One Nation is Protecting Cash – Not the Treasurer

,

Those who heard Senator Michaelia Cash’s speech about One Nation’s decision to vote against Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes-Cash Acceptance) Regulations 2025 might have been left with the impression that One Nation has abandoned cash.

Senator Cash said:

‘The obvious question that is before the Senate in relation to the disallowance motion is, “Why does One Nation want to ban cash?” Because that is exactly what this disallowance motion does.’

The Senator then implied that the reason Coles, Woolworths, and service stations are required to accept cash is because of this new regulation.

‘This is what this mandate does. That legal obligation exists because of the regulations that Senator Roberts and One Nation, for some very strange reason, now seek to disallow.’

I was astonished by this comment from the Senator.

Our reasons for wishing to disallow the Treasurer’s regulation are not bizarre at all. We have explained them clearly and repeatedly.

As has always been the case, our goal is to protect cash in the long-term – not allow its erosion through a thousand pieces of deceptively named regulation.

One Nation has been leading the national conversation on cash protection for decades, including against shameful attempts during the Morrison era to put limits on the size of cash transactions through their wildly unpopular Currency (Restrictions on the Use of Cash) Bill 2019. The Liberal Party sought to re-frame cash as the realm of crime, tax evasion, and the black market.

Then-Prime Minister Scott Morrison said:

‘This will be bad news for criminal gangs, terrorists, and those who are just trying to cheat on their tax or get a discount for letting someone else cheat on their tax. It’s not clever. It’s not okay. It’s a crime.’

He added: ‘Cash provides and easy, anonymous, and largely untraceable mechanism for conducting black economy activity.’

What an astonishingly bad-faith way to present cash transactions which have been the backbone of this nation. If the government wishes to crackdown on criminal activity, it could always try arresting criminals.

Public backlash forced the Liberals to stall the legislation in 2020, following which One Nation were successful in striking out the legislation.

This vocal opposition came from the same places it comes from today – rural and regional areas, community groups, churches, and even the Labor Party’s own ethnic branches. Meanwhile, the Liberals and Nationals never apologised for forcing Parliament to waste time stopping another unnecessary creep of a paranoid government.

As you can see, the Liberal Party are not friends of ‘cash’ … they never have been.

It is important to understand that the protection of cash as legal tender is something that has always been poorly defined and left to languish in significant legal grey areas as the banking system developed electronic currency.

Our Constitution requires the Commonwealth government to make cash available. The definition of ‘available’ is open to discussion and likely includes electronic transactions. Contrary to common assumption, banks are not required to make physical cash available.

Businesses are expected to accept cash, within reason, unless they put up a sign that explicitly states, ‘We do not accept cash.’ These signs are not common because customers, like myself, are often put-off by anti-cash sentiment.

Online businesses with no physical storefront cannot reasonably be forced to accept cash, nor would anyone ordering from their phone on TikTok expect them to. There are also market stalls or pop-up shops that lack the ability to handle cash safely. And then there are trading hours when it is deemed unsafe to handle cash.

To make things even murkier, a business is not required to take cash when doing so would place their staff at risk, which is fair, or where cash is not readily available. This is most common in rural areas where greedy banks have closed branches and removed ATMs.

The rise of the digital world has created an economic and political interest – particularly within the global banking sector – in discontinuing cash. This has prompted a public call for its explicit protection. In early June of 2024, Andrew Gee, Bob Katter, and Dai Le put forward the Private Member’s Bill Keeping Cash Transactions in Australia Bill 2024 to seek clarity on – and strengthen – the status of cash as legal tender.

This would have reinforced the legal obligation for all businesses, within reason and where appropriate, to accept cash up to $10,000 (but would not impose a ceiling). In clarifying the Reserve Bank Act (1959), it would then be possible to determine what the bones of the modern and future economy would look like before adding additional complexity through programmable currency and Bitcoin.

In other words … policy housekeeping.

Unfortunately, a proper debate on this important bill never took place, largely because Treasurer Jim Chalmers implied it would be addressed in Labor’s Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes-Cash Acceptance) Regulations 2025.

During the press conference that followed in November of 2024, Chalmers said:

‘Our objective when it comes to payments is to modernise our financial system … to make sure that there’s an ongoing role for cash … we’re making sure that people can pay cash for essentials if they want to and if they need to … what this means is that businesses selling essential items will have to accept cash with some appropriate carve-outs for small businesses and with a particular emphasis on regional areas.’

The Treasurer’s pinky-promise led to the Private Member’s Bill being dropped on good faith.

These regulations eventually manifested as a shadow of their former promise and, in my view, perfectly encapsulate the evil genius of the Uniparty anti-cash movement.

The Treasurer’s final regulation only provides that cash be protected as legal tender in supermarkets and petrol stations between 7am-9pm to a value of $500. That’s it.

For all other situations, the grey area of cash has been clarified – it is no longer protected.

What does this mean for cash throughout the rest of the economy? What about newsagencies? Public transport? Basic shopping? Parking? Pharmacies? Post-offices? Church collections? Buskers? Cultural celebrations? Greek weddings? The million other things that keep society moving…?

By proposing a mandate that only covers supermarkets and petrol stations, the Labor government did not protect cash. They issued an extermination order. The Uniparty are supporting an economy-wide restriction of cash. Remember, 23 per cent of adults do not have a credit or debit card, especially the elderly those challenged by technology.

One Nation predicts that as a consequence of these regulations, banks – who have already shown hostility to cash – will rush to stop accepting cash over the counter. The dwindling supply of ATMs will die out. And cash will drain out of our economy.

Concerned pharmacists came to see me last week to ask for pharmacies to be included, they were not – and yet still the Liberals support these government regulations. Are we going to see people turned away from buying medication because they don’t have a bank card?

An economic change of this significance should be put to the people, or opened to far more scrutiny than a regulation which is not subjected to the same Parliamentary rigour as an amendment.

To be clear, One Nation is not voting against protecting cash. That’s absurd.

We are voting against the specific regulation put forward by the Treasurer which we believe would confine cash protection to a small number of essential suppliers and leave the rest of the economic landscape open to a widespread loss of cash.

These regulations represent a broken promise to Andrew Gee, Bob Katter, Dai Le, and the Australian people.

We want to see banks held to their obligation to provide cash to Australians in a reasonable and easily accessible way. For the banks to be held to account when they attempt to cut regional communities off from ATMs and branches. We wish to see cash maintained as commonly accepted legal tender to ensure Australia has the flexibility to endure blackouts and digital malfunctions, and to take precautions that the banking sector is never in a position to hold money hostage. This is especially important in regional areas where the digital world struggles, and as we approach an increasingly dangerous geopolitical situation. We have seen conflict target energy grids and telecommunications. It would be insane to remove the protection of cash at this point in history.

Ultimately, what the banks want … what the corporate world wants … and what is best for the security of the Australian economy are not always the same thing and it is our duty as elected representatives of the people to act in their best interests.

Senator Cash has presented the option as a binary choice: support the Treasurer or condemn cash. I believe that to be a misrepresentation of the situation.

One Nation will not void the legal assumption that cash is protected by replacing it with a declaration that it is not. Let’s protect cash properly and permanently.

And, if we really are heading toward a fully digital world, and that march cannot be stopped because of cultural and ideological changes, then we absolutely must sit down and have a proper discussion about safeguarding citizens from the known dangers and exploitation made possible in a digital-only environment.

One Nation demands that this topic be taken seriously and soberly for the protection of Australia’s economic future.

Whether it is basic redundancy from energy and internet disruption, or protection against nefarious banking practices, cash is a vital safety net.

And it is obvious that the public wish to see it preserved.

One Nation is protecting cash, not the Treasurer by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Read on Substack
/0 Comments/by

A Private Line to the Minister

,

The Labor government is overriding our courts and regulators to hand-pick which advocacy groups get tax-deductible status.

In a recent Senate Estimates hearing, I questioned why Equality Australia was granted specific Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) status in the 2025 Budget, despite being rejected by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC), the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), and the Full Federal Court. All three bodies ruled that their work is political advocacy, not “direct benevolent relief.”

When I asked for the legal basis or the principles used to bypass these independent determinations, the government hid behind “Cabinet confidentiality.”

This isn’t just about one group; it’s about the integrity of our tax system. We cannot have a system where groups who lose in court simply lobby a Minister for a custom-made law.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My questions are actually brief, but I have to untangle the acronyms. I have to give you some background first to set up my questions. Equality Australia applied for public benevolent institution status in 2020 and was rejected by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission because its primary purpose was advocacy and law reform, not direct benevolent relief. The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission found its activities were ‘too indirect’ to qualify as benevolent relief. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal upheld the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission’s decision. The Full Federal Court dismissed Equality Australia’s appeal in September 2024, confirming that advocacy and campaigning for law reform did not meet the statutory definition of a public benevolent institution.  

After losing in court, Equality Australia wrote to Assistant Minister Andrew Leigh in November 2024, seeking a specific listing for deductible gift recipient status under the Income Tax Act 1997. Cabinet approved the listing in early 2025 and the March federal budget included Equality Australia as a named deductible gift recipient entity for five years. Media commentary highlights concerns that this decision effectively overrode determinations by three accountability bodies, the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court.  

My questions are: why did Treasury support a specific deductible gift recipient status listing for Equality Australia after the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission refused public benevolent institution status, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed and the Full Federal Court dismissed the appeal on 5 September 2024 all on the basis that Equality Australia’s activities are advocacy, not direct benevolent relief? What principles justify overriding three independent determinations?  

Ms Berger-Thomson: Decisions made on DGR-specific listings are decisions of cabinet.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what principle justifies overriding three independent determinations?  

Senator Gallagher: I don’t have anything further to add to that. I’m not aware of it.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice?  

Senator Gallagher: I’m happy to take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did Treasury advise cabinet that a specific listing bypasses the ordinary deductible gift recipient pathway for a single organisation?  

Ms Berger-Thomson: Typically, we do provide advice on specific listings. Specific listings are only for those organisations that do not qualify for any of the other 52 DGR categories that are administered by the ATO.  

Senator ROBERTS: You did give advice?  

Dr Johnson: It’s not appropriate to talk about cabinet material in Senate estimates.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about Treasury advice?  

Dr Johnson: That’s Treasury advice for a cabinet process.  

Senator ROBERTS: You can’t provide it on notice?  

Dr Johnson: No, not in relation to things that relate to a cabinet process.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s pretty handy. I have two final questions: on what legal basis did Treasury rely to proceed where the courts found the activities did not meet the public benevolent institution test? Secondly, how does Treasury ensure consistency with the statutory meaning of ‘benevolent relief’ used by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court, when recommending by name a deductible gift recipient? What legal basis did Treasury rely on?  

Senator Gallagher: As to specific listings—there are a few every budget that the ERC or the government considers when other avenues have been exhausted. That reflects a decision of government.  

Senator ROBERTS: I want to know what legal advice Treasury received.  

Senator Gallagher: Treasury provide advice on the listings that come before us. Ministers get briefed appropriately, but ultimately it’s a decision for government.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why did the government ignore or bypass three institutions with experience in this area and responsibility for this area—the Federal Court, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Australian Charities—  

Senator Gallagher: I’ve taken that on notice. I was just more generally saying how the decisions are taken. 

Senator ROBERTS: Could you provide an answer to that?  

Senator Gallagher: I have undertaken to do that.  

Senator ROBERTS: And also the basis for the decision?  

Senator Gallagher: Yes, I have taken that on notice.  

/0 Comments/by

More People, More Demand

,

RBA Governor Bullock: “Well, certainly the more population you have, the more demand for housing.”

– Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I understand that household inflation expectations have a big impact on inflation itself. At the economic roundtable, Treasurer Chalmers said: Real wages are growing at their strongest rate in five years, inflation has a two in front of it and interest rates have been cut three times in the last six months. People are still talking about high grocery bills and inflation in insurance premiums and all kinds of insurance. What does that do to people’s expectations of inflation?  

Ms Bullock: Well, all the evidence we have is that inflationary expectations have remained reasonably anchored at around 2½ per cent. That’s what has made it possible, I think, to bring inflation back down toward the target range so that we’re now under three per cent and heading towards 2½ per cent and to maintain a relatively healthy labour market. You couldn’t achieve that without anchored inflation expectations.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I have a quick question before I go to a separate topic. What does having 4.5 million visa holders, non-citizens, in the country do to demand for houses and to the price of houses?  

Ms Bullock: Well, certainly the more population you have, the more demand for housing you have.

/0 Comments/by

Empty Towns, Full Bird Nests: Labor’s Priority

,

Another round of questioning regarding the Labor government’s pursuit of environmental water. And frankly, the answers I’m getting from the Department and Minister Watt leave me deeply concerned for our rural communities.

Here is where we stand:

I asked the officials exactly how much water they’re still looking to strip from the system. It turns out they are only about halfway to their 450-gigalitre target. By their own admission, there are still 229 gigalitres left to be recovered. That is a massive amount of water that will no longer be growing food or fibre.

I asked Minister Watt why he’s ignoring his own Labor counterparts in the New South Wales Legislative Council, who voted unanimously for a Royal Commission into water. The Minister dismissed the idea as an “expensive repeat,” preferring to stick to their own reviews. It’s clear they don’t want a truly independent set of eyes looking at the damage being done.

This is the part that should really worry every Australian.

The government is paying an average of $5,040 per megalitre for buybacks. Meanwhile, temporary water trading prices have jumped 250% over the last decade. They are forcing water prices to “ludicrous levels.”

They claim they want “value for the taxpayer.” The Reality? They’re outbidding farmers, forcing them off the land.

When I asked how much more taxpayer money is needed to finish these buybacks, they refused to give me a number, claiming it’s “commercial-in-confidence.” Simply, they don’t want sellers to know!

All Pain, No Clear Gain!

I asked them directly what exactly this 229 gigalitres will achieve that justifies gutting our farming sector. The answers were the usual bureaucratic fluff about “supporting variations in flows” and “waterbird breeding.”

They are prioritising bird breeding over the survival of the towns that feed this country.

The government admits their “Sustainable Communities Program” is in such early stages that they can’t even tell if it’s working, yet they are charging ahead with buybacks that will be finished by December 2026.

We cannot allow “environmental outcomes” to become a suicide pact for regional Australia.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: How much is the remaining water for the environment in gigalitres? What’s outstanding? How much more will we claim back?  

Senator Watt: There are a couple of different categories, so maybe one of the officials can give you the updated figures.  

Mr Southwell: Are you referring to the 450 gigalitres of environmental water, Senator? 

Senator ROBERTS: I thought it was 292. That’s the remaining water for the environment, as I understand it. Am I wrong?  

Mr Southwell: Do you mean the sustainable diversion limit, Senator?  

Senator ROBERTS: I mean the total buybacks yet to be bought.  

Mr Southwell: Okay. Perhaps I can start by answering the question around the 450 gigalitres of environmental water, as I think that might go to part of your question. We’re around halfway towards that target. As of 31 December, we’ve recovered 221 gigalitres towards that. That’s a mixture of purchases and infrastructure as well as other mechanisms. I’m hoping that that goes to your question.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you’ve got about 229 left to go.  

Mr Southwell: Correct, Senator. We’re about halfway.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Minister, the Legislative Council of New South Wales has voted unanimously to call on the federal government to convene a royal commission into water. Your own party, the Labor Party in New South Wales, voted for this measure. Do you support a federal royal commission, and, if not, on what basis do you disagree with your state counterparts? 

Senator Watt: I’m not sure that it was a unanimous vote of the legislative council. I am aware that there was a vote of the legislative council. It’s not my view that we need yet another royal commission into water policy or the Murray-Darling Basin. I recognise there are some Independents, particularly in the New South Wales parliament, who support that. This year, we have several reviews under way around the future management of the Murray Darling. You may have seen, just last week, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority released a discussion paper about the next version of the plan. My view is that we should proceed with the work that is already intended, rather than launch an expensive repeat of a royal commission.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Third review of the Water for the Environment Special Account report has found that the money in the account used to buy back water will only last until December 2026. How much more money is needed to complete the 450 gigalitres of buybacks the Albanese Labor government is intent on undertaking?  

Mr Sullivan: In terms of the money required, traditionally we wouldn’t give you that figure because it’s a commercial tender process. The money is available inside the contingency reserve to complete the government’s commitment to 450 gigalitres. But, in terms of the water purchasing component of that, my understanding is that that is a figure that is not for publication—  

Senator ROBERTS: Because you don’t want sellers to find out.  

Mr Sullivan: Exactly. Mr Southwell: I’ll just add to that. We’re trying to maximise the value for taxpayers through this process.  

Senator ROBERTS: According to the report, at 1.1.1, recent purchases have averaged at $5,040 per megalitre. Water for actual farming is uneconomic above $100 to $200 a megalitre, depending on the crop. Is your buyback forcing up the trading price of water to ludicrous levels, forcing family businesses off the land?  

Mr Southwell: I’ll start and perhaps ask for some of my colleagues to come to the table. We’re very much well aware that water purchasing has an impact. As you’re aware, as part of the process for initiating a purchase program, there is a consideration of socioeconomic impacts. That process is a routine part of our decision-making when conducting these water purchase programs.  

Senator ROBERTS: Average water trading prices in the December quarter 2025 were over $500 per megalitre, which is 250 per cent higher than in the same quarter 10 years ago. Both quarters had similar rainfall below long-term averages, with some areas in drought. So they’ve got similar inflow in the period. If water prices have not been inflated by buybacks, what has inflated them?  

Ms MacRae: Water prices, particularly the temporary water prices that I think you’re referring to, are $200 to $500 per megalitre for the annual purchase of water as opposed to the permanent purchase of water, which is what we focus on in the department. Permanent access is more like buying a house as opposed to renting a house. Of course, it is more expensive to buy a house outright permanently than it is to perhaps buy that house, for example, for a 12-month period. That’s the price difference you mentioned. We’re paying on average $5,400 per megalitre, but temporary trades are in that $200 per megalitre range. I think over the last 10 years there have been many shifts in irrigated agriculture as well as water reform that have led to a change in pricing. This can be compounded by many things, including—  

Senator ROBERTS: You have affected the market though. 

Ms MacRae: There is an impact on prices in the market from the government purchasing water. There are many reports that do talk about that. But in many cases, while there is an initial impact, that does settle down initially after a period of time.  

Senator ROBERTS: To get to this point so far you’ve bought up water that farmers didn’t need, and/or you’ve bought up water that farmers did need but who needed your money more than they needed the water. You’ve brought up water that only appears in a flood, and now you’re down to buying water that’s needed to grow food and fibre to feed and clothe the world. What price do you expect to pay for the remaining acquisitions?  

Mr Southwell: We run open and competitive tender processes. Those processes are underway. As I said earlier, we seek to obviously maximise the return for the taxpayer through this process, and we will evaluate those purchases based on the offers that are made and determine them based on value for money.  

Senator ROBERTS: The report at 1.1.2 also found current funding was insufficient to make up for the damage your buybacks are doing to rural and regional communities. What increase in allocation will you need to provide just compensation for the loss and damage you’re causing to rural communities?  

Ms Johnson: The government’s Sustainable Communities Program is providing $300 million over four years for community adjustment assistance. That was something that was referenced in the WESA third report. It found that the Sustainable Communities Program has the potential to offset some impacts in these communities that receive adjustment assistance. But because, of course, that program is still in the early phases of delivery, the third WESA report, which was tabled last year, found it was too early to assess the outcomes. But that’s certainly an important program when we think about community adjustment assistance in this space.  

Mr Coates: That’s actually in section 1.1.2 of the WESA report, where it refers to funding sufficiency. It’s talking about constraints measures, not the Sustainable Communities Program or programs to mitigate socioeconomic impacts.  

Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by that?  

Mr Coates: Constraints is a whole different program under the Basin Plan. It’s not my area of expertise, but it’s about achieving environmental outcomes.  

Ms Johnson: Senator, on that one, the report found that the funding available to 31 December this year, 2026, is sufficient for the projects that are likely to be delivered in this period. Others can talk to constraints; there is quite a significant body of work that can be done. But, for the projects that are underway, you’ll see in that section 1.1.2 that it found that the funding available is sufficient for those projects expected to be delivered this calendar year.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, may I just inquire as to remaining questions and if there’s any possibility of putting some of those on notice. I’m not going to cut you off.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m nearly finished, I think. I think they’ll be short answers.  

CHAIR: Okay.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what specifically will the remaining quantity of what will actually be 229 gigalitres for the environment be used for?  

Senator Watt: What will it be used for?  

Senator ROBERTS: What are the KPIs? What environmental need is so critical that farming needs to be so damaged by these buybacks?  

Mr Southwell: I’ll start and then hand over to my colleague Simon Banks. The water purchasing and water recovery for that 450-gigalitre target is to acquire water to support environmental outcomes to meet the Basin Plan. Dr Banks can talk through the detail of what that water is used for, but effectively it will deliver outcomes that support the—  

Dr Banks: Any water that is recovered through the program entitles us to a greater share of water in any particular year that we can then use to return to the environment. We’re able to support variations in flows and support the movement of native fish and the building of condition of native fish. We’ve been able to support waterbird breeding, which again is about how we improve the overall basin outcomes for the environment. So I can assure you there will be plenty of opportunity to use the available water, and my job is to make sure that we get the best out of the water that we’re responsible for managing.

/0 Comments/by

Labor’s Communist Farm Plot

,

I briefly questioned the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) regarding the massive $1.5 billion class action suit brought by Doyle’s Farm Produce and others.

I got the usual run-around — bureaucratic talk about “normal insurance processes” and passing the buck to the government’s insurer.

More alarmingly, I questioned Minister Watt about the $3 million being funnelled toward a scheme where intermediaries (likely union super funds) would buy up farms and water. I asked how corporate-owned “government farms” can magically create environmental water, reminding him that state run farming is a page straight out of the Mao and Stalin playbook.

When I asked how we are going to feed our growing population once the family farm is destroyed and the bush is emptied, the Minister fell back on “environmental management” platitudes.

This government is trading real food security for a radical agenda, and the farmers know it.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on. Referencing the New South Wales Supreme Court case of Doyle’s Farm Produce Pty Ltd atf Claredale Family Trust and others versus the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and Anor, a class action—this is claiming up to $1.5 billion in damages. Have you made a contingent liability for any sum at all in connection with this case or any other such claim? 

Mr McConville: The court action has been completing, and we are awaiting the judgement on that. We work with the AGS through normal insurance processes, so there’s not much more I can say on that.  

Senator ROBERTS: You haven’t made a contingency; you’re just relying on insurance?  

Mr McConville: It’s the task of the government’s insurer to make those contingencies.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Minister, this report discusses the $3 million allocated by the Labor government to the states for the development of a proposal to buy farms with water allocations through intermediaries, which would, I am sure, include union superannuation funds. Those corporations would then operate the farms. Minister, where did the $3 million come from, and how does purchasing a water allocation from a government farm make it environmental water?  

Senator Watt: Unless one of the officials knows the answer, I will have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Anyone? This is my last question. Didn’t Chairman Mao and Joseph Stalin already try that, Minister? I’m just curious—once you have destroyed family farms through the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and emptied out the bush, what will Australians in your cities, and your millions of new arrivals, eat?  

Senator Watt: The government’s view is that the long-term health of the Murray-Darling Basin system and the future of the agriculture industry in that region rely on better environmental management of water in the basin. We think this is essential to future food security.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m sure many, many farmers don’t agree with you on that one. 

/0 Comments/by

New Robodebt Scandal Waiting to Happen

,

One Nation cannot support this bill in its current form. While we agree that Australians caught up in the Robodebt scandal deserve closure, this legislation fails to deliver justice and accountability.

The government’s amendment MM100 introduces Section 44A, giving bureaucrats the power to use AI to mine data, match records, and even issue debt notices — all without human oversight. This is Robodebt 2.0. The same flawed approach that caused harm, heartbreak, and even loss of life is being repeated. The Royal Commission exposed the dangers of automated debt recovery. Why would we allow it again?

On top of that, Schedule 5 was added after the committee stage with zero scrutiny. It could suspend benefits for people accused, yet not convicted, of crimes. That’s a denial of natural justice and a dangerous precedent. An accusation is not a conviction, and financial penalties before due process is unacceptable.

One Nation supports restoring the six-year debt recovery limit, but without proper safeguards and accountability, this bill is a recipe for disaster. We’re calling on the government to pull these last-minute inclusions or send the bill back for full scrutiny. Australians deserve fairness, not another robodebt scandal.

— Senate Speech | November 2025

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Minister, this bill includes provisions that have been introduced after the committee stage and, as such, have not been subjected to proper scrutiny. It’s true that those who were caught up in the robodebt scandal need closure. One way or another, they need closure. A line needs to be drawn under as many of these debts as possible. This bill as it is, however, fails to achieve that objective to One Nation’s standard. 

I note that government amendment MM100 was passed this morning on the voices. I would like to ask Hansard to note One Nation’s opposition to that amendment, and here’s why: the amendment includes section 44A, which allows the government to use a computer program—in other words, AI, artificial intelligence—to mine data and match data and decide whether a debt occurs, and even to issue the debt notice. Are you kidding? This just restarts a robodebt type of debt recovery, but this time using AI. The fundamental problem still exists—data matching across systems with different software, different indexing and different ages that led to matching errors. The government has spent $2 billion trying to sort this mess out and has now pushed back the timeframe to complete the linking of government data back to 2028. We’ll get you. Why ask for these powers now when you have no ability to deliver? There’s no scrutiny and no guardrails; just do whatever the hell the secretary wants. This is a recipe for robodebt 2. 

The government must be responsible, accountable and transparent. The failure of robodebt was to try to match data from incompatible computer systems, which led to innocent people being presented with a debt notice, and it led to inaccurate amounts being claimed. This resulted from the use of computer matching software. Amendment MM100 repeats that same mistake and will surely lead to the same outcome of substantial errors in data matching leading to erroneous debt collection. As the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme found, people died as a result of these debt notices. Introducing a system that makes these notices, untouched by human hands, is not the answer. The answer is careful scrutiny. 

One Nation cannot support this bill with section 44A included. Senator David Pocock introduced a perfectly logical amendment to pull schedule 5 from the bill. The schedule was introduced after the bill went to committee. It has not been properly scrutinised. The provisions of schedule 5 could be misused to suspend benefits for persons accused, but not convicted, of a crime. In particular, fathers accused of domestic violence will be robbed of their benefits—whether that is unemployment, parenting payment, rent allowance or whatever—placing them in a weakened position to defend those charges. This schedule is designed to encourage domestic violence allegations. This provision should be limited to persons who have been convicted, not accused, of a crime, even where an arrest warrant has been issued. An arrest warrant is not a conviction. It is the police saying the accusation is serious and the complainant may be in danger. Suspending their liberty via an arrest warrant is how this is dealt with, not levying a financial penalty by terminating their income before a conviction. Greens amendment (2) on sheet 3487 restores the six-year limit for debt collection. While One Nation would have gone with seven years to align with the tax law, I understand that the six-year limit restores a provision the Liberal-National government repealed in order to facilitate robodebt initially. Again, you’re bringing it all back. Without this provision, the government has unlimited recovery powers. It has gone back to 2004 in some cases. I understand they have gone back to last century. This is a denial of natural justice and administrative fairness. Who has the documents from that far back to challenge a notice? Make no mistake: these debt notices are guilty until proven innocent. One Nation will support the Greens amendment. 

Without all of those amendments in place, One Nation cannot support this bill. We are happy to work with the government to clean the mess called robodebt and have the bill reintroduced next year with due scrutiny of the ramifications of using AI and with schedule 5 properly scrutinised. Minister, my question is: will you pull these last-minute inclusions out of the bill or send the bill back to a committee so that these last-minute inclusions can be properly scrutinised by the people’s representatives in this house? 

/0 Comments/by

Private Jets & Amazon Destruction: The COP30 Circus

,

The latest globalist circus: UN COP30 in Belem, Brazil was a monumental failure and a masterclass in elite hypocrisy. While 55,000 “carpetbaggers” and technocrats gathered to lecture us on our carbon footprint, they were busy carving a highway through the heart of the Amazon rainforest just to improve access to their venue. 30,000 trees gone, destroying 10,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide sequestration, all while sipping champagne on luxury cruise ships floating in a harbor filled with raw sewage.

The hypocrisy is staggering. They parked 250 private jets at local airports and then had the gall to discuss taxing your airline flights.

The UN KNOWS the 1.5° target is a fantasy. The truth is coming out: most countries know that Net Zero will bring economic ruin and that carbon dioxide is essential for human prosperity.

Australia is already at “net zero”. Our forests absorb more CO2 than we produce. To chase “green” energy, the government is blowing up mountaintops for wind turbines and cutting through national parks for transmission lines.  And Ministers like Chris Bowen are being rewarded with UN roles for facilitating the transfer of Australian wealth into the pockets of billionaire crony capitalists and foreign interests.

This isn’t just about the weather; it’s about control. The “Globalist Uniparty” (Labor, Liberal, Greens, and Teals) is ushering in a future where you are herded into 38-storey “human filing cabinets” in 15-minute cities.

They want to track your spending and deny transactions for meat, travel, or air conditioning once you hit your “limit.” The push to eliminate cash is the final step in building this virtual prison. And under the guise of fighting “misinformation,” they are moving to criminalise dissent and “defossilise knowledge.”

When I warned about this nearly a decade ago, people laughed – yet nobody is laughing now. Everyday Australians are waking up to the fact that One Nation was right. We are the only party with the guts to stand up to this madness.

Our plan is simple: 1️ Withdraw from the United Nations and the World Health Organisation; 2️ Exit the UN Paris Agreement immediately; and 3️ Stop Net Zero to protect Australian living standards and sovereignty.

The UN is out of control, and this Labor government is their willing accomplice.

Put Australia first.

— Senate Speech | 25 November 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: This month, 55,000 carpetbaggers, technocrats and enablers gathered in the shadow of the Amazon rainforest to breathe life into the greatest climate change scam for one more year. The United Nations conference of the parties, COP, COP30, in Belem, Brazil, has ended in failure. In this speech, I’m not being critical of the good people of Brazil, for whom One Nation has tremendous respect; I am being critical of elitist politicians, bureaucrats, parasites and thieves sucking on energy subsidies who are blind to their own hypocrisy, incompetence and dishonesty—hypocrisy such as building a highway through the Amazon rainforest to improve access to the conference venue, which turned into another ‘look the other way’ moment for the world press, still using climate change as a boogieman to scare people into continuing to read their rubbish. This highway bisects an environmental protection area and cuts through wetlands and dense secondary Amazon rainforest. The highway allows easy access for illegal logging, disrupts water and food supply for native inhabitants and actually increases the flooding risk in Belem. In other words, it’s just another day at the office for the hypocritical, incompetent, dishonest climate change zealots. Actual environmental groups and satellite monitoring from Imazon have tracked secondary deforestation already sprouting along the new corridor, in the classic fishbone pattern that often follows Amazon road building. An accurate estimate for the number of trees felled is 30,000—gone! This eliminated 10,000 tonnes of national carbon dioxide sequestration necessary for oxygen production. 

This is something you’ve heard before from One Nation. Australia is already at net zero. Every year our extensive forests, natural and planted, absorb more carbon dioxide than Australia produces. Any talk of UN carbon dioxide reduction, as inhuman and nonsensical as that is, must acknowledge the essential role of planting and preserving trees and forests. Instead, in Australia we’re seeing large-scale deforestation, blowing the tops off entire mountains to locate massive wind turbines, and building access roads and easements for electricity transmission lines through the bush and national parks. 

The environmental damage of UN COP30 doesn’t stop at rainforests. Only four per cent of Belem’s sewage is treated, and the rest gets dumped into waterways and, from there, into the sea. Attendees at the conference were billeted on luxury cruise ships in the harbour in Belem. Attendees were able to look over the side and see raw sewage from the conference floating past. How fitting is that? What a perfect metaphor for the excretable, failed theory of climate change. 

I haven’t finished on the hypocrisy. Tarmac space limited the number of private planes arriving to 250, requiring the conversion of 14 local airports into parking lots for crony capitalists to park their jets whilst lecturing us on our carbon dioxide footprint. Domestic and international flights added another 50,000 seats, so I wonder how many people bothered to use the new highway through the Amazon. Perhaps the highway was for the workers, whilst the elites flew. I thought flying was a crime against mother earth, but the rules don’t apply to the people who make them. I was especially amused to see those same people who flew to Belem support an agenda item for a tax on airline flights to raise US$6 billion towards fighting themselves. 

The final communique was a complete failure, a collection of weasel words and platitudes. UN COP30 turned into a cop-out. UN climate chief Simon Stiell hailed the communique as proof that climate cooperation is ‘alive’, and that their goal of keeping warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius was still ‘within reach’—a furtive plea if ever I heard one! Former environment minister Tanya Plibersek, from the Labor government, emphasised new hope for the 1.5-degree Celsius alignment. New hope? No, Minister, there is no chance and no hope the world will ever meet the Paris targets. There’s no scientific reason why they should. A stronger initial communique was rejected, with only 30 of the 194 delegates in support. The final cop-out communique only recommitted to the Paris accord and a voluntary global plan for eventual phase-out of hydrocarbon fuels, coal, oil and natural gas. Spot the weasel words: ‘voluntary’ and ‘eventual’. UN COP30 said the quiet part out loud. This is not going to happen. 

The truth is that most countries have realised climate change science is wrong; net zero measures are ruinous; and hydrocarbon fuels like coal, oil and natural gas, are essential for maintaining living standards and for lifting underdeveloped nations out of poverty. This is about humanity. This is probably why Australia’s Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, has accepted a thankyou job with the United Nations in acknowledgement of his service to the UN’s crooked cause. 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Cox): Senator Roberts, just a reminder to refer to those from the other place by their correct titles. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister Chris Bowen. That means using the pretence of global warming to facilitate the transfer of income, wealth and opportunity from everyday Australians into the pockets of the world’s richest crony capitalists and their communist Chinese allies. His appointment has been criticised, but, from my perspective, the less this bloke is in Australia the less damage and hurt he can inflict on Australians. 

Events like the conference of parties and Davos are not just talkfests, as one attendee told me. They have two purposes. One is to see what the billionaires that pull the world’s collective strings can get away with this year. The second is so that these predatory billionaires can steer world events to increase their own wealth and power. As an example, BlackRock Inc spent $10 million attending UN COP30 to advocate for a worldwide carbon dioxide tax and trading system so their executives can buy carbon dioxide credits and then live the same lives of plenty they live now. This isn’t speculation. They actually said that. The videos are online. 

On the other hand, working Australians are increasingly being herded into smaller and smaller homes, smaller lives and smaller families, centred around train stations, which will ultimately become 15-minute cities. It will be a world of people working from their tiny apartments, stacked up in human filing cabinets. The latest approvals are now for 38 storeys—hundreds of families in an area that used to house four families and their backyards. 

Do you remember backyards? There’s no place for personal space in this new globalist world of mass migration. You’ll be kept in this virtual prison by your personal carbon dioxide allowance, which will prevent car ownership, prevent travel, prevent meat—and no pets which eat meat. New clothes will be limited to three purchases a year, and there will be no air conditioning. There’s no provision for air conditioning in the platinum energy standard being advanced by the Greens and the teals. And that code includes sealing a home so tightly to reduce energy loss that air flow will be restricted and condensation will lead to an ongoing problem with mould. Try that one in Queensland!  

If you think, ‘I will not comply,’ you will have no choice. Your bank is already preparing to help you limit your daily carbon dioxide output and, in 2030, will start denying transactions above your allowance. It’s a system that works only if cash is eliminated, which the Treasurer, the Labor treasurer, is trying to do now with new anticash regulations. 

When I first talked about these things nine years ago, nearly a decade, the internet laughed. Well, the internet is laughing much less now, as this agenda starts to affect them personally. Everyday more and more Australians are realising One Nation was right about everything. This will be your future under the Liberal-Labor-Greens-teal globalist uniparty. In fact, this future is why the teals were invented: to take over from the Greens, who are moving into the lunatic fringe of politics, and to take over from the Liberals, who are starting to baulk at committing this crime against humanity. 

Recent Liberal Party leadership changes at state level installed leaders who have signed onto the UN nightmare agenda. These leadership changes were designed to ensure that, if the federal party does change direction, those pro-Australia policies will be blocked at state level. There’s really no hope for the Liberal Party while it’s under Michael Photios’s control. 

And don’t think you’ll be able to attend a protest rally or speak out in dissent. The Labor Party have colluded with the Greens and teal-like senators to hold a sham, show trial into freedom of speech, which they call ‘misinformation’. Not surprisingly, in this bias sham trial, freedom of speech is losing, as intended. The outcome will be misinformation laws that allow the government to suppress criticism and evidence of their failures, in the same way that the Keir Starmer’s regime has in the UK and Mark Carney in Canada. This trial, combined with schooling to year 12, university education for all high-school graduates and the under-16 social media and search ban, will ensure your children will not know what truth is. They will only know what the government wants them to know. 

In June, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, called for states to ‘defossilise knowledge’ through the criminalisation of what she defines as misinformation as well as criminalising media that amplify it. Defossilising knowledge—knowledge!—that is terrifying. Morgera wants criminal sanctions for those deemed to have obstructed climate action. The United Nation is out of control and so is this Labor government, with its Greens allies. 

One Nation has all the answers to stop this. We will withdraw from the UN, the UN World Health Organization and the UN Paris Agreement and stop net zero. 

/0 Comments/by

Courage in the Senate

,

Even in the Senate chamber, where we hold positions of authority, fellow senators seem terrified to confront contentious issues. One Nation will not be discouraged. I maintain that radical Islam poses a genuine threat to our future, and I remain committed to defending Christianity and our Australian identity.

I found the accusations regarding our opposition to the burqa absurd, particularly the claim that it endangered schoolchildren. I asked then, as I do now, why are children wearing burqas in the first place. France had the sense to ban face coverings in schools, and we argue that Australia should follow suit.

– Senate Speech | November 2025

Transcript

Senator Roberts: The events of the last two days have established that even in this place, despite our trusted position of authority and responsibility, senators are afraid to deal with matters which may be contentious or even offend. Instead, the issues Senator Hanson and One Nation raised have met a response that can only be described as cowardice wrapped in fake outrage. One Nation will not be discouraged from addressing these issues that are threatening the welfare of everyday Australians. Radical Islam is a threat to the future of our beautiful country, and I will continue to defend Christianity and our Australian identity. 

I want to address specific issues raised in this motion and related debate—firstly, the accusation that our opposition to the burqa would endanger schoolchildren in burqas. I must ask: what the hell is a schoolchild doing wearing a burqa? France solved that with a ban on burqas and face coverings in school. Australia must do so as well. As for talk of using a prop, the Greens’ own Senator Hanson-Young brought a dead fish into the chamber and waved it around. That was not called a prop. Senator Thorpe brought a traditional Aboriginal weapon into the chamber, and that was not called a prop. Senator Faruqi demonstrated her fanatical support for Palestine with the frequent wearing of the keffiyeh; that was not deemed a prop. Senator Price wearing an Australian flag was a prop. Senator Hanson wearing a burqa was a prop. The definition of a prop appears to be anything Greens senators don’t want to talk about. 

This motion criticises everyday Australians marching proudly for their flag and their country, the same flag that flies above us right now. These marches are peaceful, joyous family events celebrating everything Australia used to be. No wonder the Greens hate it. The violence that occurred in the Melbourne march came from people who gatecrashed the event. Tarring unrelated groups with the same Nazi brush is brain-dead Greens propaganda. One Nation stands in defence of our flag, our community and our nation. Why don’t you? 

/0 Comments/by

Censorship in the Climate Debate

,

I’ve been attending public hearings in relation to Climate Integrity and what I’ve witnessed in these hearings reveals a sobering preview of Australia’s future under this government.

Instead of using the Senate Committee to find the truth, I watched this Labor-Greens government use the platform to bully experts and silence dissent.

To hear a Senator claim that science is “not contested anymore” once a consensus is reached isn’t just wrong, it’s a rejection of the scientific method itself. Science relies on evidence and questioning, not government-mandated agreement.

Labor wants to be the “thought police” of Australia, censoring any opinion they find inconvenient. They are treating our Senate like a rubber stamp for censorship.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: One Nation will fight this every inch of the way. We will not let this government, with the help of the Greens, turn our beloved country into a place where free speech is not allowed.

– Senate Speech | November 2025

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Last week, Australians witnessed a terrifying demonstration of where our future lies under this Labor-Greens government, which implemented policy that the Morrison government initiated. It’s a future that does not include the right to free speech or even the right to hold an opinion which conflicts with the government’s. Labor senator Michelle Ananda-Rajah used her position as the Deputy Chair of the Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy to impose her views on witnesses, the reverse of the committee process, which allows all opinions to be heard. From that testimony the truth shall emerge. The senator dismissed expert testimony from the Institute of Public Affairs with this comment: 

The thing about science is it is contested until it is not. When consensus is arrived at, it is not contested anymore. 

The senator has a PhD in artificial intelligence, has published 40 papers and should know better. 

The United States National Academy of Sciences defines the scientific method as ‘a process for developing and testing explanations of the world that relies on evidence, with the understanding that new evidence may revise or replace existing explanations’. There is no consensus provided for in that definition of the scientific method. Senators and witnesses who disputed the belief, based on the evidence, that humans are responsible for our changing climate were subjected to hostility, rudeness, smugness and arrogance unbefitting the Senate. The inquiry is a travesty of the Senate process. It’s a waste of taxpayer money and is designed to justify legislation to censor opinions it does not like. The government does not get to shut down dissent, censor inconvenient truths and cancel the right to free speech. One Nation will fight, every inch of the way, your attempts to set the government up as the thought police of Australia. You will not turn our beloved country into communist China. 

/0 Comments/by

The Price of Transition

,

This discussion with Matt Kean, Chair of the Climate Change Authority (CCA) and former Liberal NSW Energy Minister, focuses on the accuracy of his advice regarding energy prices, the reliability of renewable transitions, and the global commitment to Net Zero.

I challenged Mr. Kean on a 2020 claim that Australia could become an “energy superpower” with low-cost power. I argued that power prices have actually “increased astronomically” since then.

Mr. Kean maintained that wholesale prices are currently trending downward due to increased renewable penetration. He cited ABS data showing a recent 10.2% monthly drop in prices and AEMO reports showing a 38% quarterly decrease in wholesale costs. He attributed high bills to network charges and the unreliability of ageing coal plants rather than the renewable transition itself.

I questioned the $1 billion expenditure on the Waratah Super Battery, calling it a “wasted” stopgap for the Eraring coal plant, which has not yet closed. I asked how a short-duration battery could replace a 24/7 coal station.

Matt Kean said that the Waratah project is a “systems battery” (SIPS), not a standard storage battery. He said its purpose is to act as a “shock absorber” for the grid, allowing existing transmission lines to operate at higher capacities and “sweat” existing coal assets harder while integrating renewables.

Mr. Kean and Senator Ayres argued that the primary driver of cost and instability in the grid is the extreme age of Australian coal plants (averaging 38 years).

Senator Ayres noted that there had been daily unplanned outages from major coal plants (like Bayswater and Loy Yang) over the preceding three weeks, totalling 2.5 gigawatts of lost capacity, which spikes market prices.

Matt Kean corrected his previous figure (53% of global GDP), stating it is now much higher. He claimed that 165 countries representing 79% of global GDP and 87% of the world population have now committed to Net Zero targets, with many (including Australia) enshrining them in law.

This insane transition to renewables is a threat to our economic stability and industrial capacity. A One Nation government will dismantle Australia’s climate bureaucracy by abolishing the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, along with advisory bodies like the Climate Change Authority and the Net Zero Economy Authority.

Further, we will withdraw Australia from the Paris Agreement, repeal the Climate Change Act 2022, and eliminate the Renewable Energy Target.

Scrapping agencies such as ARENA and the CEFC, One Nation will end all subsidies for renewables, shifting the nation’s regulatory and administrative focus toward lowering electricity prices through the expansion of coal-fired power and the introduction of nuclear energy.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. Mr Kean, my questions go to you. Your responsibility is to give the government correct advice. Is that correct?

Mr Kean: Frank and fearless correct advice—that’s right.

Senator ROBERTS: That advice could steer the direction of our entire country and potentially affect every one of the 28 million people in Australia. Is that correct?

Mr Kean: We provide advice that’s frank and fearless to the government of the day. It’s up to the government of the day as to whether or not they’ll accept that advice.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’d agree that it’s vital for the country that your advice is accurate and correct?

Mr Kean: We provide the best advice based on evidence and science to the government. As you well know, Senator, it goes through the cabinet process, the party room process and the parliamentary process. It’s up to the government and the parliament as to whether or not they accept the CCA’s advice.

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to go to your track record and some forecasts. I’m going to quote you from the Energy Insiders podcast in 2020 with Renew Economy. You said: ‘If they’re looking for a global competitive advantage when it comes to low-cost energy, we can provide it. But we’ve got to move quickly and we’ve got to move now. That is an opportunity for us to be an economic superpower—not just an energy superpower but an economic superpower. It’s too big an opportunity not to grab.’ Since you said that you can provide low-cost energy in 2020, power prices have increased astronomically. When are Australians going to get the cheap power you promised?

Mr Kean: According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, they are already seeing those power prices coming down as a result of renewables. Look at power prices in October. They were 10.2 per cent lower than in the previous month. We know that they bounce around, particularly as state and Commonwealth rebates come into force or conclude, as it just happened to be. I, as a former energy minister in New South Wales, and we, as the Climate Change Authority, are acutely aware that some households and businesses are doing it tough and are looking at what costs they can contain. In the energy and climate war that we seem to be mired in yet again, perspective can be the first casualty. In the present consumer price index basket of goods and services that the Australian Bureau of Statistics uses to track inflation in the economy, electricity prices have a 1.84 per cent weighting. That’s not nothing, but I think it’s an important bit of context for you. Going back to those price trends that you talked about and that I stand by, no doubt you will have noted that wholesale prices have largely been in retreat of late, and that’s because renewable energy’s share of the grid is increasing. Check out AEMO’s Quarterly energy dynamics report for the September quarter. If you need the facts, they’re right there available to you. You’ll see that wholesale power prices across the national electricity market were on average 38 per cent below those of the June quarter this year. Compared with the September quarter last year, the fall was 27 per cent. That’s not because more fossil fuels have entered the market; that’s because renewable energy is pushing down wholesale prices. The more cheap energy we get into the market, the better off consumers and businesses will be.

Senator ROBERTS: Are wholesale prices going to be cheaper or more expensive than they were five or 10 years ago? Are they cheaper or more expensive than they were?

Mr Kean: As I said, just look at the Quarterly energy dynamics report that AEMO has just put out. It is clearly showing that wholesale prices are only heading in one direction. They make up about a third of a typical household’s—

Senator ROBERTS: Are they cheaper than they were five or 10 years ago?

Mr Kean: I’m not referring to the wholesale dynamics report comparing them to 10 years ago. I’m referring to the most recent one, which shows that wholesale prices are coming down.

Senator ROBERTS: My question was: are they cheaper or more expensive than they were five or 10 years ago?

Mr Kean: I don’t have that data in front of me, but I’m very happy to table that data for you.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Wholesale prices are only one part of someone’s bill. There will be many people watching here—small businesses, large businesses, families—who will have taken issue with what you said. An increasing part is the network charges, especially for transmission. Are the network charges going down as well?

Mr Kean: As I said, wholesale prices make up about a third of the typical household bill, and we know that the cheapest form of new generation is renewables. We know that ageing coal-fired and even gas-fired power plants will shut in the coming decade or so. So, to unlock that cheap wholesale energy produced by renewables, you will need more networks built. That’s for sure. Certainly I can talk to the situation in New South Wales, and perhaps some of these questions can be directed to the energy minister, which I am no longer. But what I will say, as the former energy minister in New South Wales, is that, when we legislated the roadmap, we looked at the net impact on consumer bills of transitioning towards a firmed renewables-based grid, including transmission line upgrades. What we were able to clearly demonstrate is that net, on average, consumers would be much better off as a result of the transition.

Senator ROBERTS: In your role as New South Wales energy minister you commissioned the $1 billion Waratah battery, which recently suffered a catastrophic failure. You commissioned and designated as a top priority project this huge expenditure as a stopgap for the closure of Eraring this year. It was forecast to close this year. Eraring didn’t close this year. Experts are saying it might not close before 2030. So the $1 billion shock absorber you put in place as New South Wales energy minister isn’t needed anymore as a stopgap. If you wasted $1 billion on a battery that wasn’t needed, why should we trust that you can provide good advice to the federal government? Can you explain exactly how a 0.7 gigawatt battery that lasts for two hours is meant to replace a coal-fired power station that can run at 2.8 gigawatts for 23 hours a day.

Mr Kean: I’m very happy to explain what we did when it came to considering the exit of Eraring. It’s a matter of public record that Origin Energy suggested they would bring forward the closure of that coal-fired power station seven years earlier than we anticipated. As the former minister for energy, I can say we conducted an arms-length process headed up by a number of experts, including Kerry Schott, the former chair of the Energy Security Board. We ran a competitive tender process for different technologies to fill that gap. We had input from AEMO, the Australian Energy Market Operator, the engineers who the run the system, and we compared the cost of extending Eraring for 18 months with a number of other options to fill that capacity gap. In terms of the work that was done by independent expert advice, we were advised that the best option for the total New South Wales power grid was to build a systems battery, a SIPS battery, that would unlock greater capacity in the transmission networks to be able to sweat the other coal-fired power stations harder and would open up the ability to bring more renewable energy into the system. You’re characterising the battery as a storage battery. It’s not a storage battery; it’s a systems battery that unlocks more capacity and new transmission networks. That means you can run your existing coal-fired power stations harder—think Vales Point and Bayswater—and you can get more renewable capacity stored. That was the basis from which we went down that path, and anyone suggesting otherwise is being dishonest.

Senator ROBERTS: On New South Wales election night, when your government was defeated in 2023, I distinctly remember the incoming Labor energy minister flagging the need to keep Eraring open. She was quite clear about it. She was on a panel and on the night of the election she said, ‘We’re going to have to do something about keeping Eraring.’ They weren’t her words, but that was basically what she said. Why would she have that point there? Many people think that New South Wales cannot operate as an industrial economy without Eraring continuing, and now there are talks of Eraring continuing. What did she know as opposition energy minister and spokesman that you didn’t?

Mr Kean: Maybe I could refer you to the evidence of Deputy Secretary Duggan who just appeared before the inquiry. He made the point that the average age of our coal-fired power stations in the national energy market is 38 years and the average end closure date of coal-fired power stations is 42 years. We can’t keep putting bandaids or temporary solutions in place. We need to plan for the future. What you need are clear targets and good policies to get new capacity installed. Just because you say you’re going to extend an aged, clapped-out coal-fired power station doesn’t mean it’s going to work. We need to build new capacity before the old capacity closes. That’s the responsible thing to do. Whether it be in my role as the former New South Wales energy minister or in my current role as the independent chair of the Climate Change Authority, I will always act on the best evidence and advice of experts. I’m advising you to do likewise.

Senator ROBERTS: You’re hiding behind averages. A lot of damage can be done doing that.

Mr Kean: No. I’m just making the point.

Senator ROBERTS: I asked you a question about Eraring. Why did the incoming Labor energy minister want to keep Eraring open?

Mr Kean: It’s another question for—

Senator Ayres: I think it’s outside of—it’s pretty hard for Mr Kean to put—

Senator ROBERTS: It goes to the accuracy of forecasts.

Senator Ayres: himself into the mind of the current New South Wales energy minister. I think that’s a very difficult thing for him to do. But Mr Kean’s right—the biggest driver of cost in the electricity system at the moment is our ageing coal generators and the incessant, regular outages. There has not been a single day over the last three weeks where there hasn’t been an unplanned outage. A couple of days ago we had Bayswater, Gladstone, Loy Yang, Vales Point and Yallourn—a total of 2½ gigawatts of unplanned outage. That drives cost in the system. Mr Kean’s point is right. The way to deal with that is to build more renewables, build more storage and build more transmission. Nobody from Cape York to Bruny Island or from Sydney to Perth is going to build a coal-fired power station, because it’s a dumb idea. It’s a dumb idea economically.

Senator ROBERTS: Has the national electricity market been tested?

Senator Ayres: It’s a dumb idea in commercial terms. It’s a bad idea for the grid. It builds additional cost into the system. At the moment we are dealing with the reality of the fact that it’s coal that’s driving cost. A decade of disinvestment is compounding that. That’s the truth of it. If you want to keep prosecuting the imported culture wars, go for your life.

Senator ROBERTS: Last question?

CHAIR: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. The minister seems to be unaware of the electricity rules and the national electricity market, which favour solar and wind and destroy coal. We’ll leave that aside. You say: ‘The world is moving in this direction. Fifty-three per cent of the world’s GDP has signed up to achieve zero net emissions by 2050, so it’s only going in one direction.’ Yet we’ve seen the USA China and India—we’ve seen massive numbers of countries—walk away from net zero, and others don’t bother complying. Do you still stand by your figure that 53 per cent are committed to achieving net zero by 2050?

Mr Kean: No, I don’t. I’d like to revise that number. It’s now 165 countries that have announced a net zero target. These countries account for 78 per cent of global emissions, 79 per cent of GDP and 87 per cent of the global population. That was in 2022. That’s a vast increase since I cited those figures a few years ago. So 149 countries have announced a net zero target by 2050 or sooner and around 50 countries have enshrined their net zero target in domestic legislation—including Australia—with more planning to do so. That’s 37 out of 38 OECD member countries having a net zero target. So, no, I don’t stand by those previous comments. They’ve been exceeded since then, and people denying the reality of the momentum behind the need to reduce our emissions are not acting in Australia’s interests.

/0 Comments/by