National Archives - Page 25 of 109

US Exits WHO: Let’s Build a Better System Together

Powerful video from America’s national Health Secretary (Minister), Robert F Kennedy Jnr.

RFK Jnr made and sent this video to national health ministers and bureaucrats attending the UN-WHO’s World Health Assembly.

He raises many core issues that when addressed would put the USA and the world on a track back to full health and to freedom from Big Pharma.

He omits one key point: the fact that in addition to CCP funding of Gain-Of-Function research in Wuhan China, the USA National Institutes of Health and Anthony Fauci unlawfully funded and drove such research in Wuhan AND unlawfully initiated and continued to oversee research into the manmade Covid-19 virus at the University of North Carolina under the leadership of Ralph Baric.

RFK Jnr’s 5-minutes video gives the world hope.

Transcript

To my colleagues in public health, I’m Robert F Kennedy Junior, the US Health and Human Services Secretary.

As you know, President Trump has made the decision to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organisation.

I’d like to take this opportunity to offer some background to that decision and more importantly, to chart a future path toward global cooperation on health and health security.

Like many legacy institutions, the WHO has become mired in bureaucratic bloat and trench paradigms, conflicts of interest and international power politics.

While the United States has provided the lion’s share of the organisation funding, historically, other countries such as China have exerted undue influence over its operations in ways that serve their own interests and not particularly the interests of the global public.

This all became obvious during the COVID pandemic when the WHO, under pressure from China, suppressed reports at critical junctures of human to human transmission and then worked with China to promote the fiction that COVID originated from bats or pangolins rather than from a Chinese government sponsored research at a bio lab in Wuhan.

Not only has it WHO capitulated to political pressure from China, it’s also failed to maintain an organisation characterised by transparency and fair governance by and for its member states. The WHO often acts like it has forgotten that its members must remain accountable to their own citizens and not to transnational or corporate interests.

Now, I believe that for the most part, the staff of the WHO are a conscientious people who sincerely believe in what they’re doing. And indeed, the WHO has since its inception accomplished important work, including the eradication of smallpox. Too often, though, the WHO’s priorities have increasingly reflected the biases and interests of corporate medicine. Too often it has allowed political agendas, like pushing harmful gender ideology, to hijack its core mission. And too often it has become the tool of politics and turned its back on promoting health and health security.

Global cooperation on health is still critically important to President Trump and myself, but it isn’t working very well under the WHO, as the failures of the COVID era demonstrate. The WHO has not even come to terms with its failures during COVID, let alone made significant reforms. Instead, it has doubled down with the pandemic agreement, which will lock in all of the dysfunctions of the WHO pandemic response.

We’re not going to participate in that. We need to reboot the whole system, as we are doing in the United States. Here in the United States, we’re going to continue to focus on infectious disease and pandemic preparedness, but we’re also fundamentally shifting the priorities of our health agencies to focus on chronic diseases, which are prevalent in the United States.

It’s the chronic disease epidemic that is sickening our people and bankrupting our healthcare system. We’re now pivoting to make our healthcare system more responsive to this reality.

We’re going to make healthcare in the United States serve the needs of the public instead of industry profit taking. We’re removing food dyes and other harmful additives from our food supply. We’re investigating the causes of autism and other chronic diseases. We’re seeking to reduce consumption of ultra processed foods. And we’re going to support lifestyle changes that will bolster the immune systems and transform the health of our people.

Few of these efforts lend themselves easily to profits or serve establish special interests. These changes can only occur through the kind of systemic overhaul that President Trump has brought to our country.

We’d like to see a similar reordering of priorities on the global stage, especially considering the fact that through the leadership of the United States and funding from our country over the past 25 years, millions of global citizens have seen a reduction in premature death due to HIV, TB and malaria.

Let’s return to the core focus of global health and global health security, back to reducing infectious disease burden and the spread of diseases of pandemic potential.

I urge the world’s health ministers and the WHO to take our withdrawal from the organisation as a wake up call. It isn’t that President Trump and I have lost interest in international cooperation, Not at all. We just want it to happen in a way that’s fair and efficient and transparent for all the Member States.

We’ve already been in contact with like minded countries and we encourage others to consider joining us. We want a free international health cooperation from the straight jacket of political interference by corrupting influences of the pharmaceutical companies of adversarial nations and their NGO proxies.

I would like to take this opportunity to invite my fellow health ministers around the world into a new era of cooperation. We don’t have to suffer the limits of a more abundant WHO.

Let’s create new institutions or revisit existing institutions that are lean, efficient, transparent, and accountable. Whether it’s an emergency outbreak of an infectious disease or the pervasive rod of chronic conditions that have been overtaking not just America but the whole world, we’re ready to work with you.

Thank you and May God bless you, and let’s all pray for the health of our children and our grandchildren.

Produced by the US Department of Health and Human Services.

May 22, 2025/3 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

$2.15 Billion in Subsidies: The Hidden Costs of “Cheap” Renewables

National, Senate Estimates

During the last Senate Estimates, I questioned ARENA about their massive spending of taxpayer money. The numbers are staggering – they’ve now committed $2.15 billion in subsidies to supposedly “cheap” renewable projects.

Despite claims that solar is “the cheapest form of electricity generation in history,” Australians’ power bills tell a different story. The reality is they don’t account for all the extra costs of firming, storage, transmission lines and general unreliability. This is what happens when government agencies focus on pushing unreliable renewables instead of ensuring affordable power for Australian families.

We used to have some of the cheapest electricity in the world, but these massive subsidies and failed green energy policies are driving up costs for everyone.

The net zero fantasy is already hurting our regions, ruining small businesses, and driving up the cost of living across Australia. It’s time to ditch these wasteful subsidies and return to reliable, affordable power.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Do you ever think about how much taxpayer money your agency has spent on net zero policies, only for power bills to continue to get more expensive?

Mr Miller: Senator, that doesn’t occupy much of my time. We’re working on innovation to help lower the cost of the core technologies that go into lowering power bills in the long term. And, as you would appreciate, this innovation cycle takes a while. We’ve obviously seen the success of solar PV, which was maybe written off many years ago, but has come through as the lowest cost form of generation in history, as we’ve noted in past conversations. I’m very confident, actually, that wind technology, solar technology and battery technology, which is coming down the cost curve rapidly, combined at scale will actually reduce energy costs for Australians.

Senator ROBERTS: Is your job to bring down power bills or give money to solar and wind energy? How much does the Australian Renewable Energy Agency currently administer in deployed capital in terms of loans or equity stakes?

Mr Miller: The objects of ARENA, the agency, are set out in the act. They are to improve the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies, increase the supply of renewable technologies and support Australia’s decarbonisation emissions reduction objectives. You’d be aware that we’re a granting agency, so none of our funding is provided through debt and equity. It’s all through the provision of grants. In some circumstances, those grants are recoupable based on performance of the projects, and we make that decision on a case-by-case basis.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How much did ARENA issue in grants in the most recent year?

Mr Miller: I can get you that in a minute or two. My colleague Mr Faris could probably find that number in the pack. When we think about the progress of our work in terms of project projects, we look at approval rates, which is the key milestone for ARENA when I, under my delegation, or our board, or the minister—

Senator ROBERTS: Getting a project to approval stage.

Mr Miller: When we provide an approval, we then, in most circumstances, are working through to a contract, which ultimately lands to be grant money flowing. But that can take months and years in some cases. But I think in the last financial year we provided approvals of $497 million, and I think in the year before it was $540 million. So, per our annual report: funds approved in 2023-24 total $445 million, and contracts written, which is a later stage, were $392.5 million in that financial year.

Senator ROBERTS: So what did you call your key measurable indicator?

Mr Miller: Approvals. Well, it’s one of many, but, yes, that’s an important one.

Senator ROBERTS: What do you categorise as an approval?

Mr Miller: An approval is a decision by the CEO, the board or the minister, with respect to their relative delegations, to provide funding to a particular project in that amount.

Senator ROBERTS: Approve the funding?

Mr Miller: Approve funding, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you know what your total budget allocation is over the forward estimates, the next four years?

Mr Miller: That will be in the PBS, and we will get that number for you if we can. Otherwise, we’ll take it on notice and provide it.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that located in one area? Are all the different components of the money located in one area?

Mr Miller: It’s an aggregation of various programs and funding pools that we have been provided with by the government over time. Well, let me say governments because we were well supported by the coalition government a number of years ago, and have been even further supported by this government. But it relates to what we call our baseline funding, which is the money that is provided to ARENA where ARENA’s board, essentially, is the primary decision-maker on policy and programmatic objectives. And then, in addition, there are about a dozen programs that ARENA is running, with specific funding amounts, and with specific instructions through the policy instruments, and we’re managing all of that through the funding. But it all gets amalgamated, ultimately, into the forward estimates amounts. So I’d be very happy to read you the figures in the forward estimates for each year, revenue from government, if that would help you. The current year’s revenue from government is $425 million. The budget for next year is $709 million. The year after that, it is $735 million. Then we’re at $1.1 billion, and then we’re at $1.117 billion for the final year of the forward estimates.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s a lot of money.

CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Ever since ARENA came on the scene—when was that?—you’ve been issuing grants and loans in solar and wind. Have people’s power bills actually got cheaper?

Mr Miller: It’s not my jurisdiction to talk about power bills, but we came on the scene on 1 July 2012, and as I—

Senator ROBERTS: In 2012?

Mr Miller: Yes, 2012, and, as I mentioned before, we don’t do loans. We do grants.

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t do loans—well, issuing grants then. So you’ve been spending billions of

dollars, and power bills have gone up.

Senator Ayres: Well, Senator, you should—

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking Mr Miller. You don’t need to—

Senator Ayres: Yes, and I’m entitled to drop in from time to time. It’s one of the inconvenient bits of

estimates for senators who ask questions. If you go and talk to your constituents in the main street of a country town somewhere in Queensland—

Senator ROBERTS: Which is what I’ll do.

Senator Ayres: Yeah, I know. We saw you beaming in. But if you talk to them and then listen to the answer that they give you—engage in a conversation—what you’ll find is that many of them have solar technology on their roofs, which substantially decreases their electricity costs.

Senator ROBERTS: Well, I actually was talking to a shopkeeper yesterday, and she said—

Senator Ayres: Fascinating as that is, I am just going to keep answering your question.

Senator ROBERTS: power bills have gone up tremendously.

Senator Ayres: That is technology that was invented in Australia. All of the IP in solar panels all around the world—it’s Australian, right? It’s something that we should be proud of as a country—invented here, substantially reducing costs for households, with some of them earning a quid because they are under residual agreements.

Senator ROBERTS: Without your subsidies, without your energy relief, the costs would be higher than ever.

CHAIR: Okay. And we are running out of time.

Senator Ayres: They are substantially benefiting from that technology. Now, it’s different for different households. Our job as a government is to make sure that the lowest-cost technology is in the system, and also to make sure that more of those Australian inventions are commercialised here in Australia and manufactured in Australia, and Mr Miller and ARENA’s work is to make sure that more of that technology is commercialised in Australia, and they’re doing a very good job indeed.

Senator ROBERTS: Your policies are driving up prices

May 22, 2025/7 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

So, how did One Nation actually go? (the count is still on)

National

While the media declares the election over on Saturday night, One Nation always has to wait a lot longer for our results where we have the best chance of being elected – in the proportional representation of the Senate.

Senate races can take up to 5 weeks to count, meaning we may still be 3 weeks away from a formal declaration of the result.

In the House of Representatives, One Nation’s nationwide result is very satisfying with a nationwide average vote of 6.39% (+1.43).

A particular shout out must go to Stuart Bonds in the Hunter NSW, who beat the Nationals and was the last candidate standing for the two-party preferred count up against Labor.

With some final counting still to come, 970,000 Australians chose to mark One Nation as their number one choice for the House of Representatives alone. I am eternally grateful to all of our fantastic candidates, volunteers and online supporters that made this result possible.

I know Labor’s victory may not have been what a lot of you were hoping for. Yet, amidst the uncertainty, there’s a clear and encouraging outcome: The Greens have lost three of their four lower house MP’s – Max Chandler-Mather (Griffith) and Stephen Bates (Brisbane), as well as the leader of the party, Adam Bandt in Melbourne.

For too long, the Greens have pushed divisive ideologies that have hurt our industries, undermined our values, and driven a wedge between Australians. Their agenda has been out of touch with everyday Australians, and this result shows that voters are ready for a change. This is a win for common sense and a win for hardworking Australians who’ve had enough of being ignored. It’s time for policies that put Australia first.

My re-election in the Queensland Senate is looking strong. The counting process is still underway and is expected to take a couple more weeks to finalise.

A number of One Nation candidates for the Senate in other states have made a commendable effort. They will be more reliant on very strong preference flow to get over the line, which we won’t know the result of for a number of weeks.

Despite a significant increase in the One Nation vote, Jennifer Game in South Australia finds herself in a challenging position—through no fault of her own. This situation is largely due to the way Senate seats are being filled, following a dismal performance by the Coalition and a strong surge from Labor. Unfortunately, this has made the path to securing a seat more difficult.

I’m crossing my fingers for an extra strong preference flow towards Warwick Stacey in NSW, Lee Hanson in TAS, Warren Pickering in VIC and Tyrone Whitten in WA.

None of the micro parties have a chance at getting a Senator in, however the parties that recommended to their voters to preference against One Nation may stop us getting over the line in those states. We remain hopeful.

In short: the race isn’t over yet!

I am deeply grateful for everyone especially in Queensland who supported One Nation and my campaign.

We saw a rise in support, thanks in large part to our comprehensive policy platform, the dedication of our incredible volunteers who gave their time, energy, and resources to help spread the message and man polling booths. Their commitment made a real difference, and this result is a testament to their hard work.

Once the Senate count is finalised and there’s more news to share, I’ll be sure to keep you updated. In the meantime, rest assured—we’re already hard at work planning our strategy for tackling the new Parliament. Our focus remains clear: restoring common sense to the decisions that shape our country’s future.

May 15, 2025/22 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Record Surge in Foreign Students

National, Speeches

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), a record 201,490 new foreign students arrived in Australia in February alone. This surge raises a pressing question: where are these people going to sleep?

Senator Watt responded by highlighting the government’s efforts to build new housing (and claiming they’ve done more in three years than the coalition did in almost a decade), however he failed to address the core issue: the government’s inability to control immigration numbers.

Despite promises to bring numbers under control, the reality is stark. The latest data shows that housing starts have decreased since the current government took office, exacerbating the housing crisis. The government’s measures to reduce overseas student numbers have also fallen short, with significant increases in arrivals compared to previous years.

We need a government that put Australians first. One Nation is committed to addressing these issues head-on. We will continue to push for policies that prioritise the needs of Australians, hold the government accountable for its failures and make migration net-negative until our housing and infrastructure catches up.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Watt. According to ABS data—that’s Australian Bureau of Statistics data—last month 201,490 new foreign students arrived in Australia. This is a new record for the month of February. Where are these people going to sleep?

Senator WATT: Thank you, Senator Roberts. For starters, obviously, this government has done more in three years to build new housing than we saw in almost 10 years under a coalition government. That’s the first thing. Of course, what we know is that every measure this government has introduced to build more housing while the coalition have been in opposition they’ve voted against. So, for almost 10 years in government, they did nothing about housing, didn’t build a single public home and didn’t build a single social home; they get into opposition and they vote against everything we do to build more homes. That’s the first part of the answer.

Senator Roberts, as you’ll recall, not that long ago, this government sought to pass legislation that would reduce overseas student numbers, because we did recognise there had been an increase to that. Who voted against that as well? That was the opposition that voted against that. Who was the shadow education minister who led the charge against that? That was Senator Henderson. She’s got a lot to say now, but she led the charge against our legislation to try to introduce caps on international student numbers. We will continue to act on both of these things. We will continue to deliver the housing that the opposition voted against; we have taken different measures outside of legislation to deal with the number of international students.

I might also make the point that, in the meantime, our government has acted, and migration levels are coming down as a result of the measures that we’ve taken. In fact, there are fewer people arriving into Australia now than when someone else was the home affairs minister. Who would that be? Peter Dutton—Mr Dutton. So, for all of the promises Mr Dutton is making about immigration now, when he was actually the minister in charge of this, there were more people moving to Australia and migrating to Australia than there are now. (Time expired)

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: On 11 December 2023, the then home affairs minister, Clare O’Neil, issued a press statement, which included the comment, ‘We are going to make sure we bring numbers back under control.’ Minister, clearly you have not succeeded in getting the numbers back under control. Can you please explain the reason why this government has not been able to control how many people arrive in Australia?

Senator WATT: As I said, as a result of the actions this government has taken, we are seeing migration numbers fall in Australia compared to what they were when we came to office, as a result of the policies of the opposition. In fact, to give you a few more statistics on this, Senator Roberts, there were 10,000 more overseas student arrivals in Australia in January 2019, when—guess who—Mr Dutton was in charge of our borders. More importantly, the number of student visa applications in Australia has dropped by 30 per cent compared with this time last year. This is proof that our measures are working, despite the coalition voting to block our plan to cap overseas student numbers. We’ve all seen, over the last couple of years, the results of Mr Dutton leaving us with a broken migration system—the Albanian crime gangs who have been rorting our visa system and more still. We have been dealing with that and cleaning it up, and we’re now seeing the results with migration numbers falling.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: In the June quarter of 2022, just after your election, housing starts were 47,000. The latest ABS data for the September quarter last year shows just 42,000 starts. You are building fewer homes but bringing in more new arrivals and that has caused the housing catastrophe. If this government is not controlling immigration numbers, who is? Is it the bureaucrats? Is it the universities? Is it the Chinese and Indian governments? Who is in control of Australia’s immigration program?

Senator WATT: I can assure you, Senator Roberts, it’s not the one world government in control of our policies. That’s definitely not the case. The Australian government, of course, is in charge of our migration policies, and it’s the Australian government who has reduced migration numbers over the last three years through a variety of measures—

Senator Canavan: *interjecting—*

Senator WATT: including a number of measures that the very vocal Senator Canavan over there voted against. They’ve got a lot of things to say from the cheap seats over there in the opposition, but, whenever they get the chance to vote on something, they vote against it.

Senator Roberts, I don’t know whether the figures you have just quoted about the number housing starts are correct or not; I’d have to check them. But what I do know is that the construction of new housing being funded through our Housing Australia Future Fund was held up for month after month after month by the unholy coalition of the Liberals, the Nationals, One Nation and the Greens. They blocked our legislation and prevented spending on housing that has finally been passed by the Senate, still with the opposition of this lot over there. We’re now getting on with building those homes.

May 15, 2025/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

A Shock New Tax on YOUNG People

National

22 year olds today are going to be caught up in Labor’s new super tax supported by the greens.

Inflation means eventually almost everyone will be paying the doubled tax rate and unrealised gains tax means the government wants to come after money you haven’t even earned yet.

Index the threshold, abolish taxes on unrealized gains or better yet, throw out the whole bill and start again.

May 15, 2025/3 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

A Collaborative Approach to Fire Ant Eradication is Needed

National, Queensland

Before the election, I met with Sarah McGuire and other concerned landowners and introduced our fire ant policy. Sarah is a knowledgeable advocate for landowner rights and understands the fire ant eradication program details.

Landholders in SE QLD need more control over fire ant measures on their properties.

One Nation supports stronger efforts to eradicate fire ants, and believes working closely with landholders is key.

We’re calling for local workshops and tailored biosecurity plans. Landholders should have the right to refuse government programs if they can show effective alternatives.

Policy Release

Landholders should have more control of measures to manage and eradicate red imported fire ants on their properties and more assistance to comply with difficult biosecurity requirements.

One Nation Senate candidate for Queensland Malcolm Roberts said local farmers in the southeast Queensland were struggling with difficult fire ant restrictions imposed by authorities which impacted their profitability.

“Landholders in southeast Queensland need more control over what happens on their properties with regard to fire ants,” Senator Roberts said. “While One Nation supports a stronger overall effort to contain and eradicate red imported fire ants, we believe these efforts would be more effective if authorities worked more closely with landholders rather than just imposing blanket restrictions and rules for everyone.

“We’re calling for a series of local landholder and farmer workshops at which they can work with authorities and decision-makers directly and troubleshoot these issues. We’re calling for the development of individual fire ant biosecurity plans, approved by the landholder, tailored to the unique operations of every property. Implementing and complying with these plans would be the responsibility of the landholder.

“Local landholders should be able to refuse government baiting and chemical programs provided they are able to demonstrate other effective control methods with the support and guidance of authorities, and ensure fire ants cannot spread. For those who have had the pest successfully eradicated, authorities should be able to quickly provide certification to this effect and remove unnecessary restrictions on the movement of produce from these properties.

“Landholders also have concerns about the dangerous nature of some chemicals being used by the National Fire Ant Eradication Program, and want alternatives that directly target fire ant nests rather than blanketing their entire properties with these pesticides.”

Senator Roberts said One Nation would give landholders more control over eradication efforts on their properties.

“Our policy will support individual biosecurity plans for each property, with responsibility for compliance resting with the landholder,” he said. “They have every reason to ensure a pest-free property, and should be helped (and supported with funding if necessary) to implement them and comply with them. One Nation also plans to vigorously pursue questions into the effectiveness of the NFAEP, with a focus on landholder concerns, when Parliament resumes after the election.

“We will also investigate options for farmers whose profitability has been impacted by fire ant eradication to be compensated for their losses.

“One Nation has always supported the right to farm. One Nation has always known that farmers are the ones who know their land best, and how to best look after it. The NFAEP and biosecurity authorities risk alienating the very landholders they are trying to help with this heavy-handed top-down approach that ignores the wealth of expertise farmers and landholders possess.”

May 15, 2025/1 Comment/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Price Hike: The Cost of Green Energy Policies on Australian Power Bills

National, Senate Estimates

The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) has announced another electricity price hike – between 2.5% and 8.9%. For 20 years, we’ve been told wind and solar are the cheapest forms of energy, yet prices keep going up!

I questioned the AER about when Australians might see relief from these crushing power bills. Their response? No clear path to returning to the affordable prices we had just 5 years ago. Even more concerning – they recently added “emissions reduction” to the national electricity objectives alongside price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. When I asked for examples of projects that were approved because of this new emissions target that wouldn’t have been approved before – they couldn’t name a single one!

The truth is clear: We’ve gone from having the cheapest electricity in the world to being among the most expensive. These price increases aren’t accidents – they’re the direct result of failed green energy policies.

Australians deserve affordable, reliable power. Not expensive virtue signalling that drives up costs for families and businesses.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here today. The default market offer for electricity prices is going up yet again. You published a draft notice, I understand, contemplating rises between 2.5 per cent and 8.9 per cent. For 20 years, Australians have been told that wind and solar are the cheapest form of energy, yet electricity prices are going up again. Mr Oliver, are you seeing any kind of indications in the bill stack that show you will be able to actually cut the default market offer for electricity prices in the near future?

Mr Oliver: There are a few different components, as you mentioned, in that stack that go to comprise the default market offer. It is ultimately, of course, only the benchmark offer that’s applicable to standing offer contracts. That’s less than 10 per cent of customers in most regions. Most pay less, of course, because they’re on market offer contracts, which typically sit under those default levels.

Senator ROBERTS: It is representative, isn’t it?

Mr Oliver: Not representative, no. I’d say it’s more of a safety net. So it’s more at the upper end of what most consumers would pay. For example, a customer might not have gone into the market, not shopped around for a market offer, and might be on a standing offer contract. As I say, that’s generally less than 10 per cent. But the vast majority of consumers pay less than the default market offer price. Indeed, the ACCC put out a report in December last year as part of their electricity price monitoring saying that roughly 80 per cent of consumers could pay even less than they are today if they continue to shop around.

Senator ROBERTS: So do you see any signs of the default market price coming down?

Mr Oliver: There are a few key components. The biggest variable is wholesale cost. Network costs are reasonably steady year on year. Retail costs have gone up, at least in our draft decision this year, but we’re still studying those. In terms of the wholesale cost component, we have seen over the last year some high-price events in the spot market, some volatility in the spot market. That is continuing to put upward pressure on the forward contract market, the prices that ultimately are responsible for setting a lot of the wholesale energy cost. They’re difficult to predict year on year. We don’t necessarily see them continuing to increase. If market conditions alleviate, that wholesale cost can potentially come down. We will, of course, look at those again more closely before we put out our final decision.

Senator ROBERTS: My next question was going to be this, but I think you’ve answered it: in the data you’re seeing, is there any realistic hope that electricity prices can go back down to what they were five years ago under the current policy settings?

Mr Oliver: Well, it’s a question of time. We don’t anticipate that kind of decline between now and the final decision. But there are obviously plans in place to continue the rollout of renewable generation and other forms of generation as well across the energy market, across the NEM, and, as we see more of that generation capacity coming into the system, that will alleviate pressure on wholesale costs. There’s work underway at the moment to look to orchestrate and utilise all of the consumer energy resources that we have in the system at the moment—20 gigawatts of rooftop solar, for example, which could be utilised more effectively to also bring down those wholesale costs as well. There are various ways. It’s a number of pieces that need to be looked at to do that. But yes, all of those trends will, over time, see the wholesale cost of energy come down.

Senator ROBERTS: So those trends will help reduce the full bill stack?

Mr Oliver: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Emissions reduction was recently added to the national electricity objectives of price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. Can you provide an example of a project that went ahead after the emissions objective was added that would have been rejected under the previous objectives, or a project that was prioritised higher?

Mr Oliver: I can’t think of one specific project that would meet that criterion. We would probably need to take that on notice to see if we could identify one. It is, as you described the objective quite correctly, one that has a number of different facets. So, whenever one is making a decision that requires the application of that objective, it’s about weight and deciding how various things are taken into account. What the amendment does is say quite explicitly that one of the things to be considered is emissions targets and objectives that are enshrined in policy and legislation, but that doesn’t necessarily point to a project which then gets up that might have otherwise failed. I can’t think of one now, but we might take that on notice as well, just to confirm that.

Senator ROBERTS: So you had four factors: quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. You’ve had added now emissions reduction. So you can’t see any project that has been brought forward because of emissions reduction at the moment?

Mr Oliver: I can’t think of one now. I’m glancing at my colleagues and they’re not nodding either, but we’d perhaps take that on notice just to see. It may well be that the answer would be that there’s no project that would meet that specific criterion. It affects other things of course, in terms of proposals for expenditure in a network proposal, for example. There might be a stronger case for investment in a particular area that might otherwise not have been as strong a case. But those are very complicated and multifaceted decisions where you’re looking at a lot of different things.

Senator ROBERTS: How do you assess the relative weights of those now five criteria?

Mr Oliver: We don’t do it in any specific quantitative sense. If, for example, it is an expenditure proposal, we would be looking at the driver behind the proposal, why the network, if it is a network project, says that they wish to undertake that expenditure, who they’ve consulted with, which of the objectives they’re trying to meet, and whether they’re doing it at the most efficient cost.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you

May 14, 2025/3 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts