Real wages have gone backwards, erasing a decade of pay rises since this government took office. This data is up to March, so it doesn’t reflect the current inflation rise. So, if Australians feel they’re working harder and getting less, it’s because they are.
Net zero policies are driving up electricity prices, which in turn affect the entire economy. Every sector—whether farming, manufacturing, or retail—uses power, and rising energy costs inevitably get passed on. In the March quarter, business bankruptcies reached record levels, with the construction sector hit particularly hard. Housing construction is declining, yet the government continues to bring in more immigrants.
This government has clearly failed in its economic management—there is no trust left.
Transcript
The Reserve Bank has just announced the inflation rate for May as four per cent, which is above the expected rate of 3.8 per cent. What’s even worse is that the underlying inflation rate, which had been trending downward, has now increased to 4.4 per cent. Inflation is surging, and it’s entirely the fault of the Albanese Labor government. Today we heard Finance Minister Gallagher again bragging about this government’s track record on protecting wages. The data does not support that statement.
According to the Australia Institute, real wages of everyday Australians have fallen from $52,900 to $52,080 since this government came to power. That figure has been calculated to March this year, so it doesn’t take into account what is now rising inflation. If everyday Australians feel like they’re working harder and going backwards, it’s because you are. The inflation spike was entirely predictable. Net zero measures continue to force up electricity prices, which cascade throughout our entire economy. Every business, from farming to manufacturing to retailing, uses power. Any increase in power has to be passed on, and this is what we’re now seeing.
One Nation calls on the government to abandon the insane net zero transition before the economy falls apart entirely, catastrophically. In the March quarter, business bankruptcies were at record levels. Bankruptcies in the building sector were especially high. Housing construction is not rising; it’s falling. Yet this government continues to bring in more new-arrival immigrants, which is inherently inflationary. The economy as a whole is just barely staying out of recession, with GDP growth at 0.2 per cent, a figure that shows the destruction that net zero is causing to our entire economy. I hope the Reserve Bank holds its nerve and doesn’t raise interest rates. If it raises rates, everyday Australians will be doing it even tougher. What a mess. This government is not fit to govern—no trust.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/moNqzCzmUQ4/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-12 09:39:322024-08-12 09:39:37Stagnant Wages, Skyrocketing Energy Costs and Record Business Failures
40 wind turbines every month. 22,000 solar panels every single day. 28,000 km of transmission lines and 48 gigawatt of batteries. That’s what the Net-Zero pipe dream requires.
These goals will never be achieved, yet the government persists in pursuing them, causing huge damage to our environment along the way. No one will take responsibility for cleaning up these environmental vandals, so Australia is on track for an environmental wasteland, more expensive electricity and blackouts.
Ditch Net-Zero – let’s bring down power bills AND protect the environment.
Transcript
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy (Senator Wong) to questions without notice I asked today relating to renewable energy.
In question time I asked the government how their insane net-zero wind and solar pipedreams were progressing. Here is what Labor’s energy minister Chris Bowen’s plan requires for the next eight years: 40 large wind turbines every single month, each with 100-metre concrete foundations, a massive turbine and huge blades atop a 300-metre tall steel tube; three days to erect the crane on each site; days to install each turbine; two days to dismantle the crane and move it to the next place; 22,000 solar panels every single day for eight years; 28,000 kilometres of new transmission lines carving up national parks, prime farmland and the environment; plus 48 gigawatt hours of batteries. Predictably, the construction of wind and solar is nowhere near these targets. The government’s targets are physically and financially impossible.
While the targets will never be achieved, this government will do huge damage trying. Farmers and landholders are being conned into having these environment-killing wind-and-solar installations on their land. With the promise of some short-term money, farmers let these predators onto their land. Little do these landowners know, they are now responsible for disposing of the toxic wind turbines and solar panels at the end of their short life when the company that instals them inevitably goes broke or abandons them.
Every coalmine, however, is legislated to pay a rehabilitation bond for each hectare of land disturbed. The mining company pays upfront. The money is held until the mine ends and restores the environment to its original state. The bond is then returned. Wind and solar companies don’t pay any rehabilitation bond. Thousands of landholders will be stuck with useless wind turbines and solar panels on their property that they will have to pay to remove. Prevention is better than cure. Anyone can see this scandal coming, yet the government won’t take action to prevent it. It just sits there causing this catastrophe. The government protects its billionaire wind-and-solar mates living like parasites off subsidies Australian electricity users and taxpayers will continue to pay. Government screws it up; taxpayers pay.
The Strategic Shipping Fleet proposes tax incentives for selected shipping owners to flag vessels in Australia and employ Australian crews. The plan aims to ensure these ships remain near Australia for potential repurposing during supply crises to maintain essential goods supply.
One Nation supports this proposal, however the published plan lacks detail, particularly regarding the types of freight that would provide commercial viability while keeping these ships nearby. It appears that implementation of this idea is still far off.
The allocated budget only covers planning for another 5 years, yet the Department indicated that the budget did have an allocation for implementation, but that the details were not for disclosure. Publishing such budget information can help guide tendering companies on bid amounts, but it can also be misleading if funding isn’t actually available.
Despite the Minister’s assurance of implementation within 5 years, I remain unconvinced.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here this evening. I’d like to ask some broad questions on the scoping of the strategic shipping fleet that Labor has announced and that we support. It’s been something we’ve been pushing for a while. Then I’d like to ask a few questions that build on what Senator O’Sullivan’s been talking about. Queensland should be a big winner out of the proposal for a strategic fleet, with a long coastline currently underserved by road and rail transport. A national rail circuit would help that too, and I’ll ask about that later. However, the idea is to encourage private ownership of ships to service the Australian coastline and the Pacific which could then be requisitioned in the event of an emergency, like the next virus or whatever. The report doesn’t go into detail about where the freight will come from, so we don’t know if it’s commercially viable— specifically which companies and how many containers. Do you have any information on where the containers are going to come from to keep container vessels commercially engaged in the scheme? What’s the volume of cargo? Or is it just very early days?
Mr Johnson: The planned approach in terms of selecting the vessels for the strategic fleet is to approach the market, and there are questions for that marketplace about both the capability of vessels they might put forward to join the strategic fleet and the commerciality of those vessels, which really goes to what freight they’re moving currently and how they propose their vessels will fit into the commercial marketplace. That’ll give us the information on the volumes of cargo and those sorts of things that would be moved on a normal day-to-day basis. But the vessel would be Australian flagged and crewed and therefore, as part of the arrangements to join the strategic fleet, would be available for that requisition.
Senator ROBERTS: Am I right in assessing then, Mr Johnson, that it’s very loose, maybe deliberately so— and maybe commendably so—and the arrangement at the moment hasn’t been fleshed out?
Mr Johnson: Part of what we’re looking at in terms of how the fleet’s established is to get the industry to come forward with those views on how that capability might be provided and what’s commercial in the marketplace, rather than us trying to identify what’s commercial. Then the industry would provide that in the proposals put forward to join the fleet, which we would then match up with the capabilities and capacities of the fleet that would suit the purposes for requisition later. So it’d be work with industry to join the two through theapproach to market process.
Senator ROBERTS: The funding in this budget is $21.7 million over five years, which seems enough to keep a small team of bureaucrats busy but little else. Does that not seem to include funding for the tax incentives and other costs in the scheme once operational? Can you confirm whether the funding is pre-operational only?
Mr Johnson: You’re correct; that is the funding to support the administration of the strategic fleet—
Senator ROBERTS: Ongoing.
Mr Johnson: and implementation of the other recommendations in the strategic fleet taskforce report. The amount of funding to actually support implementation of the fleet has been allocated but hasn’t been announced.
Senator ROBERTS: Has been allocated but not announced.
Mr Johnson: Yes.
Ms Purvis-Smith: It is not for publication, and that is so it doesn’t prejudice the government getting negotiations with market players so that we can get value for money.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I know that during COVID our fuel reserves got down to just two days, which is very poor governance in my opinion. This does illustrate why we need a strategic fleet, but the delay worries me. Can you confirm that, within the next five years, there will not be one extra ship with Australian crew operational in Australia as a result of the scheme?
Mr Johnson: The intention is to have the three vessels announced in the budget by the government operational within the next five years.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I’ve had the maritime union and a shipping operator on the phone asking for more details—actually asking for a meeting with the department and the minister to see how they can respond to this development and swing freight over to the strategic fleet. Should I tell them to come back in five years or will you meet with them to get the ball rolling on planning new freight routes for container transport?
Senator Chisholm: I’m sure that people would be happy to take a request for a meeting. But, as you heard just then from Mr Johnson, we are keen to get this operating sooner than five years.
I joined Peter Fegan of 4BC Radio to discuss the inquiry into the defence honours and awards system due to my motion being passed in the Senate recently.
The morale within the ADF is alarmingly low, reaching a level that could severely impact our future security.
There is a prevailing sentiment among ADF personnel that the senior leaders are not accountable. The top brass are abandoning enlisted members and veterans, while taking credit for achievements that aren’t rightfully theirs.
Watch as these climate change bureaucrats deflect and squirm when trying to answer basic questions about what their department has been doing.
This session looked at why they sold millions of barrels of oil held in the United States and Labor’s new tax on petrol and diesel cars. Like always, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water (DCCEEW) is completely out of touch with reality while trying to tell you what you can and can’t do.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Can we just continue with this strategic reserve? So Australia sold all of the oil reserves in the United States strategic reserve?
Mrs Svarcas: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: That was 1.7 million barrels, around June 2022?
Mrs Svarcas: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: What was the sale amount? $220 million?
Mrs Svarcas: I would have to take that on notice. I don’t have that in my folder.
Senator ROBERTS: Who was the oil delivered to?
Mrs Svarcas: I would have to also take that on notice, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: How much was paid in seller’s fees, commissions or whatever it is?
Mrs Svarcas: I’m happy to break that down for you on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: How much is the continuing empty lease in the US strategic reserve costing?
Mrs Svarcas: We do have an ongoing contract for that. I will, again, come back to you with the leasing costs on that.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s all I had there. I’d like to move to the ute tax, please.
CHAIR: I think you’ll find it’s not called that, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry?
CHAIR: We don’t have such a thing. Would you like to refer to the correct program?
Senator ROBERTS: Your new car tax.
Senator McAllister: We don’t have a new car tax, either.
CHAIR: No new car tax?
Senator ROBERTS: You know what I’m talking about.
CHAIR: How about you just say it, Senator Roberts, so we can get the right people to the table.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know the new fees for petrol and diesel vehicles.
Senator McAllister: It’s possible you’re referring to the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much.
CHAIR: Yes, that sounds a bit more familiar.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, that’s another way of saying it. Minister, why were you so secretive about it? You passed it under guillotine with no debate. Yet again, another bill with no debate.
Senator McAllister: The New Vehicle Efficiency Standard brings Australia into line with the very significant majority of the international vehicle market. It’s a policy—
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, Minister. The people of Australia elected your government to govern. They didn’t elect the United Nations World Economic Forum, the United States, Great Britain, or other global players. They wanted you to govern this country—not on behalf of others.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, could you allow the minister to finish answering the question?
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, Chair.
Senator McAllister: The government was very clear and we had extensive public discussion about the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard. I believe there were Senate hearings, although I did not participate in them. We discussed it here in the estimates forum and also in the neighbouring committee at the last estimates hearings as well. Officials can talk to you about some of the public consultation that took place, including the position papers that were released. And senators had many opportunities to express their opinions about this particular policy initiative through the course of the Senate’s work.
Senator ROBERTS: So we don’t need to debate anymore in the Senate?
Senator McAllister: We do need debate in the Senate, Senator Roberts. These were important—
Senator ROBERTS: Second reading, third reading and committee stages?
Senator McAllister: I thought you had asked me a question.
Senator ROBERTS: I am! But I was continuing—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m going to ask you again to allow the minister to answer the question you have just posed and to not speak over her.
Senator McAllister: The government’s view was that this was an important reform, and that there was some urgency to this reform. It was a reform that had been proposed under a previous government, during a previous parliament, and not progressed. The consequences of that were that Australians continue to pay more than they need to at the bowser because the vehicle fleet in Australia is less efficient than it could be, because the range of vehicles available to Australians is considerably less than we expect it will be under the standard. We think it’s an important policy. We wanted to progress it, and we judged that there was a majority of support in the Senate for that, so we brought it on for consideration.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re afraid of letting the people participate through their views, expressed through senators in debates in second reading and third reading and committee stages, and assessing amendments?
Senator McAllister: I wouldn’t characterise it like that at all.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Minister, are you aware, with an increasing amount of smart metres being installed—despite some people saying they don’t want it—and electric vehicle charging happening overnight offpeak, that’s when coal-fired power is supplying most of the electricity. So there’s potentially going to be an increased demand on coal-fired power stations as petrol and diesel vehicles are set aside in favour of electric vehicles. So you’re actually increasing the carbon dioxide intensity of energy.
Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, I will ask some of the officials to talk you through the expectations that we have for demand on the grid. But the Integrated System Plan, which is produced by the AEMO, includes demand that is predicted to arise from the introduction of greater numbers of electric vehicles into the Australian fleet, along with a range of other changes. It also, as you know, shows a very significant shift to renewable energy, so the emissions intensity of the National Electricity Market is expected to decrease over time, of course.
Senator ROBERTS: So, are they like the projections where you told us we would be having lower power costs, and instead we’ve got far higher?
Senator McAllister: Do you want to talk about the issue that you originally asked me about, or do you wish to move on?
Senator ROBERTS: I just wanted to know what your projections were like and how accurate they are.
Senator McAllister: The Integrated System Plan is a long-established piece of analysis undertaken by the Australian Energy Market Operator. Officials at the table can talk to you about the expectations there and any other information we have of that expected demand on electricity.
Mr Ryan: To start with, I’ll talk about some of the different charging solutions we’re seeing and what impact that’s having. ARENA, who I know will be appearing, will certainly be able to tell you about some of the investment and some of the innovations they’re looking at in charging. You’re right, a lot of charging is done at home—80 per cent, we think—but that’s not just from the grid. A lot of those people—not all, but a lot of them— actually have batteries that charge and store solar energy from during the day. So when they’re charging overnight—it might be from a battery but it also might be from the grid—note that the grid is slowly decarbonising as well. So that’s increasing, day to day. There are other innovations where we’re seeing EV charging being provided at places people visit on a regular basis, whether that’s at carparks during the day or the workplace during the day, whether it’s at the kerbside, at the local gym, at the movies—places where there’s charging, more and more. Sometimes that’s in the evening, but a lot of the time that’s during the day. So we’re seeing some innovation, and there’s certainly been funding—not just from the Commonwealth but from the states and territories—to develop that innovation and look to maximise the solar in there. The last thing I’d say on the projections is that I do know that they take into account the grid and the impact on the grid for the uptake of EVs. So they are in the figures that are provided each year when they do the projections.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you still maintain—
Mr Fredericks: Senator, sorry; could Ms Rowley just give you 30 seconds on that, because it is quintessentially the answer to your question about how all of the emissions impacts are brought to bear.
Senator ROBERTS: Sure.
Ms Rowley: In relation to the annual emissions projections, we look at the change in the vehicle fleet, including the uptake of electric vehicles, which is helping to reduce the direct emissions from transport. But we also take account of the electricity required to meet the growing share of electric vehicles. Just by way of example, for 2030, in last year’s emissions projections, we estimated that there was a seven-million-tonne reduction in transport emissions and a one-million-tonne increase in electricity emissions to meet that additional demand from electric vehicles, so the net effect in 2030 was an estimated six-million-tonne reduction in Australia’s emissions, taking into account both transport and electricity.
Senator ROBERTS: Sure, but I remind you you can’t tell me the impact on climate of that, so you’re basically going with a policy of spending money but not realising the benefit. Minister, do you still maintain—
Ms Rowley: I would note that the new vehicle efficiency standard is projected to save consumers money and reduce the impact of things like health costs on the Australian economy.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you still maintain—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we’re going to rotate the call.
Senator ROBERTS: Last question?
CHAIR: Last question.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you still maintain, Minister, that punishing manufacturers of petrol and diesel vehicles won’t reduce the number of petrol or diesel cars available to Australians?
Senator McAllister: Senator, I don’t accept that characterisation of the policy setting.
The greatest lie told to Australians is that “wind and solar are the cheapest forms of energy”.
Politicians and journalists, who should know better, are using a report of models from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation’s (CSIRO) GenCost to try to justify this claim. In recent decades, CSIRO has completely destroyed its once stellar reputation for scientific research. It has now allowed its name to be used for political agendas rather than real science. The underlying assumptions and inputs used for the GenCost model must be subject to scrutiny.
I voiced these comments in support of a Senate Inquiry to do that, which Labor and the greens voted down. What are they trying to hide?
Transcript
Yesterday in question time I asked the minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Senator Wong a simple question: exactly how many wind turbines, solar panels, batteries and kilometres of transmission lines were built last month? You’d think that, as the cornerstone of the Labor Party’s policy in government, the answer would be obvious and clear and given to me straightaway. To her credit—and I have a lot of regard for Senator Wong’s capability and think she’s one of the most capable senators in parliament—she said, ‘I don’t know.’ It’s the key policy for the Labor government, and they’re flying blind.
Here’s what I told her in the second question. ‘Minister, the government’s own figures to meet your net zero target show that over the next eight years you need to install and connect more than 40 wind turbines per month, 22,000 solar panels a day, 48 gigawatt hours of batteries and 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines. I pointed out to her that the government is building nothing like that.
The government’s wind and solar pipedream is going to be a nightmare. We are being driven off a cliff by the energy minister, Chris Bowen—
Senator Fawcett: Order, Senator Roberts. Remember to use the correct title.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister Bowen. This is a gargantuan task. This has been labelled by some people as the biggest transition since the start of the Industrial Revolution. It’s fundamental because energy has primacy in our society. Labor cannot tell us the cost of this transition of dumping affordable, lowest cost, reliable, stable and secure energy independent of nature’s vagaries and transitioning to an unreliable, high cost, unstable energy that is weather dependent and not secure. This is madness. But to do it without any costing is doubly mad.
Think about it. We are giving parasitic billionaires and major corporations from around the world—many of them from China—subsidies for installing solar and wind. Those subsidies drive up the cost of electricity, and then we ship our manufacturing to China. China wins in two ways. We have got a National Electricity Market forcing out coal with unfavourable regulations—just driving coal out by making it impossible to feed the market. But it’s not a market; it’s a so-called market that bureaucrats control. It’s a national electricity racket that was introduced by John Howard’s coalition government.
While they’re driving out coal and subsidising solar and wind, they now admit they need to keep Eraring Power Station open. They were going to shut it. They’re now offering subsidies to the owners and operators of Eraring to keep it open, so we’re subsidising them to shut it and we’re subsidising them to open it and then we’re giving $275 relief in power prices to consumers across Australia. Why? Because the energy policy has failed.
By the way, I need to mention that on the night of the incoming Minns government, the new energy minister said that they would have to look at the closure of Eraring. She was laying a signal there—a hint—that they’d keep it open. That’s exactly what they must do because they’re terrified. The Australian Energy Market Operator has identified severe blackouts around December this year. The No. 1 factor that has driven our standard of living for the last 170 years since the start of the industrial revolution has been relentless reduction in energy prices, the unit cost of energy. It’s been a relentless reduction in the real cost of energy. That was until John Howard’s government introduced the renewable energy target and other measures, and since then it has relentlessly increased. Australia has gone from having the cheapest coal and the cheapest electricity prices, thanks to our wonderful coal assets—high-quality, clean coal—to now having amongst the most expensive electricity.
So let’s have a look at the terms of reference for the inquiry that Senator Colbeck has proposed. I thank Senator Colbeck for his motion. It says:
That the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation GenCost 2023-24 report be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report … to explore assumptions and costings made in the report, including but not limited to—
the CSIRO has been criticised for every one of these things I’m about to read out—
a. asset lifecycles;
b. capacity factors;
c. energy type costings;
d. financing costs;
e. fuel costs;
f. augmentation requirements of transmission systems;
g. data standards techniques; and
h. other related matters.
CSIRO has been belted by experts on every one of these. We badly need this inquiry. These are the fundamentals of the biggest transition since the industrial revolution.
CSIRO used to be a highly respected organisation. It was internationally respected. It has now come to mean ‘corrupted science is really obvious’. It lost its way distorting and omitting science to fabricate support for the UN’s climate fraud. The CSIRO has never presented the basis of science which is empirical scientific data—measurements and observations—within logical scientific points that prove cause and effect. The CSIRO has been integral in working with the UN climate change body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in pushing distortions of science.
I have had three meetings with the CSIRO at 2½ hours each and, under cross-examination, it has admitted that it has never said that there has been any danger due to human carbon dioxide. It has admitted that, even though climate change was based initially on global warming claims, temperatures are not unprecedented. It has claimed the rate of temperature change is unprecedented, but the rate of temperature change is almost negligible since 1995. It’s almost flat. That’s according to NASA’s scientific satellite measuring temperatures. The CSIRO gave us not one solid paper to back up its claims. What it did give us was two papers we tore to shreds. Then they gave us another two, and we tore them to shreds. There are 24,000 datasets that I have access to that have been scraped from sites all over the world, including CSIRO’s and BOM’s case studies, and there is not one that shows any change in any climate factor—not one. It’s just inherent natural variation with cycles superimposed. Not only that but the CSIRO has never provided bases for policy and neither has any department or the alphabet soup of energy agencies. They have all failed to answer my question: what’s the specific effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate, on any aspect of climate or on any factor of climate? What is the quantified specific effect per unit of carbon dioxide from human activity? Ocean heat content, air temperatures, ocean temperatures, storm frequency, severity and duration—not one of them can give me any answers on those at all. That is the basis for policy. Without that, you cannot understand or evaluate the options for reducing human carbon dioxide, you cannot track the progress of the measures and you cannot cost the alternatives. This is flying blind over a cliff. Electricity prices in every country with significant solar and wind have increased dramatically. Labor is simply continuing the policy that John Howard started, Tony Abbott continued, Malcolm Turnbull accelerated, Scott Morrison continued and Peter Dutton now propagates by confirming net zero.
Let’s turn specifically to the CSIRO report, GenCost. CSIRO used to be a respected scientific organisation, advancing our country’s technology. I refer to Senator Fawcett’s speech a minute ago. Now the CSIRO is a blatantly political organisation. It’s more interested in pushing the agenda of the government than in providing impartial, evidence-based research. Ideology is infecting most of CSIRO’s work like a virus. The GenCost report is shocking evidence of just how biased this once-respected institution has become. The methodology used in GenCost is so flawed that there are multiple hours of podcast series explaining all of its deficiencies, and I give a compliment Aidan Morrison for some of his work.
Let’s start with the cost of wind and solar. Many people, including some politicians, think GenCost says what it costs for wind and solar to deliver a kilowatt of power today. It doesn’t! It fundamentally doesn’t tell us the cost. GenCost imagines some fairytale dreamtime half-a-dozen years in the future and projects what they think wind and solar will cost, with no accurate, solid assumptions underpinning that. CSIRO even admits that this prediction they come up with is not the actual cost, but this is what policy relies on. CSIRO completely excludes the cost of every single power project up until 2030. They’re free! They’re free, according to this mob.
Just look at the tens of thousands of kilometres of transmission projects assumed to be free: EnergyConnect, $2.3 billion; Marinus Link, $3 billion. All are assumed to be free. Free, free, free! Santa Claus is giving them to us! There’s Central-West Orana, $3.2 billion, and HumeLink, $5 billion. It doesn’t sound like much when you rattle off a billion, does it! There are dozens more major projects.
Let’s look at the pumped hydro that’s assumed to be free. There’s Snowy 2.0, $12 billion plus and counting. That’s not included. There’s the Battery of the Nation in Tasmania, our biggest island. That’s $3 billion. It’s not included. There’s the Borumba pump hydro, $14 billion. It’s not included. There’s the Pioneer-Burdekin pumped hydro, $12 billion. It’s not included. The list goes on and on and on. Tens of billions of dollars is excluded from the cost of wind and solar, but we’ll all pay for it—some people with their jobs when they’re shipped off overseas, some people for whom the cost of living will drive these out of reach.
Almost all of these projects, especially the pump hydro, are only being planned because of wind and solar, yet CSIRO excludes them from the cost of wind and solar completely. It’s like saying a Ferrari is the cheapest car you can buy, as long as you take out the cost of the sunroof, the air conditioning, the wheels, the gearbox and the engine.
Then there are their calculations on the cost of coal. They added an extra five per cent cost to the finance figures with no basis whatsoever. CSIRO just says, ‘Well, no-one likes coal anymore,’ and, whack, a completely unfounded hurdle is added on top. Then there’s the capacity factor. That’s the percentage of time the station is running. It has a huge impact on the calculated cost of power, if you assume a billion-dollar power station is running for only half the time it actually is on and can be on. They’re destroying the viability of coal with lies.
CSIRO also says:
In 2030, we project forward including all existing state renewable energy targets resulting in a 64% renewable share and 56% variable renewable share …
They just assume that we’re going to press ahead with variable renewable energy, regardless of what happens and without any costings. They just assume it’s going to go ahead. It doesn’t sound like impartial modelling to me, because it’s not impartial modelling.
But the people of Australia will pay for this. They will pay for it with their jobs. They will pay for it with their livelihoods. They will pay for it with their family budgets. What sensitivities have been applied for political risk? Policy will almost certainly change and you may have a government elected that ditches false targets. What percentage of chance do they give that? The United Kingdom is abandoning net zero. The Prime Minister has said so. Japan is switching back to coal. It is already using a lot of coal. Germany is scrapping wind turbines to extend coalmines. It is tearing down wind turbines that were installed so that they can mine the coal underneath them. China is producing 4½ billion tonnes of coal. We produce 560 tonnes, and we export most of that overseas, and China is buying coal from us. Indonesia is now the world’s largest exporter of coal. India has well over a billion tonnes of coal.
This report, the GenCost report from CSIRO, isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, yet it’s being used to justify one of the largest destructions of our economy in Australia’s history. Even if you naively believe we need to run the grid on solar and wind, this GenCost report deserves scrutiny and the Australian people deserve transparency. CSIRO has repeatedly shown it is dishonest on climate and energy. We need an inquiry. In refusing or opposing, the government shows it fears its assumptions will be shown to be flawed. If I’m wrong, CSIRO would be vindicated. So CSIRO, if it had any courage, would stand up and say, ‘Bring on the inquiry.’ Thank you, Senator Colbeck. We support this motion.
As the cost of living increases out of control, the number of businesses going broke (insolvency) is on the rise. Each of these insolvencies is a tragic story of people losing their jobs and facing uncertainty about whether they will have money to put food on the table.
Ditch the net-zero policies that are driving up energy costs, cut red tape and make it easier for family businesses to survive. That’s One Nation’s plan!
Transcript
I support Senator Hughes’s motion and agree that the Albanese Labor government has failed to grow the economy and, with that lack of growth, failed to restore Australia’s standard of living. A stable economic environment is necessary for a new business to open and to flourish and for existing businesses to weather the many storms this government has engineered. Labor’s interest rate rises are due directly to Labor’s wasteful spending and energy price inflation resulting from pointless net zero policies. The Prime Minister and Energy Minister Bowen have failed to provide electricity at prices people and businesses can afford, directly driving inflation. Every new piece of legislation in this place seems designed to strangle the last breath out of businesses. Live sheep exports are today’s casualty.
It should come as no surprise that data from ASIC shows there were 1,245 business insolvencies in May 2024. This is a 44 per cent increase on last year and a 122 per cent increase across the life of the Albanese Labor government. To put it simply this government is sending business broke. One thousand two hundred and forty-five insolvent businesses in just one month is not a statistic; it’s a human tragedy. These are everyday Australians who had a go at lifting themselves up, who were employing others in their community and who were paying tax to support the government agenda. Now their businesses are gone along with their ability to provide for their families, free from reliance on the government. Business confidence is down because this government has talked it down with an unending recipe of doom and gloom about global boiling and sustainability requiring reductions in living standards. There’s no hope in this message, just unending misery. It’s a lie. No wonder businesses give up.
One Nation believes abundance is not a dirty word. It’s natural for people to seek abundance and to share abundance. With One Nation, Australians can and will restore prosperity to this beautiful country of ours.
The housing supply and affordability crisis is upon us and debating how we arrived here won’t help.
One Nation’s housing policy ‘looks to the future,’ offering common-sense solutions to help more Australians purchase their own home, while at the same time, reducing rent.
Overview
Lower immigration to sustainable levels to reduce housing demand.
Ban foreign ownership of residential property to increase housing supply.
Allow a portion of your superannuation to be invested in a home purchase.
Ditch Labor’s Housing Future Fund and invest those funds into creating a new People’s Mortgage Scheme, offering 5% deposit and 5% interest rate.
Allow people with a HECS debt to roll their debt into a People’s Mortgage account, improving their ability to obtain and service a housing loan.
Implement a 5-year moratorium on charging GST for new home construction, which will make new homes more affordable.
The Role of Interest Rates in the Housing Crisis
The Reserve Bank understands that slowing down construction is an effective tool in reducing inflation and is doing so knowing it will make the housing crisis.
This is what I mean when I say the Government is “stepping on the accelerator with handouts and government-sponsored construction,” at the same time the Reserve Bank is tightening the reins with higher interest rates.
The result is a shambolic government from Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers.
A shortage of home construction firms is also contributing to the problem. As of May 2024, there have been 2,500 building company bankruptcies | May of 2024 financial year.
These failures are a result of rising material costs, approval delays, high interest rates affecting both the builder and the customer and a shortage of skilled labour. Our immigration policy has brought millions of people into the country, however only a fraction of those migrants are qualified in construction trades.
The Government’s answer involves a set of measures that “promise” many new homes, yet so far, only a few thousand have been delivered and they are mostly homes that were already in the pipeline.
In other words, the Albanese’ Government’s efforts have made no meaningful impact on the crisis.
One Nation’s approach will tackle inflation without relying on interest rate rises. Refer to our inflation policy.
The Role of Immigration in the Housing Crisis
One Nation’s policy to address the housing shortage involves reducing immigration until the housing market stabilises.
This strategy is grounded in logic that if we already have a limited supply of houses and we increase demand faster than new homes can be constructed, it will only lead to a worse housing shortage. Even those who support high immigration should recognise that this approach makes sense.
Anthony Albanese has overseen the arrival of 2.4 million new residents in just the last 2 years, creating a demand for 700,000 homes. With home approvals at just 160,000 per annum, our housing shortage continues to get worse. In turn, the worsening shortage will cause higher rents and higher home prices, putting home ownership or rentals out of reach for many everyday Australians.
Rent controls discourages construction, making the problem worse.
The graph below illustrates new housing approvals against population growth. Under Anthony Albanese’s Labor/Greens government, the number of home approvals has decreased while new arrivals have increased. This trend suggests that without the implementation of One Nation’s housing policy, the problem is going to get significantly worse for everyone currently living here.
The Role of Foreign Buyers in the Housing Crisis
During COVID, with immigration at such low levels, there was an opportunity for a “’catchup” – a period of construction without the pressure of increased demand.
Despite this opportunity, no significant catch-up occurred, yet new homes were built. So where did these homes end up?
Part of the answer can be found in the August 2021 Census, which revealed that one million of Australia’s 10.8 million homes were empty on Census night.
One Nation believes that part of the issues stems from foreign buyers purchasing new housing stock and locking it up, so that it can be sold as “brand new” when values rise. Much of the construction during this COVID period was removed from the market in this manner. The Greens also highlighted this issue: read here.
One Nation’s housing policy includes measures to end foreign ownership of residential and agricultural property, aiming to help Australians secure homes.
Another contributing factor are owners that decide tenants are too troublesome and choose to forgo rental income. This problem would likely be more common among foreign or corporate investors who view real estate as a speculative investment – focusing on fast capital appreciation rather than rental returns.
Why wouldn’t foreign investors pour capital into Australian real estate, given how fast property prices are increasing?
Rising Australian real estate prices were an irresistible target for international and local capital. Additionally, superannuation firms are increasingly investing in residential property, potentially adding to the demand and contributing to rising prices.
Is Short-stay Accommodation Contributing to the Housing Crisis?
The short-stay rental market, such as Airbnb, is often highlighted in discussions about housing. There are approximately 100,000 short-stay properties in Australia, which adds to the 280,000 rooms available in the conventional accommodation sector.
In comparison, Australia’s total housing stock comprises 10.8 million homes, meaning short-stay properties represent less than 1% of the overall market.
The short-stay rental market caters to people seeking holiday or business rentals and is an industry with a finite growth curve. Many short-stay rentals are not stand-alone units. Often, they are converted spaces like garages or spare rooms. These types of properties would not typically qualify as permanent rental accommodation under existing planning regulations.
Many of these properties have always been used for short-stay purposes. In the past, these properties would have been managed by local real estate agents and legacy websites like Stayz. Therefore, the actual number of rental properties removed from the market for short-stay use in the past 5 years, is much less than the 100,000 figure suggests.
While some on the left are fixated on short-stay rentals, it appears to be more an ideological abhorrence of Australians that use entrepreneurship to get ahead.
We Need a People’s Mortgage Scheme!
The Housing Future Fund (HFF) is an Albanese Government initiative to create a fund that invests in mortgages. Currently valued at $10 billion, it is expected to be increased to $20 billion. However, this scheme has not delivered a single new home and is limited to just a few thousand properties per year.
One Nation proposes to turn this scheme into a low-deposit, low-interest Government-backed mortgage scheme for Australians, especially those with a HECS debt. This proposal would help people secure homes years sooner.
One Nation will convert the HFF into a mortgage fund, offering government-backed loans to Australians who fail to meet traditional banking criteria. This is aimed primarily at the three million HECS debt holders in Australia. These individuals, HECS repayments can restrict their ability to buy a home, manage a mortgage or save for a deposit, as their HECS debt impacts their income.
We propose offering People’s Mortgages with fixed terms of up to 25 years at a 5% interest rate, with the option for early repayment, and requiring only a 5% deposit. This is in line with the Government’s own low-income deposit scheme.
Applicants will also have the option to use up to one-third of their superannuation for the deposit, with the condition that the funds must be repaid when the home is sold.
For Australians who have been employed for several years, have a reasonable income and superannuation balance, and qualifies for the first home buyers grant, it’s likely that no cash deposit will be required for an entry level property. Additionally, the mortgage repayments will be comparable to current rent payments.
People’s Mortgages for HECS Debt Holders
One Nation will offer HECS debt holders a simple and straightforward choice:
Continue paying off your HECS debt while managing a mortgage as you do now; or
Roll your HECS debt into your mortgage, extending the repayment period over a longer period. This option allows you to secure a mortgage sooner if your income and eligibility for a First Home-Owner’s grant, along with a superannuation top-up, support it. While this option increases the total cost of your HECS debt over time, it enables you to purchase a home much earlier.
Mortgages will only be issued if the applicant meets the lending criteria, including the ability to make the repayments through gainful employment or a self-owned business.
These mortgages will be administered through an Authorised Deposit-taking Institution (ADI) or approved intermediary, such as mortgage brokers.
Case study: Blake has the average HECS debt of $25,000 and is paying that off over the average duration of 9.5 years. The debt increases every year with indexation, Blake will most likely repay a total of $29885 at $300p/m before being eligible for a home loan. Under One Nation’s low deposit mortgage, Blake can roll the $25,000 debt into their mortgage and pay the debt off over 25 years at 5% interest for a total repayment of $43,800. This will add $146 per month to the mortgage, a much more manageable figure.
For more details on how One Nation plans to make HECS fairer, refer to our HECS Policy.
Suspend Charging of GST to Buyers
According to the Australian, government fees, charges and taxes account for 50% of the cost of a home in Sydney and 32% in Queensland. Housing has become a cash cow to maintain bureaucratic empires and social agendas, making it increasingly difficult for everyday Australians to afford to build their own home.
One Nation policy will strip away red, green and blue tape, allowing tradies to get on with the job.
I have requested the Parliamentary Budget Office cost our proposal to suspend collection of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on new home construction. The policy is straighforward – builders will be able to claim back the GST on all building materials they used in the construction of the homes, rather than passing the GST cost onto home buyers.
This measure will cost $1.4 billion over 5 years and will lead to a corresponding reduction in the purchase price of new homes.
Since GST revenue is collected on behalf of the states, the Federal Government will compensate the States for the reduced GST revenue. This practical measure provides direct assistance and rewards the completion of new, ready-to-sell homes.
Addressing Building Materials Shortages
Amid discussions about building houses, the Prime Minister is ignoring a critical issue: the availability of building materials.
At the same time the Prime Minister is trying to build homes, the Greens and the Prime Minister’s own Net-Zero cabal are obstructing essential industries. These groups are targeting forestry for timber, steel production for frames and supports, and cement manufacturing. Of note, a major ingredient in cement is fly ash, a byproduct from burning of coal for power. Therefore, eliminating coal power will also decimate Australia’s cement industry.
One Nation’s Strategy to Tackle the Building Materials Shortage
Approve the harvesting of plantation timber for the domestic construction industry, with conditions for adequate replanting and regeneration.
Building new, clean steel plants at Abbot Point and Port Hedland to capitalise on Australia’s competitive advantage in steel production. This will lower costs, improve the quality and increase the availability of steel for the construction industry.
Utilise steel mills to provide fly ash for cement production and provide heat for production of ceramic tiles and other building materials.
Promote the development of an Australian hemp industry to produce hemp-based particle board, building bricks and insulation.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Housing.jpg?fit=999%2C553&ssl=1553999Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-08 15:50:002024-08-09 09:22:17How One Nation Will Make Home Ownership a Reality for You!
One Nation advocates for the enshrinement of freedom of speech as a fundamental human right in our Constitution. We are the only Australian political party actively working to integrate freedom of speech into our legal and social framework. Contrary to popular belief, this right is not currently enshrined in the Australian Constitution, though many Australians assume it is.
While the Constitution provides a limited form of freedom of speech concerning political communications, it falls short of the comprehensive protection seen in the American Constitution, where freedom of speech is explicitly guaranteed.
I am calling for a thorough investigation into the necessity and benefits of including such a provision in our Constitution. Such a change would bring an end to governmental overreach and prevent legislation aimed at censoring speech by labelling it as ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’ for political reasons.
The press and media are also guilty of suppressing dissenting views that challenge the government’s narrative, and social media platforms are known for shadow banning or cancelling comments that oppose government positions. This was particularly evident during the Covid-19 period of mandates and shutdowns, targeting those who questioned government control.
We must resist any government measures that would further restrict freedom of speech and advocate for stronger protections to safeguard this essential right.
Transcript
I speak in support of this motion from One Nation to enshrine into the Constitution one of the most basic of human rights: the right to free speech. When it comes to free speech, One Nation has your back. Many people believe that free speech is an existing feature of the Australian legal and social framework. It’s not. The High Court has held that there is limited freedom of speech implied by the interaction of several sections of the Constitution, limited to political communication. The extent of this limited right is yet to be fully determined by the High Court. That being the case, this concept of the right to free speech, already enshrined in the American Constitution, would be a worthy improvement to our own Australian Constitution. I want to read from the motion that Senator Hanson has moved in her own name and mine:
That the following matters be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 September 2024:
The matter of a popular vote, in the form of a referendum, on the matter of enshrining the right to free speech in the Australian constitution, with particular reference to:
(a) an assessment of the content and implications of a question to be put to electors;
(b) an examination of the resources required to enact such an activity, including the question of the contribution of Commonwealth funding to the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ campaigns;
(c) an assessment of the impact of the timing of such an activity, including the opportunity for it to coincide with a general election; and
(d) any other related matters.
This is fairly simple. It’s just an investigation and inquiry.
Of course, any alteration to our Constitution must be done with the agreement of the Australian voters by way of a referendum. I know that the Australian people are sick of referendums, particularly since the doomed and expensive Voice debacle that we had to endure and that the Labor government poured more than $450 million down the gurgler on, when it could have been spent on something far more important. Yet ensuring that freedom of speech is a feature of our social and legal landscape would be worth it.
Why do we need it? In Australia we’re significantly overgoverned and overregulated. One area that needs attention is the way that the government use the media to shut down anyone who wishes to discuss any concept that does not follow the government line. In these woke times, governments maintain a strong hand guiding the media into accepting and promoting often truly dumb and in some instances factually wrong propositions. We know that freedom of speech is suppressed because local newspapers and state newspapers rely on funding from advertising from local councils and state governments. It’s the same with the national government, the federal government. If someone comes up with an article that is too much out of the government line, then the governments won’t advertise.
In addition to some factually wrong propositions from federal and state governments, we see propositions that undermine good governance and cede sovereignty, pushing a globalist agenda—ridiculous. Social media platforms have taken on the roles of pseudo fact checkers and censors of material, deleting material that’s deemed inappropriate, even if it’s accurate and is disclosing inconvenient truths. Truth doesn’t matter to government in Australia anymore.
As an example, YouTube recently took down material from my YouTube channel, including material on COVID vaccine or COVID injection injuries that it had deemed medical misinformation. This was unnecessary and possibly unlawful, as some of the information was material placed before the Senate, covered by parliamentary privilege and supported by proof of its truth, fully referenced. It had been up there for six months. Once I started mentioning a COVID royal commission, it’s suddenly come down, and they’ve taken it back retrospectively. It was six months worth of work that this Senate has seen and witnessed. Somehow, political speech from the Senate is censored by YouTube, which is owned by a foreign corporation, meddling in Australian federal politics.
It’s not the first time. This interference with the communication of parliamentary material is potentially an offence, but it’s not covered by any laws simply guaranteeing freedom of speech. Freedom of speech should still be moderated, on rare occasions, to exclude poisonous vilification or speech that promotes hate or other crimes, not something that might offend someone. That’s a dumbing down of the Australian population. If anyone’s feelings are hurt—you cannot give offence; you can only take offence. If someone says something in the chamber and I feel offended, that’s my responsibility; it’s not theirs. So we should be stopping this nonsense about someone, feeling offended, being able to shut down the other person.
It’s the speech that considers alternative narratives or theories that deserves protection. This Labor government has done nothing to improve transparency and accountability in terms of government actions. Indeed, in terms of guillotines—the shutting down of debate—we’ve had major bills go through this parliament with not one word of debate. We’ve had major amendments voted on with not one word of debate or question. That’s not democracy. This Labor government has done nothing, as I said, to improve transparency and accountability in terms of government actions.
During the COVID period of government failure, the government of the time moved into a period of hyperactivity, silencing critics and preventing any discussion of problems, COVID injection injuries—of which there were many—and alternative treatments, resulting in tens of thousands of needless, preventable deaths and injuries in the hundreds of thousands to innocent Australians. That was what the Liberal-National coalition did—two cheeks of the same backside.
Of particular concern is the Labor government’s intention to introduce a bill to eliminate alleged disinformation or misinformation, with no identified deciders as to whether the information is based on truth or not. Who cares about the truth? Just shut it down if it goes against the government’s narrative. Who introduced the misinformation and disinformation bill? That’s right: the other cheek, the Liberal-National coalition. Labor introduced it. They didn’t put it to the vote. The Labor Party came along into government and they introduced it again—the same bill, pretty much.
This misinformation and disinformation bill must be opposed. It represents government censorship at its worst. It’s a control agenda that’s occurring in so many Western countries, and I compliment Tucker Carlson for his courage in speaking the truth. It’s happening largely to the Anglophone nations: Britain, Canada, New Zealand, America and Australia—and, to some extent, in Europe, but it’s largely the descendants of the British Empire or Commonwealth.
Usually, we’d rely upon state or Commonwealth legislation to resolve this issue of ensuring freedom of speech. Yet, since Federation, this has not been done properly by either of these jurisdictions, state or federal. It’s now high time to ensure once and for all that this protection can be established. It can be done. We need this inquiry. By our call for a committee to inquire and report to the Senate, assessments on content, process, resources required, timing and any other matters related may be brought back to the Senate for consideration.
Freedom of speech, if enshrined within the Constitution, will provide greater real freedoms to all Australians. Let’s go through some of the freedoms. We’ve got freedom of life, freedom of belief, freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of travel, freedom of exchange and freedom of initiative. Of all of those freedoms, freedom of life is arguably No. 1. But they don’t get off the ground without freedom of speech. Speech is first. These freedoms are birth rights, universal rights. Yet we now have to come to the government and ask permission to speak freely or we get censored. That means it’s not a right anymore. It’s something that we have to get permission from the government for, whether it be Labor or the Liberal-Nationals.
Think about this: the most remarkable transformation of human civilisation on this planet occurred in the last 170 years. Prior to that, our ancestors were shuffling around and scratching in the dirt. Now look where we are. Human progress has come because of human creativity and human care. They’re inherent in people. People want to do things better, more quickly, smarter and more easily, so someone comes up with an idea. Through freedom of speech, they share the idea—and this happened so much in America and Britain in the 19th century, and even in the 18th century. Ideas were shared: one person came up with an idea; another person, by sharing it, built upon the idea and made it more magnificent; and then someone else came along, took their idea, made an initiative out of it and transformed human civilisation.
Freedom of speech is a matter of life and death. It’s a matter of human progress. I support this motion.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/E99c868VqQ4/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-08 15:45:002024-08-08 18:02:51One Nation Pushes to Enshrine Freedom of Speech in the Constitution
I am alarmed with the direction superannuation in Australia has gone. With $3.5 trillion in super funds being influenced by unions, these funds are increasingly being used for social engineering and political purposes. Millions of dollars has been donated to the Labor Party to support their renewable energy agenda and other Labor policies.
Some funds have even leveraged their shareholdings to seek board positions at companies like Origin Energy, aiming to influence corporate decision-making. It’s startling to see super funds involved in social engineering rather than focusing solely on member benefits. The ALP-linked industry funds are now acting as fundraisers for the ALP, having contributed $13 million dollars of members’ money to the party in the lead-up to the last election.
An important question worth investigating is whether the mismanagement of these funds could be impacting wages and driving up the cost of living.
Transcript
Superannuation has become an institution in Australia, one that has not been reviewed for almost 15 years. The superannuation pot of gold is now valued at $3.5 trillion in an economy that is valued at only $2.6 trillion. While I say ‘pot of gold’, slush fund may be a better description—in the hands of some funds, anyway. Industry super funds are distorting the economy and using their huge wealth to invest politically rather than in the best interests of their members. The renewable energy monster currently devouring our economy and our beautiful countryside is substantially funded by industry super funds. These political investment decisions are made by boards that contain up to five members drawn from the union bosses that fund the service. Investment is made in a way that supports the Australian Labor Party’s political agendas. That is clear.
Former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating, the man who had a fair bit to do with starting superannuation, has warned that super funds will start asking for board seats from companies in which they take a substantial position so they’re union controlled. Two investment funds tried to take over Origin Energy last year and led the company toward sounder investment strategies. Australian Super drastically increased a stake in the company to vote down the proposal. According to an article in the Financial Review:
… super funds’ decarbonisation commitments could push them to put directors on boards, if their other attempts at engaging with companies to drive down their emissions failed.
Really? Is this the job of superannuation funds now? Social engineering?
Industry super funds may force targeted companies to employ union members or agree to union sweetheart deals. They may force target companies to follow the woke globalist Labor Party agenda, such as DEI, diversity, equity and inclusion. Although, industry super fund CBUS has gone one further and added a B for ‘belonging’, designed apparently to welcome employees who are Arthur one day and Martha the next. Despite two LBGTQIA+ turning into an alphabet soup of debasement, REST are proud to be an ally of Pride Month and all that goes with it. Super funds can afford this non-commercial activity because they have a river of gold and cash flowing into their coffers every year from members who falsely think their super fees are being spent in their own interests. Silly them. In fact, super funds sent $13 million to the ALP in the lead-up to the last election; CBUS alone was $1.5 million of that, more than a tenth.
Direct payment is not the only way super funds are fed back to the unions. Then on to the ALP. Industry funds pay unions to run training programs with very generous payments. It’s not quite a protection racket, but it’s along the same lines. Board members on super funds also receive very generous salaries, which are then sent back to the union and form part of the $17 million paid by unions to the ALP. CBUS, for instance, pays its board members $457,000 per annum each year, which makes REST look positively reasonable at only $165,000. This explains why, during COVID, when the Morrison government made a very sensible suggestion to allow everyday Australians a chance to use just a little of their super to get through COVID, the ALP lost its mind. Their super fund donors were unimpressed with having to give up what turned out to be $80 billion of their 3.5 trillion back to the people who gave it to them. Apparently, pride parades and social engineering don’t fund themselves.
The misuse of funds by superannuation companies raises a serious question: is superannuation reducing wages? meaning there is no direct financial benefit to the worker making the contribution. This is theft. The Grattan Institute has produced data to show that it is, in fact, the worker who pays for this so-called employer contribution in reduced wages and reduced employment opportunities. It’s time for a detailed inquiry into this boondoggle to ensure workers are not losing from this system.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Hanson be agreed to.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/eArl4e41g_c/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-08 15:40:002024-08-08 18:02:02Super Funds Being Used for Political Agendas and Social Engineering
