Last Friday (6 February 2026), the UN’s Senior Adviser on Information Integrity, Charlotte Scaddan, appeared via teleconference as a witness at the public hearing on “Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy.”
The UN wants to categorise any statement that “undermines” their consensus as misinformation. Yet, when I asked for the logical proof behind their climate claims, she couldn’t provide a specific page number or a shred of empirical data.
It’s alarming that those in charge of “information integrity” at a global level can’t cite the very science they claim exists to silence others.
To claim someone is spreading “misinformation” requires producing objective hard evidence that justifies the claim.
We cannot allow “consensus” or UN-dictated “integrity” to replace real, verifiable science.
I’m still waiting for the specific proof. And have been since 2007.
— Public Hearing | February 2026
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Scaddan, for appearing. It must be about 5.50 pm in New York.
Ms Scaddan: It is, exactly.
Senator ROBERTS: On what basis do you categorise a statement or an action on climate or a climate system as misinformation or disinformation, or lacking in information integrity?
Ms Scaddan: We have very clear scientific consensus around climate change. Anything that is undermining the scientific consensus as laid out by the IPCC and the legal frameworks we have for taking climate action would be considered to be false information. I couldn’t say if it was misinformation or disinformation—that depends.
Senator ROBERTS: To make claims that climate is changing owing to human carbon dioxide, or carbon dioxide from human activity, would you agree that one needs scientific proof?
Ms Scaddan: As I just said, yes; we have the scientific consensus around climate.
Senator ROBERTS: What constitutes scientific proof?
Ms Scaddan: That is not a question I’m going to answer here. As I’ve said several times now, we have very clear scientific consensus around climate change, its causes and its impacts.
Senator ROBERTS: Consensus is a political aspect; scientific proof is the scientific aspect. Isn’t scientific proof simply empirical scientific data within logical scientific points proving cause and effect? Yes or no?
Ms Scaddan: I can’t answer questions about science; it’s not something I’ve studied. But scientific consensus is not political; it refers to 99 out of 100 scientists agreeing on scientific evidence and the interpretation of that. That is my understanding of it, but you’d have to ask the scientists to explain it to you. I’m not one.
Senator ROBERTS: We have amassed 24,000 data sets on energy and climate from around the world— legally. There is no data at all that shows there’s a changing climate, only inherent natural variation in cycles. One what specific basis do you claim climate change? Consensus?
Ms Scaddan: I can point you to the work of the IPCC, which is the UN body, as I’m sure you know, that delivers our scientific evidence and consensus around climate.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m well aware of the IPCC. I’ve read the first five reports. One of my staffers read the sixth and final report. Nowhere in any of those reports is there specific, empirical, scientific data proving logical scientific points and cause and effect. On notice, could you point me to a specific location, chapter number and page number, and the authors, within a report where we have empirical scientific data and logical scientific points proving cause and effect? Just give me one.
CHAIR: I’ll stop proceedings at this point in time. Senator Roberts, we are asking about climate disinformation and misinformation—
Senator ROBERTS: Exactly.
CHAIR: No, we’ve asked Ms Scaddan to come on to talk about a global initiative and a multilateral approach. You’re now going to use your line of questioning around whether climate change is real or not. Please be relevant to the terms of reference, otherwise I’ll rotate the call.
Senator ROBERTS: But this is fundamental to the misinformation.
Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: One nation are a bunch of climate deniers. That’s what this is demonstrating: climate deniers and delayers. Have you not learned your lesson from multiple elections?
CHAIR: Can we all just be respectful—
Senator CANAVAN: I wanted to make a point of order. I think accusations and imputations about other senators are certainly not in order. The inquiry is about climate misinformation, so in terms of your point about the terms of reference, I think a question about whether or not climate change is something to take action on is clearly a threshold issue about whether to take action on misinformation. It’s clearly within the terms of reference.
CHAIR: That’s a substantive issue. You’re not making a point of order.
Senator ROBERTS: Ms Scaddan, have you heard of a man called Maurice Strong? Yes or no?
Ms Scaddan: I don’t believe so. I can’t tell you for sure because I meet a lot of people. CHAIR: Is this relevant to the terms of reference?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it is. He used misinformation and disinformation techniques while working within the UN. But you’re not aware of him, so I won’t ask any more questions about it. If someone gets scientific proof then the next thing is to establish a policy basis—correct?
Ms Scaddan: That would be the logical step.
Senator ROBERTS: To set a policy to cut carbon dioxide from human activity, we need to first quantify the specific impact on climate, such as temperature, rainfall, natural weather events, storm frequency, duration and severity per unit of human carbon dioxide. Do you agree?
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, what’s this got to do with misinformation and disinformation? Could you reframe the question like, for example, Senator Canavan did—’Would that be an example of misinformation or disinformation?’ Ms Scaddan’s not here to answer your questions on what is scientifically verifiable or not. She’s here to talk about misinformation.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking her to verify it. I’m just asking her to verify the logic, and she’s done half of it already.
CHAIR: No, this is way outside the terms of reference.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got to understand the basis of misinformation and disinformation, Chair.
CHAIR: Why don’t you frame that question that way, then?
Senator ROBERTS: As a basis for understanding comments about climate action, whether or not climate change is real or what aspects of it are, we use scientific proof. We’ve agreed on that. To address climate action and to assess misinformation and disinformation, we need to understand the policy basis. We’ve semi-agreed on that. What is the policy basis? What is the specific impact? I don’t expect you to know it, but point me to a specific location, page number or report that shows the policy basis for climate action.
Ms Scaddan: I’m happy to answer this. If you don’t expect me to know it, it’s a little surprising that you’re asking. However—and I’m sorry to disappoint—I don’t know the specific page, paragraph number or point. But I am happy to follow up and send you the relevant IPCC reports and pages that would give you the scientific consensus on climate.
Senator ROBERTS: Wonderful. Can we just—
CHAIR: This is your last question, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s great. When you’re replying, Ms Scaddan, please give me the specific page number of the scientific proof which is the empirical scientific data within logical scientific points proving cause and effect and then please give me the specific impact of human carbon dioxide on any climate factor as policy basis. I want specific locations.
The government’s modelling suggests we need 107 million tonnes of carbon sequestration by 2050. By my math, that would mean around 5 million hectares of productive farmland will be swallowed up by trees and woody weeds. When I asked them exactly how many hectares would be lost, the department admitted they don’t have a figure. They are implementing a plan that will devastate our agriculture sector.
Despite the UN Paris Agreement (Article 2(1)(b)) explicitly stating that climate action should not threaten food production, this department hasn’t even sought legal advice on whether their plan breaches that requirement. They are relying on Treasury “scenarios” that claim food production will magically increase by 32%, even while they lock up the land used to grow it.
I asked if they had assessed the combined impact of reforestation and carbon plantings, renewable energy projects (solar/wind) and massive clear felled transmission corridors. The answer was a flat no. They are ignoring the “slow-motion train wreck” of transmission lines and renewables destroying our food bowls because they say it’s “another department’s problem.”
While officials talk about “diversification of enterprise mix” and “market clearing,” I know the truth on the ground. Locking up land leads to explosions in noxious weeds and feral animals, increased management costs for neighbouring properties and the destruction of regional communities and jobs.
My Conclusion: This reckless “plan” is nothing but bureaucratic speak and strategy without a shred of solid data to back it up. They are gambling with Australia’s food security to satisfy an insane, unachievable net-zero agenda.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. The net zero Agriculture and Land Sector Plan commits to 107 million tonnes of carbon dioxide sequestration by 2050. Based on sequestration rates of one to 21 tonnes per hectare, that means at least five million hectares of farmland could be converted to trees and woody weeds. How can you justify this when it risks reducing food production and creating food insecurity for Australians?
Mr Lowe: The Ag and Land Sector Plan doesn’t commit to 107 million tonnes of sequestration. The way I’d characterise that is that that was part of the Treasury modelling which described a particular pathway to achieving net zero, which factored in an amount of sequestration that would be needed in the particular scenario. What the Ag and Land Sector Plan does is identify a range of different options for landholders and farmers to reduce emissions and commit to a number of particular actions in which to achieve that. The first of those is understanding on-farm emissions as a foundational action. The second is around research and innovation, technology being an important factor in supporting farmers to reduce emissions, as it has been. Research and development have been foundational actions to support farmers throughout the course of agriculture in Australia. The third is on-ground action. We know that supporting farmers with the capability and skills that they need to manage their enterprise and reduce emissions is really important. The fourth is around maximising the potential of the land sector.
In relation to that, from our perspective, we think there are significant opportunities for producers to take up diversification of their enterprise mix in relation to land sequestration opportunities. Earlier in this committee, we were talking about soil carbon projects, and soil carbon projects are being explored by a number of participants in the livestock sector. Revegetation, where they’re garnering ACCUs as well. I might leave it there, but we can go into further detail if you’d like.
Senator ROBERTS: So the net zero agriculture and land sector plan does not commit to 107 million tonnes of carbon dioxide sequestration by 2050.
Mr Lowe: No, it doesn’t.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there any sequestration?
Mr Lowe: It acknowledges that sequestration will be an important factor in achieving net zero, and it acknowledges that sequestration is also an important opportunity for producers in terms of diversification of their enterprise mix and diversification of income sources.
Senator ROBERTS: How much of the land under this plan is currently producing food?
Mr Lowe: It’s in the order of 50 to 55 per cent of Australia’s landmass where agricultural production of some form is undertaken. I’ll defer to colleagues as to whether I got that number right.
Dr Greenville: Yes, 55 per cent of Australia’s landmass is currently undertaking agricultural activities.
Senator ROBERTS: What will be the impact of the plan on food production?
Dr Greenville: I think the Treasury projection and the ag and land plan modelling that they conducted—and it’s just a scenario—has agricultural production continuing to increase out to 2050.
Senator ROBERTS: How much of the land is affected, though?
Dr Greenville: They did not provide estimates of the land base—
Senator ROBERTS: Does that bother either of you?
Dr Greenville: Sorry, Senator, maybe as you saw, we’ve mentioned and had a discussion with keen interest with Senator Canavan and Senator McKenzie around this topic. We at ABARES are undertaking some work to explore the implications for the land use.
Senator ROBERTS: Based on the question before you, you’re undertaking that work?
Dr Greenville: Yes. We let the committee know, and there were some interesting questions on notice when we provided some detail around that. I’m happy to talk.
Mr Lowe: To clarify, that work has been ongoing. It was acknowledged in the Treasury modelling that I referred to earlier that ABARES has been undertaking that work.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you just accept Treasury modelling?
Mr Lowe: We provide inputs into Treasury modelling.
Senator ROBERTS: But you haven’t published modelling yourself on the impact on food output. You’re relying on Treasury saying it will increase.
Mr Lowe: As my colleague, Dr Greenville, said, we’re undertaking work in relation to that.
Senator ROBERTS: Based on questions that were put to you today.
Mr Lowe: No, based on work that was already ongoing.
Senator ROBERTS: Even article 2(1)(b) of the UN Paris Agreement requires climate action to avoid threatening food production. Is there any land being locked up under your plan?
Mr Lowe: The ag and land sector plan also acknowledges—and a key tenet of it is—that achieving emissions reduction shouldn’t come at the cost of food security. We would say that the ag and land sector plan is consistent with that acknowledgement that you read out.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you sought legal advice that your plan doesn’t breach the Paris Agreement?
Mr Lowe: The Net Zero Plan and the six sector plans are government plans to be consistent with the Paris Agreement.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you sought legal advice?
Mr Lowe: We have not, as a department.
Senator ROBERTS: How do you know it’s consistent?
Mr Lowe: I think that question may be best directed to DCCEEW, but I’m not aware of legal advice.
Senator ROBERTS: Aren’t you responsible for the plan?
Mr Lowe: We’re responsible for the ag and land sector plan, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: And the impact on the ag sector?
Mr Lowe: Yes. We have not sought legal advice in relation to the ag and land sector plan, and its consistency with the Paris Agreement, to answer your specific question.
Senator ROBERTS: I read that you spent $2.2 million developing the plan, yet you cannot provide a figure, as I understand it, for hectares to be reforested.
Mr Lowe: We don’t have a figure currently; that’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: How is that acceptable?
Mr Lowe: It’s work in progress.
Senator ROBERTS: How is that a plan?
Mr Lowe: There are a number of elements of the plan, as I mentioned, for foundational actions. Maximising the sequestration potential of the land is one of those.
Senator ROBERTS: I get the carbon dioxide sequestration. I don’t believe in all this crap, because there’s no data to back it up. I believe carbon dioxide sequestration will increase food production, but not if it locks up land—because then you’ve got noxious weeds and feral animals proliferating and going onto neighbouring properties, which increases the cost of managing neighbouring properties. Are you aware of these things?
Mr Lowe: I’d say, consistent with my earlier comments, that there are significant opportunities in carbon sequestration for producers. I’m aware of a number of examples of producers who have put into place plantation forestry on their enterprise and added that to their enterprise mix—so they’ve increased the number of trees on their property. It’s supported an increase in carrying capacity of stocking rates and diversified their income stream by enabling them to undertake forest activities. There’s an example of a New England wool producer, Michael Taylor; he’s got native and pine forest on his enterprise. He’s got a sawmill on his enterprise as well, where he cuts down, saws and processes the timber on his enterprise to sell. One of the benefits he ascribes to that is having an income during leaner years; where he’s got lower stocking rates, he can sell the timber and continue to employ people on his farm.
Senator ROBERTS: Would you like to visit some properties in south-western Queensland that have been locked up, where neighbouring properties are being destroyed?
Mr Lowe: Always open to visiting farmers and properties.
Senator ROBERTS: Will you commit to publishing a hectare estimate before implementing any measures; yes or no?
Mr Lowe: We’re already implementing measures.
Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t know how much land will be locked up?
Mr Lowe: As I’ve said, that work is ongoing but we are already implementing measures in relation to the ag and land sector plan.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re implementing the plan before the plan is finalised?
Mr Lowe: The plan is finalised.
Senator ROBERTS: But the hectares aren’t.
Mr Lowe: That work is still ongoing.
Senator ROBERTS: CSIRO’s land use trade-offs model shows carbon plantings compete directly with agriculture for land. How will this impact Australia’s food bowls and rural jobs?
Mr Lowe: I’d say it’s not going to be a one-size-fits-all approach as to how carbon sequestration plays out in the landscape. There will be lots of different ways that land managers and producers decide to take up carbon sequestration opportunities. So I probably wouldn’t characterise things in the way that you have. What I would say is that we think there are opportunities for producers. I also think that, certainly, the types of lands that might be more favourably disposed to carbon sequestration—and ABARES can talk about this in more detail if you like—are the types of lands that are less productive. We would envisage is that we would often see multiple-use land, so land where there’s revegetation happening but also still able to support primary production.
Senator ROBERTS: I know the answer to this question. Have you assessed the combined impact of reforestation, renewable energy projects and transmission corridors on farmland availability?
Mr Lowe: In terms of hectare impact, for example?
Senator ROBERTS: The loss of productive farmland.
Mr Lowe: The answer is no. The work that we have ongoing is particularly in relation to carbon sequestration in the landscape.
Senator ROBERTS: You are not going to consider the renewable energy projects taking up farmland for transmission lines. They’re massive, and the farmers are pretty damn upset about them. People in regional communities, not just farmers, are upset.
Mr Lowe: That is a matter that’s the purview of DCCEEW in terms of renewable energy and transmission. We are interested in understanding the land impact of that and have been working with DCCEEW to understand that better.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand you’re developing a national food security strategy.
Mr Lowe: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: How can that strategy be credible if you don’t know how much farmland will be lost to carbon dioxide sequestration, solar and wind generation or transmission lines?
Mr Lowe: I think the development of the strategy will be taking in multiple perspectives in relation to Australia’s future food security. We received over 400 submissions when we put out a discussion paper recently on Australia’s future food security. I haven’t read those submissions in detail. I imagine some of them might have raised those sorts of issues, so it is something that will be a matter of consideration. Equally of consideration—in fact, something that I understand came through really strongly in the submissions—will be the climate impact on our primary production enterprises and the importance of resilient farming systems as well.
Senator ROBERTS: In your planning and strategising what comes first—data or strategy?
Mr Lowe: We’d like to think that there’s a combination of both, where we can.
Senator ROBERTS: I thought data was the first step to understanding what you’re going to strategise about.
Mr Lowe: Another input is consultation, and we take that really seriously. In the development of the Agriculture and Land Sector Plan, we focused very heavily on consulting and consulting with our state and territory counterparts. We had an issues paper out on the Agriculture and Land Sector Plan. We received a large number of submissions in relation to that. We held a sustainability summit that was auspiced by Minister Bowen and Minister Watt on the Agriculture and Land Sector Plan, and we held a number of roundtables as well with industry stakeholders on the plan.
Senator ROBERTS: Will you integrate land-use change modelling into the food security strategy and publish the findings?
Mr Lowe: We have land-use change modelling on foot. We will publish the findings, and we’re very happy to use it as an input into the food security strategy as well.
Senator ROBERTS: Has DAFF modelled the impact of the Agriculture and Land Sector Plan on agricultural gross domestic product?
Mr Lowe: I’m just trying to think about that.
Dr Greenville: That was part of the modelling that Treasury undertook, and it’s an area where you have quoted that 107 million tonnes from. They have projections as part of that, like the 107 million tonnes, about agricultural production as well as agricultural emissions intensities and so forth. There’s detail in that.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you checked the assumptions on which it’s based or the actual figures?
Dr Greenville: We provided some information to give them the baseline on which they looked at the plan, and they’re quite detailed with what they’ve done in terms of the plan, the assumptions they’ve made and the like, and that’s all been published as part of that result.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you scrutinised it?
Dr Greenville: Obviously, we’ve taken a look. We take a keen interest, which is why—
Senator ROBERTS: ‘Taking a look’ is a bit different from scrutinising.
Dr Greenville: Which is why we’re undertaking our own modelling with the land sector. They pointed out that there was considerable uncertainty in land base sequestration potential and the trade-offs between sequestration and agricultural value. We’ve invested in improving information around regional impacts and trade-offs.
Senator ROBERTS: Treasury assumes agricultural production will rise by about 32 per cent by 2050, but we don’t know how much land is going to be sequestered. How much land is going to be destroyed? How is it possible to get food production increased by 32 per cent if we don’t know the land that will be cut off?
Dr Greenville: Under a market-based approach, sequestration will occur where opportunity costs to agriculture are low. That is not inconsistent with agricultural production continuing to grow while carbon sequestration is added as another land-use activity.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve raised markets, so that raises carbon dioxide price. What carbon dioxide price is assumed to drive reforestation at the scale required, and will farmers be forced to choose between growing food and earning carbon dioxide credits?
Dr Greenville: That would be an outcome of modelling we haven’t finalised yet, so I don’t want to speculate.
Senator ROBERTS: The plan references alternative proteins. Is DAFF actively promoting lab grown meat as a substitute for real meat?
Mr Lowe: Not actively.
Senator ROBERTS: What assessment has been made of the economic and cultural impact of replacing traditional meat with lab grown alternatives?
Mr Lowe: We haven’t done detailed work on that.
Senator ROBERTS: Chair, this terrifies me. There doesn’t seem to be any data driving the plan. That’s just a statement.
CHAIR: I’ll take that as a statement. Do you have further questions?
During this Estimates session with the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water of Australia (DCCEEW), I questioned the government on two issues: secretive appointments that erode trust and climate claims without evidence.
I quoted Gabrielle Appleby, a constitutional law professor and director of the Centre for Public Integrity, and asked the Minister a simple question: what impact has Mr Kaiser’s appointment had on morale within the department? The Minister assured me he has “absolute confidence” in Mr Kaiser and claimed there’s no evidence of a negative effect on morale. I moved on — however noted that he left out some controversial aspects of Mr Kaiser’s background.
I went on to ask Minister Watt a simple, direct question: You claim we are facing “drier and warmer” summers — where is the specific data to back that up?
Instead of providing a source, Minister Watt resorted to his usual script. He tried to laugh it off as a “conspiracy” and claimed I simply “refuse to believe” the experts.
If the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO have the data, why is it so hard for Minister Watt to produce it?
I won’t be put off by snide remarks. I will keep asking the same question until the Australian people get the transparency they deserve.
We cannot base massive economic policies on feelings and forecasts that no one is willing to defend with data.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Minister, following on from my last question, I will quote from a news report. Gabrielle Appleby, a constitutional law professor at the University of New South Wales and director of the Centre for Public Integrity, said: The fact that they commissioned— that’s your government— the Briggs review, have yet to release it, and are still making appointments through this outdated, opaque, and problematic process is particularly concerning … hugely corrosive. Even if the individual is the right or the best or a good person for the job, it just smells of jobs for mates, it smells of cronyism, and it smells of a conflict of interest. These are the types of issues that undermine public trust in government. In my experience, both public servants and private sector employees are usually wonderful. What is the impact of this appointment of Mr Kaiser on morale in your department?
Senator Watt: I have absolute confidence in Mr Kaiser’s ability to do the job, and that’s certainly being borne out—
Senator ROBERTS: With respect, I asked for your opinion of the effect of his appointment on the morale of the people in the department.
Senator Watt: I’ve seen no evidence that it’s had a negative impact on morale.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Can I ask a second question?
Senator Watt: You are making an imputation or implication in relation to Mr Kaiser, and I’d repeat the point—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m just quoting what an independent person said.
Senator Watt: Mr Kaiser comes to this job having been the director-general of the premier’s department in Queensland, the director-general of the state development department in Queensland and the director-general of the resources department in Queensland, on top of a lengthy private-sector career. With that kind of background, I’m not surprised that he’s doing a very good job as the secretary.
Senator ROBERTS: You omitted some of the controversial aspects. Moving on to my second question, you said in your opening statement, Minister, that we’re facing drier and warmer summers. Can you give me the source of that data, please—the specific location? No quips about ‘hard to convince’.
Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I thought we’d get into climate conspiracies by about 4 pm; I didn’t think we’d get there by six minutes to 10.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re avoiding the question. Could you give me the specific location, please?
Senator Watt: You and I have had many conversations in estimates hearings—
Senator ROBERTS: And we’ll continue to have them.
Senator Watt: about whether climate change is real or not. I have failed to persuade you that climate change is real. The Bureau of Meteorology has failed to convince you that climate change is real. CSIRO has failed to convince you that climate change is real. What you see on your TV has failed to convince you that climate change is real. I don’t think I’m going to be able to convince you.
Senator ROBERTS: Is your forecast of drier and warmer summers cyclical; is it a change in climate? Can you give me the specific location? I will keep raising this until you give me the specific location of variables.
Senator Watt: I have no doubt that you will keep raising it.
Senator ROBERTS: No-one has provided it.
Senator Watt: Many witnesses at estimates hearings have presented the evidence.
Senator ROBERTS: Why can’t you provide it?
Senator Watt: You’ve just chosen not to believe them.
https://image2url.com/r2/default/images/1768964264087-59b6df8c-796b-4250-b49e-19136ad9c379.png6391138Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-01-21 13:04:272026-01-21 13:04:31The Data is Missing — and They Know It
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/climate-change-misinformation-cover-photo.png?fit=2240%2C1260&ssl=112602240Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-11-13 12:47:232025-11-19 16:55:44Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy
The Australia Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) will be using your money to partially fund batteries costing $2.7 billion.
These batteries are 2 gigawatt, which sounds impressive, until the officials confirm they will last only 2 hours out of the whole day. Compare that to a 2 gigawatt coal-fired power station that can be run at 95% capacity factor or 23 hours a day.
We’ll get much cheaper power per gigawatt-hour if we just use coal, abandon the net zero lunacy and all of it’s expensive requirements like grid-forming batteries.
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here again. My questions go to the cost, capacity and suitability of large-scale battery storage. I’m going to reference the Large Scale Battery Storage Funding Round from 2022. ARENA put $176 million of taxpayers’ funds into eight batteries, with a total of two gigawatts of dispatchable power. That was in the media release from Chris Bowen on 17 December 2022. For how long could those batteries dispatch that full two gigawatts of power?
Mr Miller : On average, across that portfolio of eight batteries it’s approximately just over two hours at full power.
Senator ROBERTS: Two hours at—
Mr Miller : Full power.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total of gigawatt hours that those batteries represent?
Mr Miller : I think that 4.4 gigawatt hours is the total.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Have all eight of the batteries been constructed?
Mr Miller : Not yet. They’re under construction—at least half of them are under construction. Some of them might have been completed—a couple of the earlier ones. We announced quite recently that the AGL battery has actually doubled in capacity since we announced the funding. They’ve chosen to increase the capacity by two times. And there are another three or four that are still to be announced as reaching financial close and construction.
Senator ROBERTS: How many have been built?
Mr Miller : Do you have that?
Mr Kay : Yes. Two are currently in advanced construction—
Senator ROBERTS: So none have been built?
Mr Kay : None are operational at this stage, but there are two that are in advanced construction and others that are at various stages of planning and preconstruction.
Senator ROBERTS: So there are two at advanced stages of construction and no others under construction?
Mr Kay : Yes, that’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: What was the total cost of those projects—well, they’re still underway. What is the total cost now envisaged to be?
Mr Miller : As you suggested, correctly, ARENA’s commitment was $176 million. Mr Kay might have the precise number for the capital costs of those batteries, but I recall that our grant sizing was about seven per cent of the cost of the batteries—a substantial cost, in the billions of dollars, for those eight batteries.
Senator ROBERTS: So we’ll just have to work out the total cost by dividing by seven or eight and multiplying by 100. Something on that media release intrigued me in preparing for today—that media release from 17 December 2022. It talks repeatedly—at least three times—of ‘grid forming inverter’ technology. What is ‘grid forming’? Or is that just a mistake from ‘grid firming’?
Mr Miller : No. It’s correct language. Grid forming means that those batteries have the capability to provide very high frequency support to the energy system. So you would know that the energy system operates at 50 hertz, so 50 cycles a second. That ability to keep the grid operating at 50 cycles a second is traditionally provided by spinning generators from coal and gas plants.
Senator ROBERTS: Hydro, nuclear—
Mr Miller : Not nuclear; we don’t have that in Australia.
Senator ROBERTS: No. But nuclear can provide it.
Mr Miller : In theory, yes. If we had that, it would provide it. But, in Australia, that’s provided by coal, gas and hydro. And, in the absence of coal and gas, what we need is resources to do the job of keeping the grid at that 50 hertz frequency, keeping the system stable, providing the right voltage waveform, and also being able to what’s called ‘black start’—have the grid commence operation from nothing—and that is not a service that traditional batteries without grid forming inverters can provide. What the grid forming inverters provide is the ability to form the wave signal of the grid and stand up the grid without any other support.
Senator ROBERTS: So, correct me if I’m wrong, I’ll just put it into simple language, coal, nuclear, hydro and gas are all synchronous power generation sources, and they’re stable. Whereas, solar and wind are asynchronous and need something added to make sure they’re stable and produce 50 hertz.
Mr Miller : That’s a fair lay representation of the scenario. Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I also was intrigued to notice that Minister Bowen’s press release on 17 September 2022 said:
Over the past decade, we saw policy chaos cause a reduction of 3GW of dispatchable power in the grid, enough to power over two million homes.
What was the cause of that loss of 3 gigawatts? He’s saying that it’s policy. But was that specifically coal fired or gas fired exiting?
Mr Miller : I haven’t delved into those numbers. I’m sure they are correct; but I wouldn’t be best placed to comment on generators entering and exiting the market. I’d refer that question to Minister Bowen if he [inaudible] it.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Who do I refer it to now to take on notice?
Senator McAllister: Senator, over the period in question it is the case that 4 gigawatts of dispatchable generation capacity left the system and only one was constructed to replace it, or commissioned to replace it. I do not have the source document for that fact, but I have examined it before and I can assure you that it’s possible to obtain it, so I’ll take that on notice and get back to you.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Last question, Chair. Mr Miller, in your opening statement you say in financial year 2022-2023 ARENA approved $544.1 million—that’s over half a billion dollars—60 projects valued at over $3.5 billion, representing the agency’s largest value of funds approved in a single year. How many of those funds were deployed on investments that were needed because of solar and wind? In other words, are they additional costs to solar and wind?
Mr Miller : As a general statement, ARENA hasn’t supported to any material degree wind projects. Wind has been commercial since the agency [inaudible]
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, I wasn’t clear in my question. I didn’t mean that you’re investing in solar and wind; I meant that you’re investing in technology or equipment that is needed because solar and wind, for example, is unstable. Or are they to supplement solar and wind?
Mr Miller : If you take those battery projects, for example, which would have fed into that number of $544 million, absolutely, clearly one of the things we were trying to do in that program is provide supporting technology to allow further penetration of solar and wind. So that kind of work, plus the work we do on grid integration—one of our key priorities—would be to support increasing shares of solar and wind energy. Ultimately, all of the technologies we support are in the furtherance of increasing the renewable energy penetration and competitiveness in Australia. So even the hydrogen work that we do—while I couldn’t characterise it as being needed to support solar and wind; it is a technology set that relies on increased penetrations of cheap solar and wind to provide the energy source to make the hydrogen. So it’s ultimately all related to renewable energy supply and competitiveness. All of that funding would be [inaudible]
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for a very clear answer. So these are additional costs that are needed for solar and wind. I wonder if gen costs from CSIRO incorporates them—that’s not for you; that’s just a wonder.
John F. Klauser, winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work in quantum mechanics, went public last week with the following statement – “I can confidently say there is no real climate crisis and that climate change does not cause extreme weather events.” In response, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the financial arm of the United Nations, cancelled his scheduled speaking engagements.
Silencing scientists won’t save the great global warming scam though. Top US climate scientists have correctly rubbished claims that the Northern Hemisphere’s July was the hottest month on record.
In an article published in The Australian last month, Cliff Mass, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington, said the public is being “misinformed on a massive scale” and that there’s a “stunning amount of exaggeration and hype of extreme weather and heatwaves”.
Forests that have been overgrown and not taken care of have a tendency, when a fire is started, to burn catastrophically. When we blame climate change for this rather than environmental mismanagement, we fail to deal with the real problems.
John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Alabama, which runs the official NASA satellite temperature records, says heatwaves in the first half of the 20th century were at least as intense as recent ones. In fact, the increase in temperature since 1978 is only 0.3°C in keeping with temperature trends since the mini ice age 200 years ago. Measuring mean temperatures is confounded by urban creep. The growth of cities has subjected existing weather stations to additional heat. “In central Houston, for example, it is now between 6 and 9°F warmer than the surrounding countryside, explained Prof Christy.” It’s worth noting here that large solar arrays create the same heat sink effect as creeping urbanisation.
Despite the concerted efforts of climate alarmists to control the narrative, there are growing numbers of scientists and experts who are distancing themselves from the climate pseudoscience promoted by government agencies and the media. Even Jim Skier, head of the UN climate body, says a 1.5° temperature rise is not an existential threat to humanity. There is no climate crisis.
Transcript
As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I asked the question: Can you feel the winds of change? Leading climate alarmists are deserting their ship. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres demonstrates just how out of touch climate carpetbaggers really are. The only thing boiling dry is Antonio Guterres’s credibility. Nobel science prize winner John Clauser last week publicly stated, ‘I can confidently say there is no real climate crisis and that climate change does not cause extreme weather events.’ After saying that, the IMF cancelled his scheduled tour. Silencing scientists won’t save the great global warming scam. An excellent article in The Australian reveals two of America’s top climate scientists have correctly rubbished claims July was the hottest month on record, deploring a ‘stunning amount of exaggeration and hype’.
Cliff Mass, professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington said the public was being quite ‘misinformed on a massive scale, with a massive amount of exaggeration. He goes on, ‘In Houston, for example, in the city centre it is between six and nine degrees centigrade higher than in the surrounding countryside.’ That isn’t global warming; that is the urban heat island effect, which, by the way, is easily countered—plant trees.
John Christy, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Alabama Huntsville, said heatwaves in the first half of the 20th century were at least as intense as those recent heatwaves. This is the university that runs the official NASA satellite temperature record, the umpire of datasets, which shows an increase in temperatures since 1978 of only 0.3 degrees centigrade, on trend with temperature trends since the mini ice age 200 years ago. Even the warmer-in-chief, Jim Skea at the head of the UN’s climate body says, ‘1.5 degrees temperature rise is not an existential threat to humanity. we will not die out.’
https://img.youtube.com/vi/EplH2WtD40o/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-09-14 10:52:202023-09-18 13:40:03Nobel Prize Winner in Physics Says There Is No Climate Emergency
It’s PEOPLE that build a nation. What do they need? They need the infrastructure in place to build upon. This supposedly independent bill proposes to review any previous government infrastructure project that has not yet had spades in the ground with the purpose of stopping previous government commitments. This bill guts the Infrastructure Australia board, reducing the number from 12 people who know about infrastructure and business to three people for whom there is no requirement to know anything about infrastructure at all.
This bill requires Infrastructure Australia to take account of government policy. Where there is expertise, it will no doubt be in solar, wind and battery backup, because this is the point of the bill: more taxpayers’ money sacrificed on a pointless quest to save the world from cyclical, natural climate variation—natural warming and cooling cycles.
By facilitating the destruction of native Australian forests and replacing them with industrial wind and solar landscapes energy prices are inevitably forced up. The energy scarcity from ‘renewables’ destroys employment in small and medium businesses and contributing to a massive transfer of wealth from everyday Australians to billionaire climate carpetbaggers.
To guarantee Australia’s power supply, we only need to build coal fired power stations using new technology that captures the carbon dioxide and turns those into useful products, fertiliser, fuel and hydrogen. This is new technology. This new technology provides clean energy to meet Net Zero targets while providing reliable baseload power at a fraction of the cost of solar and wind.
I don’t give a damn about the UN’s Net Zero targets, but here’s a way of doing it productively. It is a solution that should be supported across this Parliament. Yet these hypocritical Net Zero vandals will not admit that transition is a disaster, harming everyday Australians and will never deliver cheap, reliable energy.
One hundred years ago our country’s per person income was the world’s highest – number one! We can return to that number one spot. All it requires is freedom and infrastructure.
Transcript
As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I speak to the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023—supposedly independent! This bill proposes to review any previous government infrastructure project that has not yet had spades in the ground, to stop previous government commitments. This bill guts the Infrastructure Australia board, reducing the number from 12 people who know about infrastructure and business to three people for whom there is no requirement to know anything about infrastructure—nothing. I expect the government to appoint three bureaucrats who appreciate that advancement in the Public Service is based on giving the government whatever it wants to hear. To call that an impartial board is a joke.
This bill requires Infrastructure Australia to take account of government policy. Where there is expertise, it will no doubt be in solar, wind and battery backup, because this is the point of the bill: more taxpayers’ money sacrificed on a pointless quest to save the world from cyclical, natural climate variation—natural warming and cooling cycles. This bill will facilitate the destruction of native Australian forests and replace them with industrial wind and solar landscapes. These are parasitic misinvestments forcing up energy prices and, as a result of energy scarcity, destroying employment in small and medium businesses and contributing to a massive transfer of wealth from everyday Australians to billionaire climate carpetbaggers.
An amendment from Senator David Pocock will force this exact outcome. The bill ensures every project must have a sponsor, meaning Infrastructure Australia can’t advance its own projects. Good ideas aren’t always commercial or may be so large that a project sponsor risks bankruptcy to do the homework to advance the project to the funding stage. In this case, Infrastructure Australia should be allowed to step in and develop an initial business case with the expectation that, should the project proceed, their investment would be recouped using private Australian capital. It’s fair to say that the Future Fund needs to contribute much more towards growing our national infrastructure. Snowy 2.0 is a salutary warning about what happens when the government takes a project through to the decision stage first and does the maths later and then rubs out the maths. The process behind Snowy 2.0 should never happen again, and both sides of parliament have been culpable.
The bill requires Infrastructure Australia to take account of government policy. It’s interesting to note some excellent amendments moved in the other place, the House of Representatives, designed to put commercial expertise into the bill while excluding conflicts of interest. Those amendments all failed. I have circulated a committee-stage amendment that Independent MP Dai Le originally moved to require the disclosure of conflicts of interest. Why wouldn’t anyone want that? How can a government do a bill like this, which may spend $100 billion over 10 years, and not be worried about conflicts of interest? I’ve spoken in the last few days about the negative influence of foreign investment funds on government policy. I can see nothing in this bill that would stop these predatory billionaire funds using this bill for their own interests.
Other amendments that were not and still would not be supported are as follows. The first is an amendment to introduce a cost-benefit analysis for any project over $100 million. Apparently, the government doesn’t want cost-benefit analysis on investment projects, no doubt because there isn’t a solar, wind or big battery project in the country that would pass the cost-benefit analysis—not one. David Littleproud MP asked for one of the commissioners to have substantial experience in rural and regional Australia. The Albanese government stopped that amendment from passing. The same happened to amendments improving transparency and reporting to parliament. They don’t want transparency and reporting to parliament. I know every opposition will talk about transparency before they get elected and then, upon election, make transparency worse, which is exactly what this government is doing. The Albanese government seems worse than most at breaking their election promises and killing transparency.
Senator Rice proposed an amendment to make infrastructure more social since we are all going to be stuck in our 15-minute cities—or ‘prisons’ to use a more accurate term. Not if One Nation can help it! I do thank Senator Rice for her amendment around continuity of existing projects. In this regard, the legislation is poorly worded. It’s true that some of the Infrastructure Australia projects which hold so much promise are lagging. Many Queensland projects, like the Urannah dam, have not advanced since April 2022. There’s no doubt that this is to prepare these projects for abolition. And rather than Minister King being blamed, the independent Infrastructure Australia will be blamed for implementing government policy—as this bill requires.
Infrastructure minister King has terminated the Hells Gates dam north of Charters Towers and the Saego dam at Hughenden. This is yet another clear indication of the Albanese government hollowing out the bush and delivering our best farmland to foreign multinational superannuation funds and merchant banks for the benefit of foreign interests and to the exclusion of everyday Australians. Minister Plibersek’s water policy changes introduced this week prove just how much this government hates the bush. The proposed measures will destroy rural communities. Country towns have a critical mass for population and services, below which a town is not viable. This government will wipe many Australian towns off the map and return that land to Gaia. The major banks know this already and they’re acting like rats leaving a sinking ship with their branch closures. In effect, this Labor government is hollowing out the bush and using that money to line the pockets of climate carpetbaggers in order to buy votes off the Teals and the Greens—city votes.
The east-west railway and multifunction corridor with associated steel parks have been progressed to the next stage at Infrastructure Australia following One Nation initiating a Senate inquiry. I look forward to the new board continuing those projects. Real infrastructure—dams, railroads, baseload power stations and ports—will never be built outside the capital cities because the government wants to hollow out the bush. It is hollowing out the bush. That’s why real infrastructure will not be built outside the capital cities. The only infrastructure the bush will get is unwanted infrastructure: wind turbines, solar panels and a spider’s web of high-voltage power lines growing like a cancer across rural Australia. And, like a cancer, these infernal things kill productive farmland, destroy native forest and destroy the native fauna that used to live there. They’re killing pristine creeks. No-one in the bush wants these kamikaze, parasitic misinvestments.
There’s support from city folks who are eager to feel like worthy climate warriors while driving their petrol cars and living in freestanding houses, taking overseas holidays and dialling their air-conditioning up to the max. It’s all justified because they support the campaign ‘saving the planet’ with solar and wind power—as long as they’re built in someone else’s backyard.
Infrastructure is supposed to make life easier, not harder. Infrastructure is designed to add to our productive capacity and to grow the pie for all Australians. We hear so often that workers don’t deserve pay rises because they’ve stopped working hard and productivity has declined. Let me ask: what happened to the government working harder? What happened to infrastructure that makes the internet faster, freight-forwarding faster, electricity cheaper and products like timber, cement and steel readily available and accessible? This is what makes workers more productive: better tools and better supplies. Make no mistake: under this Albanese government the lives of everyday Australians will be harder, pay packets will not go as far and opportunities for advancement will become harder and harder to find.
One Nation’s Queensland infrastructure program includes building the east-west railroad across the Top End, from Western Australia to North Queensland, to provide market access for the extraction and grazing industries. But that’s not all it will do. These industries frequently have Aboriginal owners or employ a high proportion of Aboriginal staff. And there’s tourism. One Nation will build a multipurpose corridor in the same footprint as that railway line to bring power, water, the internet and local train travel to Aboriginal and rural communities. We would build the steel parks and take more of the $2 trillion steel market for Australians, growing our economy with breadwinner jobs and solid foreign exchange earnings. We would build the Great Dividing Range project: a dam, hydro and irrigation project to deliver environmentally-friendly economic growth to North Queensland—G power will unleash North Queensland! One Nation will build the Emu Swamp Dam, the Urannah irrigation project, the Big Rocks Weir and the Hughenden Irrigation Project. One Nation will run the inland rail from Five Star into Queensland, along the Moonie Highway alignment and then across to Miles, then through Wandoan to Banana, to terminate at the port of Gladstone. We will connect the port of Gladstone to the east-west rail line to create a national rail route that will take hundreds of thousands of heavy truck movements of the roads while improving transit times. We will not build the Pioneer pumped hydro project, as this not only destroys the environment of the Pioneer Valley but is also a complete fraud on the part of Premier Palaszczuk. This project is a fake big idea to win votes in the city in the next election and take attention off the Mackay Base Hospital’s many problems that the government has caused. It will also waste millions in feasibility studies that will ultimately showed this is a really stupid idea—a dishonest idea.
To guarantee Australia’s power supply, we need only to build coal-fired power stations using new technology. This new technology shows the public the hypocrisy of their renewable lobby. They criticise coal as being dirty so that industry develops the technology that captures the carbon dioxide and turns it into useful projects—fertiliser, fuel and hydrogen. This new technology allows clean energy to meet our net zero targets providing reliable baseload power at a fraction of the cost of solar and wind, I don’t give a damn about UN net-zero targets, but if you want to meet them, here is a way of doing it productively. This should be supported across this parliament, yet these net zero vandals will not admit the transition is a disaster harming everyday Australians and will never deliver cheap, reliable energy. Why are you doing it? Why? What’s your agenda? I suggest it is to orchestrate a power shortage in transport and production in order to usher in a new era of Soviet-style control. You have already shown it—the complete subjugation of Australia, as has been occurring since the signing of the UN’s Lima declaration in 1975 by Prime Minister Whitlam under Labor, ratified the following year by Liberal Prime Minister Fraser.
Labor destroys; One Nation will build. One Nation will build so that people can build. Human progress and economic prosperity depend on human initiative, and that needs opportunity and support. Opportunity and support flourish on freedom and on infrastructure for businesses to grow. Small businesses rely on infrastructure and start growing. There are eight keys to human progress in my belief. The first is freedom—the freedom to come up with ideas, exchange ideas, implement ideas. The second is rule of law—we have seen that smashed in the last three years. The third is stable, solid, sustainable, continuing governance—a Constitution. We have that. We have one of the world’s best Constitutions. Number four is securing of property rights, which were stolen by the Howard-Anderson Liberal and National Party government from 1996 through to 2007. They stole farmers’ property rights, the key to human progress. The fifth thing is strong families—they are being destroyed by policies put in place by the United Nations since 1975 with the Family Law Act—the slaughterhouse of the nation.
Cheap energy is fundamental and the most significant factor for human progress—affordable, accessible, reliable, dependable, secure and stable. A taxation system that is efficient—not inefficient as the current system is. Lastly is honest money—we need to return to a people’s bank in this country. The Commonwealth Bank, when it was the people’s bank early last century, was responsible for human progress in this country—dramatic progress. We had only five million people, but the Commonwealth Bank took care of building our country into a big country. Australia 120 and 110 years ago had the highest per capita income in the world.
To build a nation, people need infrastructure. People build a nation. People need infrastructure to build a nation. Australia has done this—we rose to number one in the world. That is instead of what Labor is doing now, which is a complete subjugation of Australia. Labor destroys; One Nation will build. The people of Australia have already proven we can build, and they have done it many times.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/7HkDz_oFzvs/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-09-13 17:31:042023-09-13 17:39:07Stop Hollowing Out the Bush
