision, at my own expense through the federal court. 

This will unfortunately also cost the taxpayer as Defence will undoubtedly seek to fight it. 

My matter was referred to the Director of Military Prosecutions, Air Commodore Ian Henderson, for trial before a Defence Force Magistrate towards the end of 2024, with the prospect of up to 12 months’ imprisonment. 

The human cost has been real. 

During this period my great-uncle, Leslie, became gravely ill in December 2024 and passed away a few months later. 

I asked to return home safely to see him, as we were close and he was dear to me. 

This request was denied. 

Given the existence of warrants and the charges, it was clear that if I returned, I would be arrested on arrival and held to face a DFM proceeding, without ever seeing him. 

I spent Christmas alone overseas and later grieved his death, again alone and far away from family and support. 

I am not seeking pity. 

I am asking Parliament to consider what this says about the system’s priorities when a member is plainly unwell and clearly trying to resolve matters lawfully. 

I also want to be clear about responsibility. 

Failing to present for duty on 2 April 2024 was my decision. 

I am not seeking to excuse it. 

I ask that it be seen in context: an earlier abuse of administrative power, an irrevocable breakdown of trust and disillusionment, deteriorating health, a documented medical basis for leave, and a year-long pattern of escalation rather than resolution. 

A response that ignores medical evidence, amplifies risk, and privileges appearances over problem-solving is neither good administration nor good leadership. 

I have also raised a concern, currently the subject of an FOI request, that the Air Force may have interfered, formally or informally, with civilian hiring of ADF pilots, namely at Qantas, to manage retention issues. 

If true, this would mean that even those who have completed their obligations can face covert barriers to employment. 

This matter deserves inquiry and formal answers. 

Pilots who serve their country should not be disadvantaged by secret arrangements once their service is complete. 

Across the period of my ordeal, I made extensive work health and safety reports about the impact of management actions on my wellbeing, no less than 27 individual reports. 

Decisions consistently increased risk and pressure, and the cost was shifted to the member and, ultimately, to the taxpayer. 

I am not exaggerating when I say that, due to how this situation was handled by Air Marshal Chipman and his subordinates, it cost the Australian tax payer millions. 

On 13 August 2025 I was discharged. In the lead-up I asked for a short administrative extension so I would not be left without income while DVA and CSC claims were processed. 

This request was refused. As I write, I am navigating those claims from overseas without income, after a year of withheld salary. 

I wrote to both Matt Keogh and Richard Marles, on several occasions, seeking an intervention grounded in reasonableness. 

They ignored it. 

This is not only about one member. 

It is about the credibility of Defence leadership before Parliament and the public. 

The ADF cannot rely on deterrence theatre, secrecy and maximal punishment to solve cultural problems. 

Strength in leadership is restraint, fairness and good judgement. When the system confuses severity for strength, it looks weak— 

it is weak— 

It wastes public money, undermines morale, and deters good people from serving. 

It also undermines recruitment and retention by signalling that members who become unwell or seek a lawful exit will be treated as problems to be crushed, rather than people to be supported and transitioned safely. 

ADF members deserve better processes than the ones I encountered. Taxpayers deserve better stewardship than funding unnecessary pursuits that serve the egos of senior officers, rather than Australia’s interest. The public deserves a Defence organisation whose leaders model the empathy and prevention they commend in public. 

Yours sincerely, 

Daniel Dare

This is what we have to fix if we ever want to have a hope of defending ourselves and housing our defence forces. We have to take care of the Australians who choose to put their life on the line and wear the flag on their shoulder. Thank you, Daniel, and thank you, every member and veteran of the Australian Defence Force. You all deserve far better. 

One Nation will be supporting this bill because, without the help of allies, we are completely unable to defend our own country. That’s what’s happening in this country. We need a sovereign defence capability, and that starts with valuing our members—care, not systematic abuse; accountability, not bullying to cover up; and honouring Australian values, starting with mateship, a fair go and being fair dinkum. All we want is some fairness, integrity and truth. 

I joined 2SM Radio to discuss a serious breach of Australia’s visa system – 23,000 international students have obtained fraudulent qualifications.

This widespread abuse undermines the integrity of our education sector, accelerates unsustainable immigration, and places additional strain on housing, wages, and public infrastructure.

The Albanese Government must take decisive action and should include deportations and full accountability from this government. 

It was a pleasure to speak at an “Australians for Better Government” event on the Gold Coast, where we discussed Australia’s political future.

At the end, I got a warm standing ovation — clearly what I shared struck a chord with everyone there.

Note: This is a re-record of my original speech.

Transcript

Love. Care. Reason. Traits unique to our human species. Everyone in this room is proof humans care. We survived years of infancy and childhood when completely dependent.

Thank you to Australians for Better Government, organisers, speakers, audience, viewers, my wife Christine and Pauline who is the only politician who didn’t run from my climate work and instead came to me.

I’m excited. This is about restoring human potential and progress.

I’m proud to be here because we all have pride in our country. WE ALL want OUR country to be much better.

I’ll clarify my speech’s goal for you. The one thing I want everyone to remember is: why I detest most politicians, yet love and admire humans.

This matters because it’s the key to restoring our country, lifestyle, standard of living.

The second thing I want everyone to remember is that we’re told the biggest purchase of our life is our house. That’s wrong – taxes, fees and levies make our biggest purchase government.

Are we getting value?

The direct cost of government is taxes. The direct cost of government waste is excessive taxes. The INDIRECT cost of government is failed or destructive policies choking productive capacity, driving waste, killing initiative.

120 years ago, our country had the world’s highest per capita income. What the hell happened?

I’ll share what I’ve done for 18 yrs on a key issue – climate fraud – in the senate and before the senate.

Starting in 2007, I worked voluntarily for nine years researching climate science – pursuing Empirical Data in Logical Points to understand Cause-And-Effect. Thank you, Christine. Then, I researched the corruption of climate science leading to the UN. And to drivers behind the UN’s climate politics – the World Bank, IMF, World Economic Forum, global banks, global wealth funds like BlackRock.

Then to motives. And to beneficiaries. Stealing money from Taxpayers.

I held people accountable – politicians, journalists, academics, agencies.

For another nine years from 2016, as a senator I held organisations and ministers accountable – climate and energy agencies, departments. Using my initiative and Question Time, Senate Estimates, speeches, letters.

(I’m feeling vulnerable, anxious. Right shoulder and hand tremor. Look beyond it and pay attention to my words).

I’ve written a speech because I’ll be covering a lot of ground and want to respect your time.

So, what’s the core climate claim? Climate alarmists claim carbon dioxide from human use of hydrocarbon fuels – coal, oil and natural gas – and from farming animals for food, is raising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels – which they claim will raise temperature for catastrophic warming in some distant unspecified future.

That’s the basis for claimed solutions with devastating impacts on society:

  • Taxing and controlling farming and food – to stop raising animals, including stealing property rights to control land use and control citizens.
  • Taxing and controlling energy.
  • Pursuing UN Sustainable Development Goals to control every aspect of people’s lifestyle and life: what we eat, energy, travel, finances, homes.

All claimed to be based on science.

So, what’s science?

When done properly, science investigates and explains our physical world. Science is the systematic objective study of our physical world through observation, experimentation and testing of theories against the EMPIRICAL DATA. Hard data in LOGICAL POINTS proving CAUSE-AND-EFFECT. SCIENTIFIC PROOF needs Data in Logical Points proving Cause-And-Effect.

Graduate Engineers like I are trained in science because we apply science. We understand scientific proof because it prevents us killing people.

My science training includes geology and atmospheric gases – two of the most important topics of climate science.

To understand empirical data, we need to understand variation. There’s variation in everything. There are two broad types of variation:

  • Inherent natural variation
  • Process change
  • Plus, Cycles – some daily, others 150M years

Time frames are important. Daily variation in temperatures is huge. Seasonal variations can be large. Yet over a 30-year climate cycle temperature may be consistent.

So, let’s define the problem.

Every person, business, employer uses and relies on electricity, petrol, diesel – at home. And at work. Australia has gone from having the most affordable power to having one of the world’s highest power prices.

The key to global competitive advantage is having the lowest power price.

China uses our coal to generate electricity for 12 cents per Kilowatt Hour [8 c/KWh]. We pay 26 to 33 cents per Kilowatt Hour.

Consider Parliament

From 1996 to 2007, John Howard’s Liberal-National government committed to comply with the UN Kyoto Protocol introducing HIS solar and wind Renewable Energy Target, HIS National Electricity Market that’s really a National Bureaucratic Racket, stealing farmer’s property rights, and being the first major party to promise a Carbon Dioxide TAX policy.

All claimed to be based on “climate science”.

Yet 6 years later, in 2013, Howard admitted in distant London that “on climate he is agnostic”. HE DID NOT HAVE THE SCIENCE.

Since then, the LNP introduced every major climate and energy policy. Labor then accelerated each.

As a senator, I wrote letters to 10 Members of Parliament. All confirmed in writing they had NEVER been given scientific proof.

I wrote letters to another 19 senators who advocate cutting carbon dioxide from human activity. Four replied. NONE provided scientific proof.

The Greens and others refused to debate me – Larissa Waters in 2010, in 2016, and repeatedly from 2019.

Waters is a lawyer and makes many false and unsubstantiated claims, and misrepresents climate. She’s never provided scientific proof.

Members of Parliament like David Pocock show no understanding of science. His donors include Climate 200 with huge conflicts of interest.

They invoke so-called “experts” and other logical fallacies. They use emotion especially fear and catchy slogans. They have no scientific proof. Greens repeatedly lie, misrepresent, and sideline science with personal attacks.

From 2007 to 2016, I sent hundreds of Registered Post letters to Ministers and politicians. Most MP’s don’t know what’s science. Others lie. Others are cowed, gutless.

Why? Let’s see why they never present scientific proof.

CSIRO and What it Calls Climate “Science”

My 2013 Freedom Of Information request revealed that no CSIRO Chief Executive had sent a climate report to any MPs, Ministers, parliament.

My 2013 Letter to the CSIRO Chief Executive and to the head of CSIRO’s climate team produced no scientific proof. And their replies were evasive.

In 2016 in the senate, my first action requested CSIRO’s Climate team to provide scientific proof that human carbon dioxide needs to be cut.

At CSIRO’s first three-hour presentation to me, CSIRO’s climate chief stated – CSIRO has NEVER said that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger.

He said, quote: “Determination of danger is a matter for public and politicians”. Yet politicians say it’s a danger. And say the CSIRO advised them.

CSIRO acknowledged to me the need for empirical data as scientific proof – yet failed to prove that human carbon dioxide causes climate change.

CSIRO admitted it lacks empirical data in logical scientific proof. Instead of physical data, CSIRO relied on unvalidated, erroneous computer models.

After 50 years of so-called research, CSIRO presented just ONE paper on temperature: Marcott, 2013. CSIRO used it to claim today’s temperatures are unprecedented. Yet Marcott himself had previously admitted his paper’s twentieth century temperatures are NOT robust and are NOT representative of global temperature.

CSIRO’s temperature graphs were all over the place. Some showed the 1998 El Nino peak which in other graphs disappeared.

On carbon dioxide, CSIRO presented just ONE paper: Harries, 2001. It did NOT support CSIRO’s claim of unprecedented levels of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. We made CSIRO aware of the paper’s flaws that made it unscientific and statistically invalid. CSIRO admitted NOT doing due diligence on reports. Nor on external data.

At CSIRO’s second three-hour presentation, CSIRO confirmed today’s temps are NOT unprecedented.  

CSIRO presented Lecavalier’s 2017 paper on temperatures, which our team showed is hopelessly flawed. CSIRO acknowledged that, effectively withdrawing it. And the authors withheld data from our scrutiny.

CSIRO presented a second paper on Carbon Dioxide: Feldman, 2015. It refutes Harries’ paper that CSIRO presented earlier. We showed CSIRO that Feldman’s paper is flawed. CSIRO acknowledged, effectively withdrawing it.

At CSIRO’s third presentation, CSIRO claimed RATES of temperature increase are unprecedented. Yet NASA satellites reveal temperatures are essentially flat and have now been flat for 30 years.

CSIRO presented five new references on temperatures. Some contradicted others. All were nonspecific. Scientifically useless. CSIRO never specified the effect of human carbon dioxide on climate. Thus, there’s no basis for policy cutting carbon dioxide.

We devoted eight hours listening to, and cross-examining CSIRO across three presentations with no scientific proof.

Internationally, 18 eminent scientists and statisticians confirmed CSIRO’s material is NOT adequate for policy.

CLEARLY CSIRO had never presented a climate report or presentation containing scientific proof. CLEARLY no one had held CSIRO accountable on climate – ever. Yet CSIRO Chief Executive is paid more than a million dollars per year.

Former CSIRO Chief Executive Dr Megan Clark was on two banks’ Advisory Boards – Bank Of America Merrill Lynch and Rothschilds Australia, both seeking windfall profits from Carbon Dioxide Trading.

Conflicts of interest?

At Senate Estimates hearings, CSIRO has never presented scientific proof for Australia’s climate and energy policies. We need a real scientific debate that CSIRO and parliament avoided.

Bureau of Meteorology (BOM)

My 2013 Freedom Of Information request revealed that BOM sent 17 documents to MP’s and Ministers. Many were just one-page broad, general UN updates. None contained scientific proof.

My 2013 letters to BOM executives produced no scientific proof and whose replies instead unscientifically claimed a consensus.

BOM has been exposed for tampering with temperature data. Repeatedly. Example – temperatures at Rutherglen weather station in Victoria were changed from a long-term cooling trend to concocting a warming trend. And many other weather stations. Other temperature data adjustments have been made under the label “Homogenisation“. With no audit. Fabricating warming.

BOM displays omit the 1880’s/1890’s that were significantly warmer than today. Heatwaves back then were longer, hotter and more frequent. BOM’s not aware of many station Meta data errors.

In Senate Estimates hearings BOM has never presented scientific proof nor any scientific basis for climate policy.

Australia’s Chief Scientist

In 2017, I organised a personal meeting with Chief Scientist Alan Finkel and Science Minister Arthur Sinodinos. After taking just a few questions Finkel admitted he does NOT understand climate science. Yet governments used him to publicly speak as if he’s a climate expert.

We then requested and he promised a four-hour presentation and discussion covering scientific proof and specific references. A date was agreed. Soon after he cancelled and failed to set a new date.

No Chief Scientist has provided scientific proof.

United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on CC – UN IPCC

Both major parties, the Greens and Prime Ministers cite UN IPCC reports as the basis for climate policy. The UN has no scientific proof for its claims of warming and climate change. And no specific effect of cutting human carbon dioxide. Thus, the UN has no basis for climate and energy policies cutting human carbon dioxide.

The UN has no scientific basis for its temperature targets – initially fabricated at 2 degrees Celsius and later 1.5 degrees.

Both the UN IPCC Chair and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd claim 4,000 scientists said in the UN’s 2007 report that human carbon dioxide caused global warming. Yet the UN report’s own figures show only five UN reviewers endorsed the claim. And, there’s doubt they were scientists.

CSIRO is a major contributor to UN climate reports.

UN climate research excludes natural climate drivers. The UN defines “Climate Change” as studying only theories of man-made climate change. Ignoring and excluding natural drivers of climate.

The key graph driving the UN’s reports was the infamous “Hockey Stick” temperature graph scientifically proven to be fraudulent. Instead of scientific proof, UN reports rely on unvalidated, erroneous computer models. With outputs falsely labelled as “data”!

The UN told us that no UN report states carbon dioxide to be a pollutant. Because it’s not a pollutant, except in politicians’ speeches. UN Lead Authors rebelled against the UN’s corruption of climate science, yet the media did NOT report it. The UN, after initially hyping extreme weather to scare people globally, now projects no increase in so-called “Extreme weather” events.

The UN IPCC is a political entity pushing political goals.

The senior UN bureaucrat Maurice Strong fabricated both global warming, and later climate change. His stated life’s aims were to:

  • De-industrialise Western civilisation, and
  • Install an unelected socialist global government.

He said:

humanity is the enemy.

He was a co-founder and Director of the Chicago Climate Exchange seeking to make trillions of dollars from global trading of Carbon Dioxide Credits. American police sought Maurice Strong for crimes, and he went into self-exile in China, a major beneficiary of the west’s climate and energy policies.

UN senior climate bureaucrats like Figueres and Edenhofer admit the climate agenda is NOT about the environment. It’s about changing society and economics.

a New World Economic Order”.

It’s all about control and wealth transfer from we the people to globalist corporations, investment funds, banks, aligned billionaires and the UN.

NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies G.I.S.S. (GISS)

Head of NASA-GISS climate group, Gavin Schmidt, admitted to me in writing that what GISS had previously claimed as four nations’ independent temperature graphs are NOT independent. All four used the same base data and each then made separate ”ADJUSTMENTS”. When I pointed out his accidental admission he stopped corresponding.

I held him accountable for NASA-GISS fabricating Iceland temperature records. Indeed, NASA-GISS has created temperature data in places where it’s NOT measured.

NASA executives, scientists and astronauts wrote a scathing letter to NASA’s head pleading with him to stop GISS from corrupting climate science.

NASA-GISS has never presented scientific proof that human carbon dioxide needs to be cut. Other agencies prominent in claiming or inferring that human carbon dioxide needs to be cut have never provided scientific proof.

ALL depend on government funding.

  • America’s National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration.
  • The British Meteorological Office’s Hadley Centre with its HadCRUT dataset – the basis for the UN climate report.
  • Australian Academy of Science who I held accountable in writing.

Ross Garnaut’s 2008 Garnaut Review admits his influential report has no Scientific Proof. Despite his massive conflicts of interest, the Rudd government often used Garnaut’s review to justify climate & energy policies.

No university. No scientific society. No agency. No government. No journalist. No NGO – not Greenpeace, WWF, Climate 200. No celebrity. No company. No industry group. No politician anywhere has provided scientific proof.

Federal government energy agencies and departments currently crippling Australia’s energy grid have never provided scientific proof. Nor specific scientific basis for policy.

I conclude that some climate academics are really activists misrepresenting climate science while having substantial conflicts of interest, including being on government payrolls. In my view, these include Tim Flannery, Will Stefan, David Karoly, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Lesley Hughes, Kurt Lambeck, Matthew England, Andy Pitman and Stefan Lewandowsky.

Summary

Canadian Climatologist Professor Tim Ball, with 40 years holding alarmists accountable, said I’m the ONLY member of parliament or Congress anywhere in the world to hold a government climate agency, CSIRO accountable. Marc Morano confirmed. This is not said to brag. It shows that most western politicians and governments have gullibly swallowed or ignorantly supported climate fraud.

Across parliaments, politicians – like many people – bow to groupthink, party dictates and peer pressure to meet an ever-present need to belong.

Former senior American Senator James Inhofe was about to vote for a Carbon Dioxide Emissions Trading Scheme, as the basis for a global Carbon Dioxide Tax, when Morano showed him it’s part of UN Agenda 21 to lock up land across America. At the last minute, Inhofe stood up and rallied opposition. The American Senate rejected the scheme, and the world was spared the UN’s global Carbon Dioxide Tax.

All scary forecasts of climate catastrophes have failed. Polar ice caps, storms, Great Barrier Reef, polar bears. Yet here in Australia, the Greens, Labor, Liberals, Teals and Nationals say they rely on CSIRO, BOM, UN, NASA-GISS for climate and energy policies including the UN’s Paris Agreement and Net Zero.

What Does Nature Tell Us About Climate Variability?

Analysis of our 24,000 datasets worldwide show no process change in any climate factor. Just inherent natural variation. And, natural cycles.

The last 30 years of data from NASA satellites measuring atmospheric temperatures show no warming despite ever-increasing production of carbon dioxide from China, India, America, Russia, Europe, Brazil.

The longest temperature trend during industrialisation is 40 years of COOLING from the 1930’s through 1976.

Carbon dioxide is essential for all life on Earth and is classified as a trace gas because, at 0.04% of Earth’s atmosphere, there’s bugger all of it. Nature controls the carbon dioxide level, regardless of Humans, as major global recessions in 2009 and 2020 proved. And as shown in seasonal variation of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

Our atmosphere COOLS the land and ocean surfaces through conduction and convection, latent heat of evaporation and condensation and finally radiation. The atmosphere does NOT and CANNOT warm our Earth.

Natural drivers of climate variability include Galactic, Solar, Planetary, Earth’s surface topography, atmospheric, water vapour, oceanic, regional decadal cycles, biological, regional changes to vegetation, interactions.

Conclusion

Climate and energy scammers prey on people’s ignorance of variation to falsely portray natural variation as process CHANGE.

It’s NOT climate CHANGE. It’s natural climate VARIABILITY.

Alarmists are preying on people’s ignorance of Science.

In many people – especially politicians – Groupthink and peer pressure cripple reasoning. And override care.

There’s no need to worry about warmer climate. INSTEAD, worry about governance.

Application of Fraudulent Climate Claims

CSIRO’s fraudulent “GenCost” report grossly understates the cost of changing to Solar and Wind, the most expensive forms of energy generation.

CSIRO’s fraud is based on flawed assumptions about: sunk costs, interest/ discount rates, generator life expectancies, estimates of costs to build, unspecified firming costs, unknown pumped-hydro costs, …

The Liberal Labor Uniparty fail to closely scrutinise CSIRO’s GenCost report.

Solar and Wind consume enormous resources and energy during manufacture – making them expensive.

Eking energy from low-density sources makes them very expensive.

Plus, they return humanity to dependence on the vagaries of weather when promoters claim future increased weather variability.

They’re not suitable for an industrial economy such as Aluminium smelting.

Subsidies are essential and reduce national productivity and wealth creation making solar and wind parasitic.

Solar and Wind are reversing Human Progress.

There’s no scientific, economic, environmental, social, or moral case for Solar and Wind.

Who’s responsible?

Almost the whole parliament. And the federal bureaucracy.

They’re getting away with it because people are dumbed down on science. And have yet to feel the huge pain of higher electricity prices.

Members of Parliament avoid data and are not scientifically literate.

And on that is based the destruction of our economy, our country.

Other Governance Failures

The same people driving the lie about Nature’s trace atmospheric gas essential to all life on Earth, are driving other governance failures:

The Covid response across western nations.

Money and banks.

The tax system.

The Anti-Human scam: which I may discuss in more detail later

Summary

Every major problem is created in Canberra. Or is worsened there.

The core problem is that most politicians simply do not care, and are ignorant, dishonest, fraudulent, stupid or gutless.

Shoddy governance avoids or contradicts data. Instead, the Lib-Lab Uniparty uses emotion, fear, headlines, paybacks for donors and vested interests.

They justify theft from the people and cede sovereignty.

History shows government is prone to being a vehicle for transferring wealth.

How? Our constitution is armed to prevent this.

Pamela Meyer in her book “How to Spot a Liar” said, quote: “Lying is a cooperative act … Think about it, a lie has no power whatsoever by its mere utterance. Its power emerges when someone else agrees to believe the lie.”

The people have abdicated. We, the people unwittingly ceded our authority over parliament. THIS MATTERS BECAUSE IT’S THE KEY TO RESTORING OUR COUNTRY.

In Australian politics, love, care, reason and truth have been pushed aside for ego, betrayal and illogical contradiction of data.

Reason has given way to subtle control, theft, aggression and suppression.

Western politicians are reversing 170 years of remarkable human progress.

Our society, our western civilisation is in decline.

Politicians across many western parliaments have betrayed our species.

People Need:
  • Leadership that serves the people – based on solid data.
  • Freedom for personal enterprise with a small central government as Australia proved early last century. Instead, we now have less freedom than Eastern Europe and less enterprise than in China and Vietnam.
  • In current governance, what’s worth keeping?
  • Appreciation for what we have is important. Let’s keep what works.
  1. In our Constitution the people are paramount – yet Australians are not active participants in democracy. Australians for Better Government says people should take the lead in restoring sound governance. I agree.Our constitution is not perfect, yet is largely fine.
  2. The Senate is designed as a House of Review – yet political parties sidelined this role.
  3. States are constitutionally responsible for most services. With that comes Competitive Federalism bringing choice and accountability. A marketplace in governance. That’s been derailed and led to an unaccountable bloated central government with the power of the purse.
  4. Our constitution is based on Christian values – truth, freedom, respect, yet woke ideologies supplant these.
  5. Australia has abundant resources – yet lacks leadership and vision.
Some Broad Solutions
  1. Start with restoring compliance with our constitution. Shrink central government to fit the Constitution. Return to Competitive Federalism with states providing most government services. This will restore the marketplace in governance, essential for accountability. Enshrine free speech & Medical Rights in our constitution. Adopt Citizens Initiated Referendum to hold MP’s accountable.
  2. Realise free humans are wonderful. The source of all enterprise and progress. Despite each of us being imperfect, remember that generally humans outside parliament do care – once we’re aware something needs action. Be pro-human. Proudly pro-human. My experience in Australia, India, America, China, Korea, Japan, Britain, Canada & other nations overwhelmingly proves that humans love to contribute when work is worthy. In meaningful work, people take responsibility and opportunity to contribute. When taking initiative to start a business, people need to share in the wealth created. Please awaken, stir and energise people to be active and to take charge.
  3. Get government out of people’s way. Shrink the federal government. Bulldoze Canberra, a self-perpetuating, productivity-killing PARASITE. We need to get government back to enabling people to fulfil their potential.
  4. SYSTEMS DRIVE BEHAVIOUR THAT IN TURN SHAPES ATTITUDES. We need to change governance systems to enable productive behaviours and culture.

Culture and leadership are the most powerful drivers of productivity, initiative, creativity, security.

Establish an Office of Scientific Integrity with public scrutiny of science on every policy claimed to be based on science.

We need to restore compliance with our constitution, reform our governance structure and systems and hold politicians accountable.

Australia needs real leadership. From leaders who CARE. And who want to do good, not just look good. Leaders with courage to make hard decisions and to communicate the benefits of those decisions in honest messaging that informs and excites people. Truthfully. Based on hard data.

It starts with we, the people. Since 2007 I’ve held MP’s, departments, agencies, academics, corporations and others accountable on climate. Because I detest politicians killing our country and stifling people.

We need to curtail politicians. And, we need to release the people. Freeing people to use our inherent personal enterprise.

We all want to restore our country.

I commend Australians for Better Government for your initiative.

The one thing I want everyone to remember is – why I detest most politicians, yet love and admire humans.

Instead of ego, betrayal and illogical contradiction of hard data, we need to change the governance and political SYSTEMS to restore Love, Care, Reason.

And truth.

To tap into human potential to restore human progress and abundance.

That’s OUR challenge. Restoring love, care and reason.

I dedicate this speech to Professor Tim Ball, Marc Morano, Tony Heller, my wife and family, all climate sceptics, all critical thinkers and to everyone here today.

References

Reference mat’l:

Factors driving climate—the dynamic sun radiating to a dynamic earth FACT There appear to be hundreds, perhaps many hundreds of factors affecting global climate. These operate across many scales including the following partial list (with those likely most significant in italics):

  • Galactic – e.g. 150 million year cycle of our solar system passing through high cosmic wind radiation bands in our galaxy.
  • Solar system and sun – These are many, varied and appear highly significant for climate including variations in sun’s solar output; output of solar particles; sun’s magnetic field polarity and strength; Earth’s orbit; solar system’s centre-of-gravity; Earth’s axis tilt and precession; sun’s polarity; sun spot cycles; moon’s orbit.
  • Planetary – These appear to include Earth’s axis tilt; geotectonic and volcanic activity; many forms of energy including kinetic and magnetic; Earth’s polarity and movement of the poles; length of day; seasons of the year; volume of water in the global hydrological cycle; Earth’s geothermal heat flow; Earth’s interior heat source – vastly greater by many orders of magnitude than oceans as a heat sink.
  • Earth’s surface – e.g. topography; Earth’s surface temperatures; seasonal variations in temperature; fires; relative differentials between regions around the Earth’s surface, especially polar to tropical; photochemical -dynamical changes; sea ice; sea level; Earth’s internal constitution.
  • Atmospheric – e.g. variations in strength of Earth’s magnetic field – deflecting of photons; atmospheric water content; cloud cover; precipitation – rain, snow; variability in wind currents; lower and upper atmospheric temperatures and their relationships; natural aerosols (far outweigh human-made aerosols); ozone; natural mineral aerosols; atmospheric pressure; storm activity; auroral lights.
  • Oceanic – e.g. ocean temperature; salinity; currents; sea surface temperatures; iron content; Earth’s tides due to interaction of sun and moon.
  • Cyclic regional decadal circulation patterns such as North American Oscillation and the southern Pacific ocean’s El Nino together with their variation over time.
  • Biological – e.g. marine phytoplanckton producing natural aerosols like sea salt and dimethyl sulphide; enzyme action of microbes;
  • Nature’s large scale changes to vegetation.
  • Interactions – e.g. of wind currents and ocean currents; conversion of energy forms (eg, from sun’s e-m energy to cloud seeds); environmental processes involving the interaction of climate, biological and geological processes and, at times, extraterrestrial bombardment by meteorites; area of snow cover; heat content and transfers spatially and vertically around and within Earth; heat transfers between ocean and atmosphere and between land and atmosphere;
  • Water Vapour transfers spatially and vertically; release of volatiles at deep ocean vents.
  • Human – e.g. relatively tiny human production of aerosols (eg, soot); aircraft contrails; land use. Due to Earth’s relative enormity, the impact of human factors is restricted to local and occasionally regional.

Last week at the Productivity Roundtable, a concerning proposal was floated—one that would force homeowners with a spare bedroom to take in strangers as renters, under threat of a financial penalty (tax) if they refused. I asked the Minister why such a monstrous idea was even being entertained and pressed her on whether the government would rule it out to give our elderly peace of mind that they won’t be forced to share their family homes.

In response, Senator Gallagher claimed she wasn’t present at any session where that idea was raised and said it’s not something the government is working on. She acknowledged that tax reform and housing were discussed “broadly”, yet denied that specific proposals like this—or death tax or land tax on the family home—were part of any formal outcomes.

I asked whether these proposals were designed to push everyday Australians out of their homes to make way for large, co-located families among new arrivals—who, according to Labor-aligned researcher Kos Samaras, tend to vote Labor. Senator Gallagher refused to rule this out.

Transcript

My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher, relating to taxation proposals debated at last week’s productivity roundtable. The proposal was to force homeowners with a spare bedroom to take in strangers as renters under threat of financial penalty—a tax—if they don’t. Why did the roundtable even consider this monstrous idea, and will you now rule the idea out so our elderly can have peace of mind they won’t have strangers forced into their family homes? 

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for Finance, Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Women, Minister for Government Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate): I thank Senator Roberts for the question. There was a pretty wide discussion on tax and Australia’s tax system. I did not attend all of the sessions and I was not at a session where that was raised. There was discussion around housing, as you would expect, and different views were being put around the table. 

What I picked up from the two sessions that I attended late on the third day was a view about ensuring that the tax system is efficient. There were certainly views about it being simplified. There were different views around business taxation, and there were discussions around intergenerational equity—about how the tax system is working for different generations. But the specifics of what you’ve raised were not raised with me by any roundtable participant, and I was not at a session where they were raised as something that people were seeking. It’s not something the government has worked on. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

Additionally, the roundtable debated a death tax on the family home and a land tax on the value of the property. Are these mutually exclusive taxes, or will this government be introducing all three? 

Senator GALLAGHER: Again, in the sessions that I was a participant at, that was not raised. I think the Treasurer and the Prime Minister were clear in the lead-up to the roundtable that there are no plans to change the taxation of owner occupied homes, and I have not been part of any discussions around that. Part of the discussion that was had was much more high level around how the tax system is working, how complicated it can be and whether or not the system is fair and working in the interest of every generation in this country. There were mixed views about that. But there were certainly no outcomes that went anywhere near what you have been asking about today. The tax reforms we will be doing are the ones we took to the election around standard deductions and income tax. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

All three of these new proposals will force everyday Australians out of their homes to make way for the large families and family co-location evident amongst new arrivals. Labor Party aligned researcher Kos Samaras has shown that these new arrivals vote heavily for Labor. Minister, why are you forcing Australians out of their homes to make way for Labor-voting new arrivals, and where are Australians supposed to go? 

Senator GALLAGHER: There was a lot in that. I hope that I have answered your concerns around some of the ideas you say. They were not outcomes. In fact, in the sessions I was at, they were not raised. I don’t know anything about that. In relation to housing more generally, we are trying to build more housing. That is part of what we’ve been doing in this place and will continue to do, and, indeed, the announcement by the Prime Minister and the housing minister today was about how we ensure that owning your own home isn’t out of reach for generations of Australians and how we build more supply. In that respect, I hope that answers the second part. In terms of migration numbers, they’re outlined in the budget papers. 

During the Productivity Roundtable, the Albanese Government allowed a proposal to be discussed that many consider “monstrous.” The proposal involves forcing homeowners who have spare bedrooms to rent them out to new arrivals – or pay a tax if they don’t. The outcome appears to be that elderly Australians will vacate their homes and move into retirement facilities, thereby freeing up housing for others.

Young couples will also be a target. Those purchasing their first home with extra rooms intended for a family in the future may mean that they will be required to take in boarders or pay a tax—an added financial burden at a time when many are already stretched thin.

During Question Time, I asked Finance Minister Senator Gallagher to rule out this horrible idea. Unfortunately, she declined to do so.

As Margaret Thatcher once said, “Eventually, socialists run out of other people’s money.”

It seems the Albanese Government has taken that as a challenge.

Transcript

I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance to a question I asked today regarding taxation proposals raised at the productivity roundtable. 

In public life, there are some ideas that are so monstrous they should never be raised. Last week, Treasurer Chalmers encouraged not one but two monstrous ideas for new taxation. The first is grave robbing. An Australian works their whole life, pays off their home and, on their death, their home is sold to help their children or grandchildren enter the housing market. Some use the money to pay off their HECS debt so they can afford some home repayments. Treasurer Chalmers now proposes we should tax the home and only give the children what’s left, forcing the children to sell the home to pay taxes levied. This is being dressed up as somehow helping the housing market. Instead it will take away the only chance many young Australians have of affording a home of their own. 

Death duties were first introduced in Australia in 1851. In 1914 some states’ duties were as high as 54 per cent of the value of the property, before they were abolished after a public outcry and were never introduced again. Death taxes meant children could not afford to buy their parents’ farm and were forced off the land. The Prime Minister has met personally with the billionaires buying and controlling homes and farmland around the world—BlackRock’s Larry Fink, who is the new World Economic Forum co-chair, and vaccine king Bill Gates. Is this what they discussed—plundering our homes and farmland? 

The other monstrous idea was taxing unused bedrooms. For this each person will need to report to government how many bedrooms are in their home and how many are occupied. That spare bedroom is often being kept for family to visit and stay a while, meaning this policy is designed the deliberately break the bonds of family. A tax on empty bedrooms is an attack on the elderly, and that will force people into retirement homes earlier, the reverse of what we accept as best policy. Will our elderly be forced to take new arrivals as boarders into their own homes to beat the tax—language, culture and religious differences be damned? Minister, rule these monstrous proposals out now. 

Question agreed to. 

In the July sitting, the Albanese Government introduced the Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025. Most of the bill was a tidy-up of poorly drafted health legislation from the previous parliament.

However, one section was slipped in — a new power allowing the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) to declare a drug shortage based merely on the suspicion of a future shortage. This would then enable the approval of drugs that haven’t been properly tested or assessed.

The TGA already has a similar power with a higher threshold for approval. This new legislation appears to be nothing but a pretense to give the TGA sweeping authority to bypass safety testing and scrutiny for new drugs. Even under the current “higher bar,” Section 19(1) has been used to approve 135 current drugs and 600 expired or lapsed ones — a total of 735 approvals of new drugs – or versions of drugs in two years.

I asked the Minister to provide an example of how Australians might be disadvantaged without these new powers. The Minister couldn’t answer. So I must ask — who actually wrote this? It clearly wasn’t the Government.

One Nation will repeal Section 19(1) and ensure that every new drug is subject to proper safety testing and full regulatory oversight.

Watch the video and see for yourself how clueless this Government is.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the existing wording of section 19(1) already allows the TGA to approve the use of a drug that is not registered or approved in Australia, in the event of a shortage. That power has been used for 135 current approvals, and for 600 expired and lapsed approvals, for a total of 735 approvals of new drugs or versions of drugs in two years. Why do you need new powers when the existing wording is clearly no barrier to approval? 

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme): Thanks for the question, Senator Roberts. The advice that I’ve been provided is that the amendment goes to the ability to act in advance of a shortage arising—knowing that a shortage is coming towards us down the pipeline rather than being required to wait until the shortage actually arises. It will allow the government and the authorities to get ahead of shortages in relation to pharmaceuticals.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. Minister, can you provide an example of a situation where this new power would be needed because the old wording did not provide for that situation?

Senator McALLISTER: Senator Roberts, I think I’ve explained the principle, which is that from time to time we know that shortages of pharmaceuticals do arise. They arise because of interruptions to global supply chains or, sometimes, an interruption in a particular facility’s manufacturing capability. That disruption doesn’t immediately translate into a shortage, but we know, logically, that it will at some moment. These provisions allow us to get ahead of that situation.

Senator ROBERTS: My previous question was theoretical, to understand the process that informed the legislation. This question, Minister, is not theoretical: in what situation has the existing wording of section 19(1) failed to provide a good outcome for everyday Australians? Could you give me a real example, please?

Senator McALLISTER: There are multiple shortages that are managed by the TGA, and we want to be in the best possible position in the future to be able to manage them as they arise.

Senator ROBERTS: Just one example, please, Minister—not a theoretical one, not a hypothetical; just one concrete example of where this has been needed in the past and was not available.

Senator McALLISTER: Senator, it’s not my intention to trawl over previous decisions and circumstances, but it is the case that, from time to time, we can see in advance the potential for a shortfall, and we want to give the TGA the best possible opportunity to be able to intervene and make sure that the medicines that Australians need are available.

Senator ROBERTS: That seems to be confirmation, Minister, that it has not happened in the past. There’s no need for it.

Senator McALLISTER: That doesn’t follow from the advice I’ve provided to you, Senator Roberts. There are shortfalls from time to time in medications that are important for Australians. The TGA presently acts to manage those and works very actively. We want to make sure that, in future, they have all of the tools available to them to be able to do that, and we consider this to be an important amendment that will assist the TGA in that task.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, thank you. You say that there are examples, but you won’t give me any, so let’s move on. Under this new low bar for approval, a pharmaceutical company would be tempted to avoid applying for a regular approval, which is expensive and time consuming, when they could just have their drug waved through under a spurious scarcity rumour—not fact but pending scarcity. Minister, what safeguards are in this legislation to ensure that big pharma does not create a false scarcity story to avoid making a normal authorisation application?

Senator McALLISTER: The TGA relies on intelligence; the TGA does not rely on rumours. The premise of your question is incorrect. It remains my position, as I’ve explained a number of times now, that it’s really important that we are able to act when we are aware of a forthcoming shortage or the possibility of a shortage of critical medicines. Australians rely on the availability of these, and it’s an important function that the TGA serves in protecting the supply chain.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, this is getting to be disappointing. You keep telling me there are many examples and it’s concrete, but I don’t get anything. Let’s move on. Minister, under this bill, is there a time limit for the approval, and, if so, can the approval be renewed at the end of that period, creating what is, in effect, a permanent approval where they just keep extending it?

Senator McALLISTER: Senator Roberts, when you’re speaking about an approval, which particular approval are you referring to? Obviously, the legislation canvasses quite a range of different approvals.

Senator ROBERTS: Any temporary approval.

Senator McALLISTER: The advice I am provided is that the approval, by its nature, is temporary and expires as the shortage is resolved.

Senator ROBERTS: So, if the shortage is not resolved, is there a time limit for that approval to be enforced? If there is, can it automatically be renewed—in other words, granting a bypassing of the normal full regulatory approval process?

Senator McALLISTER: I appreciate the senator waiting while I obtain advice. I want to give accurate information to the Senate. The advice I’ve been provided is that these are statutory criteria that need to be met for any approval, and the TGA would need to be satisfied that those statutory conditions were met. However, it is the case that, ordinarily, these circumstances resolve themselves, so we do see shortfalls from time to time, and they are generally resolved over time. Our interest is making sure that any short-term shortages or impacts on Australians can be managed and that the TGA has the tools to do so.

Senator ROBERTS: So, Minister, is there a time limit and is it automatically renewed if the shortage continues beyond that time limit?

Senator McALLISTER: The advice that I have is that the approval would be provided with a time limit. That doesn’t prevent a reconsideration of the same questions, but it would be against the same criteria that I referred to in my earlier answer to your question.

Senator ROBERTS: So it’s highly likely we would just continue. The TGA has already approved certain drugs, including the product Pfizer sells as a COVID vaccine—their word. It’s already been approved for full TGA approval based, according to the TGA, on the safety profile data experienced during emergency use authorisation. Minister, will this legislation provide yet another way big pharma can make an end run around Australia’s longstanding authorisation process?

Senator McALLISTER: No. That’s a very leading question. The purpose of the legislation is set out in the explanatory memorandum and in other documentation around the bill, and there has been a Senate inquiry into the bill. Our objective is to make sure that Australians have the medicine that they need, even when shortfalls arise globally, and that we are in the best position to manage any consequences when we do see interruptions to global supply chains.

Senator ROBERTS: Of the 735 drugs granted authorisation under the existing legislation, how many are now subject to an application for full approval or have been approved based, according to the TGA, on the adverse events profile of the drug during approval under section 19(1) in the same way Pfizer’s Comirnaty was?

Senator McALLISTER: I am not in a position to confirm the numbers that you’ve cited in your question, nor do I have information about the numbers of applications on foot in various processes administered by the TGA. Perhaps you might like to think about another way of getting to the information that you’re interested in.

Senator ROBERTS: I will ask again and will try and break up the question: of the 735 drugs granted authorisation under the existing legislation, how many are now subject to an application for full approval?

Senator McALLISTER: As I indicated to you, Senator, I don’t have that information with me, nor would you expect me to. It’s a very detailed question.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, I won’t continue with the other breakdowns of the question. Let’s move on to the next question. Does a drug approved under section 19(1) also go on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and, if so, does the normal negotiation on price still occur, or do we just pay whatever the drug company wants us to pay?

Senator McALLISTER: Thank you for waiting, Senator Roberts. I was seeking advice, again so that I can provide you with accurate information. The advice I have is that the standard process is for a medicine or product to be listed with the ARTG first before being considered by the PBS.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. The TGA have been enjoying unrivalled, unquestioned and unaccountable power since the start of COVID. Minister, why is the government extending the powers of the TGA again, with a bill that provides zero parliamentary oversight of the new powers?

Senator McALLISTER: I don’t agree with many of the propositions that are embedded in your question, Senator Roberts. I think I’ve been really clear about the purpose of the bill, or at least the elements which you’re asking me about now. Your very first question was: why do we need these additional provisions and abilities for the TGA? The answer is: from time to time we see shortages arise, where interventions are required to protect the interests, particularly the health interests, of Australian consumers. We want to make sure that the TGA has the capacity to manage these kinds of shortfalls.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate what you just said; I don’t agree with it at all, because the TGA has run roughshod over the people of Australia when it comes to health. They are not held accountable. We need to return, in my opinion, to the days when the department of health approved or did not approve a drug and then the department could be held accountable to the parliament. That’s not the case for the TGA. It completely bypasses the parliament. So I foreshadow my amendment to introduce a provision to the existing legislation that any approval issued under this legislation must be by way of legislative instrument to allow parliamentary scrutiny. We, not the TGA, represent the people. The TGA has so many close contacts and close conflicts of interest with big pharma. It gets 96 per cent of its revenue from big pharma. Minister, why is there so little parliamentary oversight of our health bureaucracy?

Senator McALLISTER: Senator Roberts, I think you and I have different views about the level of oversight. The TGA is part of the department of health. The department of health appears regularly at Senate estimates. There are also a range of forums in which the parliament may ask questions about these issues, including, of course, in this place, in our own question time. Our government is committed to scrutiny, and I simply disagree with the proposition that you have made in your question just now.

Senator ROBERTS: You’re welcome to disagree, Minister. I’m sure that you welcome my disagreement. We saw the previous head of the TGA, Professor John Skerritt, retire from the TGA and, eight months later, get a job on the board of Medicines Australia, the big pharma medical lobby in this country. We also see that the TGA gets 96 per cent of its revenue from big pharma. That is a reason why we need to take the approval of drugs away from the TGA. Big pharma is not trusted, and, by association and due to their COVID mismanagement, we don’t trust the TGA anymore. I move One Nation amendment (1) on sheet 3379 as circulated:

(1) Schedule 2, Part 6, page 22 (line 1) to page 23 (line 22), omit the Part, substitute:

Part 6  Therapeutic goods approvals

Therapeutic Goods Act 1989

52 Subsection 19(1)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(1) The Secretary may, by legislative instrument, grant an approval to a person for the importation into, or the exportation from, Australia or the supply in Australia of specified therapeutic goods that are not registered goods or listed goods:

(a) for use in the treatment of another person; or

(b) for use solely for experimental purposes in humans;

and such an approval may be given subject to such conditions as are specified in the instrument.

Note: For variation of an approval for use of the kind referred to in paragraph (1)(b), see subsection (4B).

(1AAA) A legislative instrument made under subsection (1) must set out the reasons for the approval.

53 Subsection 19(4B)

Omit “by notice in writing”, substitute “by legislative instrument”.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate): I would like to make a couple of comments on the contribution that Senator Roberts has just made in relation to his amendment to this particular bill. I probably would have a great deal of sympathy with Senator Roberts’s position, particularly after the comment made by the government that they’re committed to scrutiny. I don’t think anything could be further from the truth, when we’ve seen the amount of times that transparency has been denied in this place. In fact, this morning we had a half-hour contribution about the refusal of this government to be transparent when it comes to the NDIS. So I certainly have a great deal of sympathy with Senator Roberts in relation to the lack of scrutiny of their actions that the government are largely prepared to allow this parliament and the Australian public over their time in government.

But, in saying that, I understand that one of the most critical issues facing Australia in recent times has been drug shortages, for a number of reasons, of medicines and treatments coming into Australia. As a legislature, whilst safety and efficacy are at the forefront of every decision we make in relation to providing treatments and access to treatments for Australians through the necessary processes that exist within the department of health—and that includes through the TGA—one of the things we must always do is make sure that there is quick access because we know that so many Australians rely on treatments.

When there are shortages, the government must be able to act with some haste to put supplementary or substitute treatments and medications in place to ensure that Australians are not denied the life-saving and life-changing treatments they often rely on. At no time should safety ever be compromised for Australians, but we do understand that many Australians rely on the agility of our health department and its agencies to do that. But we acknowledge the lack of scrutiny and the lack of transparency that have become a hallmark of this government.

Senator McALLISTER: I’d like to indicate the government’s voting position. As I understand it, Senator Roberts’s amendment seeks to essentially require certain decisions to be made by way of a legislative instrument rather than by notice of writing. The government consider that this would be unnecessarily burdensome and would deprive the TGA of the flexibility that is necessary to manage the health interests of Australians, and we won’t be voting in favour of Senator Roberts’s amendment.

The CHAIR: The question before the chair is that amendment (1) on sheet 3379, moved by Senator Roberts, be agreed to.

Energy is about more than fuel; it is about freedom!

America is leading the fight against Climate Change fraud.

That’s fitting, considering a collection of charlatans, politicians, and paid-off scientific bodies birthed doomsday climate propaganda was birthed within American shores.

July brought good news!

The Climate Working Group in the US Department of Energy produced the document A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate.

Since Donald Trump took office, the US Department of Energy has been waging war against all things dodgy and ‘green’.

Critically, his Administration has cut off billions of dollars incentivising Australian companies to pursue Net Zero instead of critical energy infrastructure.

Americans are now talking about ‘unleashing US energy’, creating a ‘nuclear renaissance’, and – yes – drill, baby, drill!

The Climate Working Group responsible for the paper carry familiar names, many of them reformed from their days in the climate movement: John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer.

The title of the Secretary of Energy’s forward sets the scene: Energy, integrity, and the power of human potential.

He goes on to say:


‘The rise of human flourishing over the past two centuries is a story worth celebrating. Yet we are told – relentlessly – that the very energy systems that enabled this progress now pose an existential threat. Hydrocarbon-based fuels, the argument goes, must be rapidly abandoned or else we risk planetary ruin.
That view demands scrutiny.’

The US Department of Energy is on a quest to prove (or disprove) one of the most costly ‘assumptions’ in modern politics.

The Secretary adds that ‘media coverage often distorts the science’ and ‘many people walk away with a view of climate change that is exaggerated or incomplete’.

He picked a competent collection of scientists and says ‘readers may be surprised’ by the report’s conclusions – some of which I’ll share here.


‘That’s a sign of how far the public conversation has drifted from the science itself’.’

I have pulled out some of key findings from this report that I believe are most interesting.

These comments appear under their chapter headings so that you might further explore them in the report.

Here is what the Department of Energy had to say.

Part 1: Direct Human Influence on Ecosystems and the Climate

Carbon Dioxide as a Pollutant

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and fails to meet the criteria set out in the Clean Air Act (1970).

It has no toxicological effects in humans, is naturally occurring in the atmosphere, and key for life. In this way, it is remarkably similar to water vapour. The report confirms that a rise in CO2 promotes plant growth and while it may play a role as a greenhouse gas, how the planet responds to this is a ‘complex question’. ‘Brimstone and fire’ are not among the options…

Part 2: Direct Impacts of CO2 on the Environment

CO2 as a Contributor to Global Greening

The report confirms that CO2 enhances plant growth and that a ‘global greening’ is well-established on all continents. They refer to this as the Leaf Area Index which is measured with satellites. Greening has naturally mitigated any warming. Using modern fertilisers has helped with this process.

When the basic structure of modern plants evolved, there was an enormous amount of CO2 in the air. In one of the many studies done concerning raised CO2 levels, plants respond positively – becoming more water efficient. This changes the calculations for crop production, which should benefit.

This is important, because it challenges the view that rising CO2 will ‘exacerbate water scarcity’. Odds are, it will have the reverse effect.

The IPCC admits to this in its Special Reports, yet rarely discusses it.

Acidic Oceans?

While oceans absorbing CO2 become less alkaline, this trend is well-within historical norms and most ocean life evolved when the oceans were more acidic than today. The report points out that ‘ocean acidification’ is a misnomer and should be called ‘ocean neutralisation’ instead.

Life evolved when oceans were mildly acidic (pH 6.5-7.0). Today they are around pH 8.04.

This is where much of the discussion regarding The Great Barrier Reef comes in – a topic which ‘climate experts’ like to view as the canary in their apocalyptic coal mine.

The report references Peter Ridd’s fine work which includes a body of evidence that strongly suggests the media frenzy regarding a temporary reduction in coral was due to tropical cyclones, not ocean temperature. The bounce-back in growth would seem to confirm this assumption.

It is within the topic of The Great Barrier Reef that the American report calls out political bias and publication bias in the published research. This is alarming. It speaks to the untrustworthiness of government funding and scientific bodies that may be feeding off the ‘climate change’ fear mongering.

Part 3. Human Influences on the Climate

Components of radiative forcing and their history

There is a long discussion here about how the United Nations’ climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, downplays the natural effects of solar radiation – long known to be the primary driver of climate. The UN IPCC’s disproportionate and incorrect thinking has then been imported into government and industry through UN-approved ideology and goals.

In other words, the IPCC’s many serious mistakes and assumptions have filtered through into the ‘global consensus’. This is very concerning.

While the report makes clear that humans, like all animals, are capable of changing the composition of the atmosphere, it does not follow that a catastrophe looms.

Something we very rarely hear our Minister for Climate Change and Energy discuss, for example, is the impact of aerosols which have a cooling effect.

‘Although the IPCC does not claim its emission scenarios are forecasts, they are often treated as such.’

The report notes something that the IPCC’s doomsday predictions often omit, and that is the changing nature of the Carbon Cycle.

Scientists already know that there is a ‘greening effect’ happening across the planet, and if this continues, the absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere will naturally accelerate thanks to hungry plants. This impacts the forecast for atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and yet it is almost always ignored.

Part 4. Climate Sensitivity to CO2 Forcing

Essentially, this is where the report attempts to ask the question our government should have tabled at the start: ‘How will the climate respond to CO2?’

Destroying capitalism, democracy, and the modern age doesn’t seem to be a recommendation of the report…

As the US Department of Energy X account wrote, ‘Energy is about more than fuel; it is about FREEDOM!’

Simply put, are the climate models that are being used to reshape our civilisation, actually any good?

It is an extremely long, detailed, and technical chapter and the short answer is: ‘No.’

Part 5. Discrepancies between Models and Instrumental Observations

This is a continuation of the above topic, with specific examples on where climate models have shown distinct ‘warming’ biases.

We’ve been told to ‘trust the science’ but what we’re actually being asked to ‘trust’ is an environment of failed modelling from unvalidated and erroneous computer models.

The detail of this is interesting, and the ramifications are frightening.

We are being led to believe that successive governments scuttled Australia’s future based upon climate models that have consistently proven themselves to be wrong. One would hope that the energy grid was torn up for better reasons…


‘Problems with climate models are not just in their disagreement over the future, but also in their ability to replicate the recent past.’

Part 6. Extreme Weather

This is the topic that keeps the Bureau of Meteorology alive. Every storm must be extreme – every weather event must be ‘unprecedented’. A fine perfect day such as today isn’t particularly useful for frightening voters into supporting ‘climate change’ and energy legislation. If Australians doubt the ‘global boiling’ narrative, they may start asking questions of the Treasurer such as, ‘Why am I giving you so much of my money for ugly and environmentally damaging wind turbines?

The chapter’s beginning states that it is not whether extremes in weather conditions occur (as they always have done), it is if these are becoming more frequent and if the cause is human activity.

This last part matters, because if humans are not to blame, the solution is not to pour trillions of dollars into Net Zero.

The report did not find an increase in hurricanes or heat waves nor did it see a rise in hottest day records. Even severe tornados were decreasing. Their weather studies agree with Australia where the 1880-1945 period was the roughest.

Indeed what the report reveals is that the bias of our short-lived memory (dating back roughly 50 years) makes human beings a poor judge of climate trends which often operate on much larger time scales.

Part 7. Changes in Sea Level

This is the UN’s favourite topic. Who hasn’t seen the photoshoot of the UN Secretary-General wading out into surf in his expensive suit to ‘prove’ rising sea levels and thereby imply we need to free up hundreds of billions in ‘aid’ relief from countries such as Australia and given to Pacific Islands?

If the sea levels aren’t rising, there are a lot of taxpayers who might start demanding a refund.

There are two major problems with detecting small sea level rises.

The first is its dependency on geological activity on landmasses that may be themselves sinking or rising.

The second is the enormous historical variability of sea levels (up to 400 metres) which follow glacial periods. This modern era is an inter-glacial period in which we have been experiencing a rise in sea levels entirely unrelated to human activity.

20,000 years ago, the sea level was 130 metres lower. That’s how ancient people were able to walk across land bridges and why there are human civilisations across the world now drowned under water. Even between 14,000 years ago and 6,500 we have experienced a 110 metre sea level rise.

Was this ‘catastrophic climate change!’ or a natural cycle to which humans adapted?

What could we have done to stop this? Nothing. We didn’t cause it.

The glaciers which caused this enormous change in sea level started before the Industrial Age and continue to this day. So, when it is claimed that sea levels have risen 8 inches since 1900 – it is perfectly valid to assign that cause as natural.

This is the conclusion the report reaches – that there is no evidence that human activity has influenced sea levels.

Theoretically, to reverse sea level rise, we would almost have to manufacture an Ice Age. No one wants that. Certainly not the animals and plants.

Part 8. Uncertainties in Climate Change Attribution

This chapter critiques the way scientific reports assign the cause of data to anthropogenic activity instead of natural causes. (Anthropogenic is an adjective describing something that is related to or due to human activity.)

‘There are ongoing scientific debates around attribution methods, especially those for attributing extreme weather events to “climate change”. The IPCC has long cautioned that methods to establish causality in climate science are inherently uncertain and ultimately depend on expert judgement.’

In other words, most of the time you read an article or a report that says, ‘This flood is because of climate change!’ there is no proof, only an ideologically skewed assumption, possibly a lie.

The more incorrect the attributions in a report, the more difficult it becomes to untangle ordinary weather events from genuine outliers.

For those who are interested in how the IPCC decides if a weather event is due to ‘climate change’, they use several methods:

  • Optimal Fingerprinting (based around computer models)
  • Time Series Analysis (to pick outliers from data)
  • Process-Based Attribution (observations, computer models, and theoretical understanding)
  • Extreme Event Attribution (a guess about the likelihood of human impact)

The report is highly critical of the IPCC’s methods, especially given their reliance on computer modelling which is known to be mostly wrong.

Part 9. Climate Change and US Agriculture

This part of the report is geared toward the US market although the lesson for Australia is simple: while climate variance may slightly impact some crops, most crops are expected to increase their yields or demonstrate no change. Positive impacts are seen on corn, wheat, and soybeans.

If the world is to starve, it won’t be due to ‘climate change’. Instead, it will be due to the UN’s interference in fertiliser use which saw Sri Lanka collapse into anarchy almost overnight and their agricultural sector wiped off the map.

It is very likely that efforts to combat the non-existent threat of climate to agriculture will itself create a threat.

In Australia’s case, this can be seen in the tearing up of farmland for wind turbines, solar panels, and transmission lines.

Part 10. Managing Risks of Extreme Weather

It’s not the severity of weather events, it’s their proximity to increased populations… With more people in the world living in reclaimed areas and on artificially constructed land (for example China and its mega projects), it is inevitable that videos of floods running through cities will occur at a time when before these places were uninhabited.

Despite this, the report finds that technological advancements, particularly to building codes, has resulted in a significant decrease in mortality and property loss relative to storm severity.

Part 11. Climate Change, the Economy, and the Social Cost of Carbon

This is the most-quoted portion of the report because it handles the question facing Western economies: What is this whole carbon discussion going to cost the average taxpayer? Indeed, what will it cost our civilisation? Of what advancements will it rob us? Will it hold back our progress? Are we creating new classes of control with climate measures?

‘Economists have long considered climate a relatively unimportant factor in economic growth, a view echoed by the (UN) IPCC itself … mainstream climate economics has recognised that CO2-induced warming might have some negative economic effects, but they are too small to justify aggressive abatement policy and that trying to “stop” or cap global warming even at levels well above the Paris target would be worse than doing nothing.

Of chief concern in this report is the ‘Social Cost of Carbon’ – a new concept. The report says, ‘Estimates are highly uncertain due to unknowns in future economic growth, socioeconomic pathways, discount rates, climate damages, and system responses.’

Key takeaways that defy conventional government narratives on climate include the observation that human societies do well in warm climates and poorly in cold climates. ‘This implies that warming will tend to be harmful in hot regions but beneficial in cool ones.’ Even the UN IPCC noted that climate was a minor consideration compared to population, technology, and other things such as conflict.

So far, any historical ‘warming’, if real, has led to the greatest period of human flourishing. It has not been a ‘catastrophe’.

Indeed, Earth’s past far warmer periods are scientifically classified as ‘climate optimums’ because during such warmer periods humans thrived, civilisations thrived, and the natural environment thrived.


‘Even as the globe warmed and the population quintupled, humanity has prospered as never before. For example, global average lifespan went from thirty-two years to seventy-two years, economic activity per capita grew by a factor of seven, and the death rate from extreme weather events plummeted by a factor of fifty.’

The takeaway?

‘Most climate economists thus recommend humanity to just wait-and-see.’

Following this is a list of serious reports into historic human economies which, when examined, display significant benefits to warmer climate on every metric.

What’s startling is the way in which economists measure the Social Cost of Carbon and, as with computer modelling of temperature, it is riddled with assumptions, bias, and dodgy data.

Here’s a sample:

‘Economists use IAMs to compute the SCC. Two of the best-known are the Climate Framework for Uncertainty, Negotiation and Distribution (“FUND”, Tol 1997) and Nordhaus’ DICE. EPA (2023) introduced new ones for its recent work. IAMs embed a “damage function” or set of functions relating ambient temperature to local economic conditions. The assumptions embedded in the damage function will largely determine the resulting SCC. IAMs also assume a long-term discount rate or, as in DICE, compute the optimal internal discount rate as part of the solution. One approach to developing a damage function is to begin with estimates of the costs (or benefits) of warming in specific sectors in countries around the world and aggregate up to a global amount.

As I am sure you have worked out, and as the report goes on to state, there is no escaping the fact that most of this is guesswork.

‘Suppose we assume a relatively high Social Cost of Carbon of, say, $75 per tonne. Deflated by a MCPF value of 1.5 that would result in a carbon tax of $50 per tonne.’

It’s a nonsense accounting system for which we’re paying a fortune – in part to the UN to fund its operating budget.

In conclusion:

The closing chapters of the report address the reality about the oft-repeated mantra of ‘taking action on climate change’.

‘Even drastic local actions will have negligible local effects, and only with a long delay. The practice of referring to unilateral US reductions as “combatting climate change” or “taking action on climate” on the assumption we can stop climate change therefore reflects a profound misunderstanding of the scale of the issue.’

In particular, it calls out the ‘war against cars’ (one of Chris Bowen’s favourite topics) saying, ‘…emissions from US vehicles cannot be expected to remediate alleged climate dangers to the US public on any measurable scale.’ If that is the case for the US, imagine what that means for the tiny population of Australian car owners.

The report concludes with a call for sanity, reality, and a serious approach toward the energy system that encourages and ensures future prosperity.

Under the Biden and Obama regimes, energy and climate experts were forced to remain silent. Under Donald Trump, these same experts have finally been able to speak freely and lay the reality of energy generation on the table for the world to see.

The Australian Uniparty’s ambivalence to this report, to the Executive Energy Orders, and to the constant messaging of the US Energy Department indicate that our government remains in a state of denial. Being willfully dishonest.

Stealing from taxpayers and transferring wealth from we, the people to parasitic billionaires and multinational corporations sucking on subsidies.

While dishonest governments cede sovereignty to the UN, World Economic Forum, and supra-natural agencies including the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

Governments fraudulently use concocted, unfounded climate alarm to cripple children’s mental health and impose unwarranted claims on every aspect of people’s lives from energy to food, to property, to money … to lifestyle. And to curtail basic freedom.

Fighting back against climate hysteria by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Energy is about more than fuel; it is about freedom!

Read on Substack

Australia has up to 3.7 million noncitizens—in a population of just 27.4 million.

Hospitals are stretched, housing is unaffordable, and life is more expensive.

Why won’t the government reveal the real number?

Transcript

Not counting tourists, the number of people in Australia today who are not Australian citizens could be as high as 3.7 million. In a country with an estimated population of just 27.4 million people, this huge influx is stretching our hospitals, making housing unaffordable and making life more expensive. 

Noncitizens must have a visa to be in Australia. These are split into two categories: permanent residency visas and temporary visas. The latest data from the Department of Home Affairs shows that, excluding the 320,000 tourist and crew visas, there are currently 2.5 million people in Australia on temporary visas. The data on permanent residency visas is not clear; it’s murky. Between 2000 and 2021, three million permanent residency visas were issued to permanent migrants. In 2023, it was estimated that 59 per cent of those three million permanent visa holders have become Australian citizens. As of 2021, that would leave 1.2 million people who have not become citizens and are still on permanent visas, plus any more permanent residents who’ve arrived since 2021. Adding that best estimate of permanent visa holders to the 2.5 million people on temporary visas, we get 3.7 million people who are potentially in the country on visas. 

So what’s the real number? How many people are currently in Australia on a permanent visa, and why won’t the government tell Australians? Is it just too embarrassing for the government, after they promised to reduce immigration, to admit how many people in Australia aren’t Australian citizens? My new One Nation colleague Senator Tyron Whitten, Senator for Western Australia, will be asking the government about this number in question time today. In the middle of a housing crisis, the government had better know how many additional people it is letting into our country, undermining our standard of living and way of life. 

✅ 100% agree!

Sourced from Secretary Kennedy on X @SecKennedy:

Medical decisions should be made based on one thing: the wellbeing of the person—never on a financial bonus or a government mandate.

Doctors deserve the freedom to use their training, follow the science, and speak the truth without fear of punishment.

The rising cost of living in Australia is due to Net-Zero “rorts” and now they’re adding another one – the Capacity Investment Scheme (CIS).

The Labor government is using taxpayer money to fund solar and wind in a way that lacks transparency and accountability. For example: Energy Minister Chris Bowen awarded substantial taxpayer money to a wind turbine project fund whose chair is former Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard. Bowen did so just days after the fund purchased the project. How much did he give? Possibly billions of dollars.

This process allows for unethical profiteering and lacks proper oversight. Decisions are made behind closed doors with no public access to the bidding or selection criteria. The secrecy surrounding the CIS could enable “favouritism” and corruption without any way to verify or challenge decisions. Tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money may be getting handed out in long-term contracts without public knowledge or scrutiny. We just don’t know!

CSIRO’s GenCost recent report on electricity prices is biased and misleading, with even CSIRO now admitting coal is cheaper than wind and solar. Despite this admission, the report relies on a secret model and questionable assumptions that appear designed to discredit coal, raising concerns about transparency and integrity.

Government agencies pushing net zero policies are misleading Australians. Ditch the Net-Zero nonsense and put Australians first.

Transcript

Australian lives are getting more expensive every day because of net zero rorts. Power bills keep going up and the national debt keeps going up, because Australian taxpayers, renters, pensioners, small businesses and anyone who turns on a light are paying for rorts. 

I use this opportunity to detail just one of these rorts—it’s not illegal, yet it’s completely unethical—occurring under the Capacity Investment Scheme. The Capacity Investment Scheme is a wind and solar slush fund that Minister Chris Bowen personally administers. I’m going to quote energy expert Aidan Morrison extensively, and we thank him for all of his contributions to the energy debate in this country. He said: 

This is the story of how a fund chaired by former Labor PM Julia Gillard acquired a wind farm project just six days before Labor Energy Minister Chris Bowen underwrote its future revenues with taxpayer money. 

Today we’ve learned Julia’s fund is trying to flip it. For a profit. 

HMC Capital’s ‘Energy Transition Fund’ rushed to acquire the Neoen Victoria portfolio. They hadn’t even raised any money in their fund. They closed with almost a billion dollars worth of borrowed money and IOU’s. 

Less than a week later, Chris Bowen announced Kentbruck Wind Farm to be successful in the first round of the Capacity Investment Scheme. My rough calculations suggest they will receive something like a billion dollars from taxpayers (and maybe much more) over 15 years. 

Sweet deal. A billion dollars of fancy financial monopoly money one week. A billion dollars of promised taxpayer dollars the next. 

… … … 

Unlike the UK who publish a ‘going rate’ for technology subsidies, our renewables— 

unreliables— 

are subsidised through a secret tender process— 

under the Capacity Investment Scheme. He went on to say: 

Every project gets to ask for whatever revenue they want to proceed. @AEMO_Energy— 

that’s the Australian Energy Market Operator— 

facilitates a secret beauty pageant, where they award points for things like indigenous participation or community engagement, alongside financial value. 

And Chris Bowen makes the final call. 

The bids remain secret. There’s no cap to the pay-outs. Since AEMO is a private company, there is no scope for an FOI— 

freedom of information— 

request, and AEMO aren’t not subject to parliamentary oversight through Senate Estimates. 

So— 

based on the public information— 

no-one can ever prove an allegation that Bowen has bestowed special favour on a friend’s project if that was what he did. But equally, he can never prove that he selected strictly according to merit. We are just expected to trust the black-box of Bowen’s subsidies. 

Mr Morrison continues in a reply to his post: 

Originally it always appeared to me that @DCCEEW— 

the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water— 

would administer the scheme. 

But Bowen is determined they don’t administer it. In fact, going so far as to change the National Electricity Law to make it possible for AEMO Services to do it, and making an interim request to AEMO. 

… … … 

He could have just used the department, but that would make the process more transparent and accountable to parliament. He’s basically cutting corners to cut out any chance of oversight. 

In Mr Morrison’s original post, he says: 

Every dollar of profit in this industry— 

the so-called solar and wind industry— 

is really a cheque signed by a politician, with Chris Bowen signing all the biggest cheques, worth untold billions, in the next three years.  

It’s all legal. It’s all official. And it’s absolutely obscene. 

The most concerning part of the Capacity Investment Scheme is that we have no idea how big it is. Right now, tens of billions of dollars may be getting handed out in lock-in contracts lasting for the next 15 years. Labor created the Capacity Investment Scheme in 2023. It’s since proven extremely popular with solar and wind developers. I wonder why. Now, Minister Bowen wants to expand the program 15 per cent to 40 gigawatts. How many billions of dollars will all this cost taxpayers? We will likely never know. How much are overseas foreign companies ripping out of Australian taxpayers’ pockets under the Capacity Investment Scheme? We will never know. With this level of secrecy, rorts are almost guaranteed—and for what? 

The biased, discredited CSIRO GenCost report on the cost of electricity was released just this week. You only have to skim the Centre for Independent Studies’ energy publications to understand how, yet even CSIRO had to admit that the lower estimate for coal-fired power is cheaper than wind and solar. Now they admit it, after their fraudulent GenCost report. That’s despite a secret model the CSIRO refuses to release to the public and a number of assumptions purpose-designed to make coal look worse than reality—fraud. Fundamentally, Australians have been lied to repeatedly by government agencies. Ditch the economic nonsense from net zero. Ditch the net zero nonsense, in fact. End the corruption. Put Australians first.