A question I asked Minister Don Farrell back in March.
From the start, One Nation opposed the UN’s net zero policies and will continue to oppose.
Will the Uniparty fully embrace coal, oil, and gas as being essential for modern civilisation and commit to true national self-sufficiency across our entire hydrocarbon supply chain, from drilling to the petrol pump?
I doubt it!
— March | Senate Debate
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, from the start, One Nation has completely opposed the United Nations net zero scam. Only One Nation has said from the start and continues to say, ‘Scrap United Nations’s net zero.’ The Nationals say, ‘Scrap net zero by 2050.’ They support the net zero concept but want to delay implementation. The Liberals say the same. They still support UN’s net zero; they just want to drop net zero by 2050. The Liberals started net zero under Prime Minister Morrison after he’d promised at the election just 18 months earlier not to adopt it. The Nationals went along with it blindly. The Labor Party has adopted One Nation suggestions—
Senator Canavan: Barnaby did!
Senator ROBERTS: He now realises he was wrong, and he’s probably said so, to his credit. That shows his integrity and courage. Labor has adopted One Nation’s suggestions. We were the first to raise the looming fuel crisis back on Monday 2 March, three days after the Israelis attacked Iran. We were ridiculed for that—called far-right-wing extremists, I think—by the Labor Party. I can distinctly visualise Senator Tim Ayres over there saying that as he pointed towards me. It doesn’t bother us, because we know that he was desperate. But we thank you for adopting so many of our policies over that last four weeks, and you’re still adopting them. Thank you. Will you adopt our advice to scrap UN net zero? Will you at least acknowledge that the hydrocarbon fuels coal, oil and natural gas are essential for modern civilisation—in particular, oil for transport? Will you acknowledge that we need to be self-sufficient in the entire hydrocarbon supply chain, from drilling rig through to petrol pump?
Senator Farrell: I thank Senator Roberts for his question. I should congratulate you on your result in the South Australian elections, Senator Roberts. I know you came down and campaigned, certainly in the seat of Colton. I saw you down there with your candidate.
I have an apology to make to Senator Canavan. When I was answering one of his questions last week, I referred to the fact that, in his first outing as leader of the National Party, where he was going to take on One Nation, your candidates got 22 per cent of the vote, and I said in the Senate that the Nationals had got one per cent. I have to apologise to Senator Canavan; that was not correct. It was 0.7 of one per cent, not one per cent. So, in his first outing as leader, espousing all of the policy positions he’s just explained to this Senate, that was the result.
We do produce gas in this country, Senator Roberts, and we’ve produced it under this government. I’ve referred, in an earlier answer to Senator Canavan, to some of the places where we’re doing it. We’re doing it in the Barossa. We’re doing it in the Beetaloo. One day we might do it in Narrabri. We’re certainly increasing production in the Cooper Basin in South Australia. But we do have a commitment to net zero. That is, as you say, a commitment that both the Nationals and the coalition, at certain periods of time, have been committed to. Gas, in particular, is a transition fuel, Senator Roberts. It’s the way in which you get to net zero.
But right now we have an emergency. We need to ensure that our stocks of petrol, diesel and airline fuel continue to be available to businesses and consumers in this country. There is an emergency about dealing with this. What happens on the sea is that there are ships containing oil, petrol and airline fuel. They become available for purchase, and sometimes you’re only given 24 or 48 hours to make that purchase. The reason we have decided to use the facility of Export Finance Australia to bid for these products is that they’re a very nimble organisation, they’re very experienced in this space, they are run really well by a fellow called John Hopkins, they regularly report to me, and we see them as the best organisation to ensure that we act quickly on this.
Minister Bowen has ensured that, in combination with me and Minister King, we have taken all of the steps that we need to take to ensure that Australians continue to have access to all of those fuels that I just mentioned. But there is an urgency about this legislation. Despite everything Senator Canavan said, I’m not sure that he appreciates that urgency. We do need to get on with this, and the quicker we pass this legislation, the quicker we can get some certainty to businesses and consumers about the reliable supply of those fuels.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR (Senator Scarr): Senator Roberts, there’s only seventeen seconds left for the debate, but you have the call.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, will you support One Nation’s initiative in recommending the conversion of gas to liquid fuels? You mentioned gas.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR (Senator Scarr): I’m sorry, Minister, but, pursuant to the order agreed to yesterday, the time allotted on this bill has expired.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ts1L1S6u8DA/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-08-05 15:45:282026-08-05 15:45:31Rejecting the UN Scam
One Nation strongly opposes the Albanese government’s plan to remove the private health insurance rebate for older Australians (65+).
Removing these rebates will ultimately cost taxpayers billions more than it will save and will put immense strain on the public hospital system.
One Nation rejects the government’s “intergenerational fairness” narrative. It is nothing more than a diversion.
The true causes of financial hardship for Australian people are immigration, net-zero policies, inflation and high living costs.
Rather than cutting health rebates for the elderly, we should stop mass migration and abandon all net-zero targets, which will help ALL Australians.
Transcript
I thank Senator Ruston for this motion, which One Nation supports. Currently, all Australians get a rebate on their contributions to private health insurance. For the people under 65, it is 24.1 per cent, for those 65-69 years of age it is 28.1 per cent and for those over 70 it is 32.2 per cent. These are adjusted for income. Minister Butler described the system as ‘not fair between generations’. The government has announced the additional amount paid to our elderly will be removed, making everyone equal. How very communist and how self-defeating. The rebate is higher the older you get, because the cost to the taxpayer of a person moving from private to public care is higher the older they get. The extra payment encourages older Australians to stay in the private health system and save the taxpayers from having to carry the full cost of their health care.
Across forward estimates, this measure will cost taxpayers—including young people—billions more than it saves, and it will put more pressure on public hospitals already dealing with bed block and long waiting times. Our young people will not always be young. A measure that helps more than three million older Australians today will help younger Australians tomorrow.
The Albanese government is promoting division in order to set one age group against another. How dishonest! Classic communism! This is the politics of envy, designed to cover up the real reasons young people are struggling, which are immigration, net zero, grocery prices, energy prices, inflation—destroying industry, making lives harder and robbing our young of the opportunity to own their own homes, to enjoy the life that my generation enjoys. To pitch to younger voters, start there. Introduce negative immigration until housing and infrastructure catches up, reducing house prices. Terminate this net zero madness and let business get on with creating breadwinner jobs that provide a future for our young.
Intergenerational wealth transfer is a term that is a furphy, a lie, a dishonest diversion. Labor is crippling the young. In reality, this is an excuse from Labor to increase taxes on people with assets who, after a lifetime of work, are the older generations. Remember, today’s young adults are the future older people. This aims to hit all Australians, including the young. You will eventually get hit. This is a lie that is masquerading to steal more taxes. One Nation will unwind this petty, dishonest, counterproductive measure. We are one nation, one community and One Nation will not set one Australian against another.
Queensland’s state-owned power grid reached into people’s homes 6 times and turned down 170,000 air conditioners.
It’s called PeakSmart limiting and they don’t tell you when they’ve cut your cooling — instead they tell installers and repairers in case you call them out thinking there’s a problem.
They hope you won’t notice… Have we reached Peak Stupid yet with the government’s Net Zero target?
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/e6c0e14b-596d-4550-897e-2afd77248ec9.jpg?fit=526%2C865&ssl=1865526Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-02-07 16:50:422024-02-07 16:50:45The Biggest Air Con of the Summer!
Renewable energy is facing failure on a number of fronts, not least of which is merit. Engineers and energy regulators – even those who were once enthusiastic about solar panels, wind turbines and batteries – are showing signs of nervousness. The lights are flickering. The costs are mounting. And globally, raw materials are running short.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Image-5.jpg?fit=828%2C1035&ssl=11035828Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-02-07 09:44:342024-02-07 09:44:37Power to the People – The National Rally Against Reckless Renewables
Australia has the most wind, solar and batteries on the grid ever. PM Albanese promised cheaper power yet his government’s commitment to Net Zero drives up your power bills and the cost of living.
While unsustainable wind and solar fail to provide baseload power, their subsidised existence is driving up energy bills.
I’ve been fighting the Net Zero scam for over a decade in the Senate and will keep on fighting for all Australians.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/NetZeroCapture.png?fit=1187%2C841&ssl=18411187Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-02-07 08:05:042024-02-07 08:05:09Cancel Net Zero Now!
A huge response for the rally on Parliament House against reckless renewables on Tuesday, 6 February 2024.
Wind and solar installations are environmental vandals and will never be able to provide the baseload power we need to function competitively as a country.
It’s time to end the wealth transfer to climate billionaires like Simon Holmes a Court, Twiggy Forrest and Mike Cannon-Brookes.
This is the disgraceful reality behind the climate change agenda. A reality most Australians never get to see.
How do the Greens feel about vulnerable Greater Glider habitat being cleared in Far North Queensland? Will they say it’s for the Greater Good?
What about pushing out the endangered Northern Quoll in order to dig roads and huge holes for these monstrosities?
Critically endangered native plants making way for concrete, fibreglass, and steel that will be consigned to the scrap heap in 12-15 years is acceptable by-kill for the Green Agenda? Really?
How on earth did this get past the wildlife conservation watchdogs? Just look at this environmental vandalism being carried out in the name of saving the environment.
Scarring the landscape and fiddling the books for an agenda that’s killing our country. It’s criminal.
We support Friends of Chalumbin. Thank you to Steven Nowakowski for sharing the videos.
We constantly hear that “renewables” are the cheapest and the best way to go. If that’s the case, why does the Australian Renewable Energy Agency need to commit $2.15 billion in subsidies, grants and loans to prop up “renewable” projects?
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Thank you for appearing today. The latest figures I have about funds committed, as at June 2022, is $1.86 billion committed across Australia. That is from the 2021-22 annual report. Do you have the most recent figure on what you have committed?
Mr Miller: The most recent figure is $2.15 billion.
Senator Roberts: It’s constantly jammed down Australian throats that wind and solar are the cheapest forms of energy. Why do you have to commit billions in subsidies to wind and solar if this is the case? If they are so much cheaper, shouldn’t they be able to survive without your subsidies and just simply beat coal and gas in the market?
Mr Miller: ARENA hasn’t given much, if any, support to wind projects, in our history. When ARENA was formed 11 years ago, wind was relatively mature and didn’t need much support. Solar was an industry where Australia had a research advantage and a burgeoning research community, and ARENA stepped into that space and continued providing research funding to solar.
I think it’s entirely appropriate that we aim for lower cost, higher efficiency and more sustainable solar materials. That is what the work that we do supports. In terms of our support for solar, our key program in that respect was in 2016-17 where the intervention that ARENA and the CEFC provided the industry, with $92 million funding to two large-scale solar projects, drove the cost of that technology down from $2.50 a watt to $1.25 a watt following that program to the point where large-scale solar is economic in Australia—and the International Energy Agency says is the cheapest form of electricity generation in history.
ARENA’s continued support for solar R&D is to create a sustainable, comparative and competitive advantage for Australia in this important technology, to unlock the potential for solar to be that form of ultra low-cost generation to support a giant iron and renewable steel manufacturing capability in Australia and to provide low – cost energy into our industrial system and to our domestic users. We take that responsibility seriously, and we are very excited by the opportunity to continue to support solar PV research, manufacturing and production in Australia to that effect.
Senator Roberts: Could you take on notice to explain in depth the cost structures around solar that you are contributing to at the moment, please? In simple terms, the generating of solar is cheap but, by the time we add the doubling or the tripling of the area needed because of the variability in nature and then you add the battery storage, it’s very, very expensive.
Mr Miller: Senator, I’m not clear what you want me to do.
Senator Roberts: I would like the levelised cost of solar produced electricity equivalent to coal in terms of quantities and reliability?
Mr Miller: I would point you to the good work that the CSIRO has done in collaboration with AEMO in their GenCost analysis, which is thorough analysis by the team at the CSIRO, which shows you the levelised cost of solar on its own and wind on its tone and then adds storage to that, which is a proxy for firming. I would suggest that we would not be able to provide you with any more information than that high-quality work that has been done by the CSIRO.
Senator Roberts: That’s fine; thank you, Mr Miller—because the CSIRO’s assumptions are just woeful. If that’s the best and you term it excellent, we’re in trouble. That’s my view. So thank you for saying that.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/W1T-3O56F00/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-05-24 19:09:052023-05-25 16:40:49ARENA hands out $2.15 billion in subsidies to supposedly “cheap” renewables
Currently, the government agencies that run our electricity grid are meant to balance 5 objectives: price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. The Government wants to add emissions reduction to those objectives.
I don’t think the objectives of price, reliability, security of supply and emissions reduction can all be achieved at the same time so my question to the Australian Regulator was, which objective will you sacrifice for emissions reduction to satisfy the net-zero pipe dream?
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Thank you all for being here today. The national electricity objectives include price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. The government is now intending to add emissions reduction to those objectives. You, the Australian Energy Regulator, have made a submission to the government’s consultation process on the draft National Energy Laws Amendment (Emissions Reduction Objectives) Bill 2022. In that submission you said, ‘The AER supports including an emissions reduction objective.’ This is support for a proposed government policy. Surely the very first value of the Australian Public Service is meant to be impartiality. Why are you commenting one way or another on support for a government policy?
Ms Savage: I guess my objective from that would be that we are there to try and meet Australia’s emission reduction targets in the least-cost way. That’s part of our job, and our decision-making needs to ensure that happens. Our purpose as the Australian Energy Regulator is to ensure Australian consumers are better off now and in the future, so when we assess what tools we need, as the Australian Energy Regulator, to actually do our job effectively and to make sure that we can deliver upon that purpose, our considered view is that change to the legislation, to the objective for which we have to use our decision-making, is required and is important to us being able to deliver upon our purpose. So it speaks fundamentally to our role rather than to the government’s policy.
Senator Roberts: Do you consider that the Australian Public Service Values and Code of Conduct apply to you?
Ms Savage: I absolutely do, Senator.
Senator Roberts: Do you consider that the Australian Public Service value of impartiality applies to you?
Ms Savage: Yes, I do.
Senator Roberts: Why are you stating support for a proposed government policy, rather than impartially commenting on your ability to carry it out?
Ms Savage: I’m not commenting on the policy; I’m commenting on the importance of the change to the work of the Australian Energy Regulator. In that regard, my obligation is to make sure that we have the tools we need to discharge our function such that we can ensure Australian consumers are better off now and in the future.
Senator Roberts: I put it to you that you are breaching the Australian Public Service value of impartiality by advocating support for a government policy. I would like you to take on notice to fully explain how advocating support for government policy in a submission is impartial.
Ms Savage: Senator, as I’ve said, we didn’t advocate support for the policy. We’re advocating support for the changes to the laws that are required to enable us to do our function.
Senator Roberts: ‘The Australian Energy Regulator’—your words—’supports including an emissions reduction objective.’
Ms Savage: That is the change to the legislation required to do our function.
Senator Roberts: You’ve taken a side in this debate even before it’s started. You’re required to be impartial. Why were you not impartial?
Ms Savage: I have—
Senator Roberts: I don’t accept your answer.
Ms Savage: I hear that you don’t accept my answer, but my answer remains that we have asked for changes, and we constantly and repeatedly ask for changes to legislation—and it’s in our strategic plan to do this—when it’s required for us to fulfil our strategic purpose, and that is to ensure that energy consumers are better off now and in the future. Limb 4 of our strategic plan actually says we will inform debate about Australia’s transition, and that’s to ensure that we can do our job to make sure Australian consumers are better off now and in the future.
Senator Roberts: I suggest you read the Australian Public Service Values and Code of Conduct.
Ms Savage: I have, Senator.
Senator Roberts: The current objectives of price, quality, safety, reliability and security are sound objectives. What level of compromise on price or reliability are you willing to accept to achieve the objective of emissions reduction?
Ms Savage: When it comes time for us to consider the new objectives, with all of the limbs in them, including the emissions reduction objective, we’ll need to think about the value of carbon emissions reductions in the context of the target to achieve net zero by 2050, to ensure that the investments that happen in things like transmission or gas networks are consistent with achieving that goal at least cost to consumers, which is where that element of making sure consumers are better off now and in the future arises.
Senator Roberts: So my question—I’ll say it again—is: what level of compromise on price or reliability are you willing to accept to achieve the objective of emissions reduction? You’ve now got a new objective.
Ms Savage: I don’t see it as compromise; I see it as optimising.
Senator Roberts: Can I take note of that?
Ms Savage: Absolutely.
Senator Roberts: It will be interesting in the future. What are you going to do if the objective of emissions reduction conflicts with those existing objectives?
Ms Savage: We will need to optimise against the current list of objectives, and the inclusion of emissions reduction which become another limb. Already, today, we have to make judgements and choices between the existing elements of those objectives. We constantly have to be thinking about trade-offs on behalf of customers in terms of price, quality, safety and reliability, and we will also be considering emissions reduction in that context.
Senator Roberts: I put it to you that there is no way that the objectives of price, reliability and emissions reduction can be achieved at the same time, so which one will you prioritise?
Chair: Senator Roberts, I wonder if your questions are getting a bit accusatory. You have asked questions, and Ms Savage is responding to your questions with her perspective.
Senator Roberts: I have constituents that are deeply concerned about electricity prices that have trebled in a couple of decades.
Chair: You are open to ask your questions, but I would ask you to mind your manner.
Senator Roberts: Thank you, Chair. I say it again: I put it to you that there is no way the objective of price reliability and emissions reduction can be achieved at the same time—the facts show that—so which one will you prioritise? You’ve actually supported the government and its policy, so which one will you prioritise?
Ms Savage: An example might help. Currently, we have to think about price, safety, security, reliability. When we make a judgement, we have to think about price and reliability, and those two things aren’t always the same thing. More reliability can mean higher prices, and higher prices can mean lower reliability. On safety and security, we just gave, in response to Senator Van’s question, an example of abolishing gas connections; there is a safety issue there. We’re always and constantly in our work needing to optimise across those different objectives within the national electricity and gas objectives, and, with the inclusion of emissions, it will be the same type of task. We have to look at it in its whole, and we have to optimise across all of those objectives. We do it today and will be able to it tomorrow.
Senator Roberts: My view is that the people who tell us wind and solar are the cheapest form of electricity are lying. If they are the cheapest form of electricity, why do we need to change the electricity objectives to include emissions reductions, so they are favoured?
Ms Savage: You are thinking about generation technologies. We do a lot of work with the Australian Energy Regulator in electricity and gas networks, and that’s nothing to do with renewable energy necessarily. If I take a gas network, for example, and if you came to me as a gas company and said, ‘I need to invest in an electric compressor instead of a gas compressor because I’m trying to meet my emissions reduction objective,’ then that is something that we could not consider necessarily under the existing obligations. Under a future set of arrangements that’s something we could consider, so it’s not necessarily about wind and solar; it’s about lots of little choices that go along in the system to make sure it all adds up to the least-cost way of meeting our climate goals.
Senator Roberts: If the ministers past and present are not lying and solar and wind are cheap and reliable, it would fit into existing objectives of price and reliability. Why do we need to change the objectives if the climate ministers are not lying?
Ms Savage: As I just said—and I’ll repeat my answer—it’s not always about wind and solar. Sometimes it will be about networks, and, in fact, most of the changes to the objective for the work of the Australian Energy Regulator will be about transmission, distribution, electricity and gas networks.
Senator Roberts: So it won’t be about price versus emissions, yet everywhere in the world every country that has a substantial proportion of solar and wind has had a dramatic increase in prices—that’s fact.
Ms Savage: Are you asking me a question?
Senator Roberts: Yes, I’m asking you a question. How can you justify the statement that there won’t be a trade-off between emissions and price?
Ms Savage: I have covered that in answering the question before, which is that we’ll be optimising across the new emissions reduction objective with the other elements of the national electricity and gas objectives.
Senator Roberts: What is the Australian Energy Regulator’s position on nuclear energy?
Ms Savage: We don’t have a position on nuclear energy.
Senator Roberts: So now you’re impartial?
Ms Savage: We’re always impartial.
Chair: Last question, Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts: You say as part of your retail energy market regulation, your other roles include, secondly, reporting on performance of the market and energy businesses, including affordability and disconnection of customers for non-payment of energy bills. What is the latest disconnection rate in each state? Could you take that on notice?
Ms Savage: I can tell you at the macro level and take the state based data on notice. For ’21-22, which is the last full financial year of data we have, the number of disconnections was about 30,000, which is significantly less than what we saw before COVID. At the time before COVID it was 70,000 customers per year.
Senator Roberts: Could you take on notice to give us the five years—actually the three years?
Ms Savage: I have the five years here at the macro level if you’d like it.
Senator Roberts: I would like to know the states as well because I want to see how the different states are behaving.
Ms Savage: Actually, I have got the states here. Would you like me to read them out?
Senator Roberts: If you could put it in writing, that would be good.
Senator McAllister: As you can imagine, it ends up being like 20 numbers.
Chair: I wonder if we could just copy it in the break and circulate it—just for ease. Is that okay with you, Senator Roberts?
Senator Roberts: That’s fine.
Ms Savage: At a cumulative total, in 2017-18 it was 72,000 and in 2018-19 it was 70,000. The Australian Energy Regulator then asked retailers to stop disconnecting customers during COVID and we saw a big drop down: 43,000 in 2019-20; 17,000 and 2020-21; and then it’s back at 29,000 in 2021-22.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Kx5dw-toVnQ/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-05-24 18:55:332023-06-07 10:43:56Will the Australian Energy Regulator sacrifice price or reliability to reduce emissions?
