The Greens are trying to force higher taxes onto Australia’s resource sector and I have to ask: how much is enough?
With the mining, oil and gas industries contributing $45 billion in taxes and royalties last year alone and $335 billion over the past five years, true economic growth comes from expanding, not shutting down, natural resource projects.
A recent meeting with Tamboran in the Northern Territory emphasised the life-changing impact of resource jobs for regional and Aboriginal communities. Providing real skills, stable incomes and financial independence, these projects offer a path out of welfare dependency and toward home ownership and prosperity.
Everyday Australians already see returns in their superannuation from our resource industry, while governments receive critical royalties to fund essential public services, as well as the “free stuff” they love to dish out. The Beetaloo project is already attracting interest from data centres seeking direct access to the Northern Territory’s national internet backbone. With guaranteed gas for power and water for cooling, planning could begin today.
This is One Nation’s approach: maximising resource development for the benefit of all Australians, while maintaining genuine, practical environmental protections. We will focus on our real landscape, not the climate orthodoxy pushed by Labor, the Greens, Teals and globalist Liberals.
Blocking new coal, gas and mine extensions will crush jobs and cripple regional towns. The Federal Court’s recent decision to overturn the government’s ban on the $1.3 billion McPhillamys goldmine reaffirms One Nation’s commitment to sound, responsible resource extraction that delivers long-term abundance for all Australians.
Taxing the resource industry into extinction while expecting it to fund the nation is pure madness!
Transcript
Senator Roberts: I thank Senator McKim for this motion. The first thought I had after reading this motion was simply ‘how much is enough?’ The resource industry, mining, oil and gas paid $45 billion last year in company tax and royalties in Australia. Over the last five years, they’ve contributed $335 billion in tax. If the Greens want even more, there is a simple way to achieve that: more mines, more gas wells, more utilisation of Australia’s immense natural resources to bring in taxation and to create the wealth and opportunity for all who are here, especially in rural and remote areas where the workforce has a large Aboriginal component.
My office met this afternoon with Tamboran, who operate a new gas well in the Northern Territory, and included hearing about their successful Aboriginal employment program. Tamboran are giving Aboriginals breadwinner jobs, training and a future independent of government handouts, empowering Aboriginal workers to break free of welfare dependency. I can see why the Greens don’t like it. Who knows? Once Aboriginals own their own homes, are married with families and enjoying the benefits of resource job brings, they may vote One Nation.
Resources already provide returns into their superannuation funds of everyday Australians, as well as extra royalty into government coffers, to pay for the free stuff that government offers. The Beetaloo project has already attracted inquiries from data centres looking for a location connected to the national internet backbone, which is the Northern Territory. Data centres could start planning today, knowing the gas for power and the water for cooling are available. This is One Nation’s solution: more resource utilisation for the benefit of all Australians while, of course, ensuring the protection of our natural environment—the natural environment, not the sky god of warming as Labor, Greens, teals and globalist Liberals still believe. The green solution is to tax the resource industry while shutting down the resource industry. This is insane. Yes, I know it doesn’t make any sense to me.
Published Greens party policy is no new coal, no new gas and no extensions to coal or gas leases. High taxes will force resource projects out of business and, importantly to the Greens, prevent new developments. Massive job losses will result from this Greens party policy. Huge communities will be cast into poverty, heat and isolation because wind and solar are a useless way to drive air conditioners, transport and industry. Government revenue to pay for all the free stuff goes, and superannuation returns fall, and the Greens celebrated the refusal of a $1.3 billion extension to the McPhillamys goldmine in New South Wales. The reason Minister Plibersek gave for the refusal was the section 10 Aboriginal protection order, as the site hosted a mythical blue-banded bee important to Aboriginal culture, apparently.
Today, the Federal Court officially overturned the mining ban. Justice James Stellios ruled that Minister Plibersek’s protection order was legally invalid due to a procedural failure and a lack of procedural fairness. The company that owns the mine paid $900 million in taxes last year on other projects. The taxes on this mine will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Who knows, there may be enough to cover the operating losses of one of Senator McKim’s Greens supermarkets.
This motion shows the stark contrast between the Greens and One Nation. The Greens will use high taxes to force resource companies out of business in the name of social justice virtue signalling while One Nation will encourage environmentally sound resource extraction in the name of providing abundance for everyday Australians for many, many, many years to come. Voters of Australia, the choice is yours.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/EFifNtBTy7w/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-10-22 15:48:062026-10-22 15:48:12Killing the Golden Goose
Decarbonisation has completely infected our bureaucracy, with dedicated offices and lavish government grants funding a fabricated, calamitous nonproblem at the expense of everyday Australians. From wasting $444 million on the Great Barrier Reef Authority to funding endless research, this pointless transition places an escalating financial burden on taxpayers.
As these costs spiral, future governments will be forced to choose between funding essential services like health, education and social security, or chasing the myth of “saving the planet” from a natural trace atmospheric gas that’s essential to all life on earth. One Nation knows that climate variation is entirely natural.
To stop this madness, a One Nation government will immediately terminate all net zero measures, withdraw from international agreements and suspend all related spending.
Clawing back grants, terminating subsidies and renegotiating contracts will save around $10 billion annually, helping eliminate the deficit.
It’s time to stop this parasitic nonsense and focus on making Australians’ lives better, not harder.
Transcript
The government has advanced a suite of appropriation bills covering an additional $9 billion of spending for this financial year. These appropriation bills provide allocations of taxpayers’ money to maintain the government’s recurring expenditure on operational matters and on the many, many, many schemes the government is using to funnel taxpayers’ money into the pockets of their donors and friends in the net zero scam, the parasitic net zero scam.
Of the approximately $9.2 billion in spending in these bills, $2.9 billion is for net zero measures—one third. Of that, $130 million is for additional departmental expenses and the rest is funding projects. This is on top of the $1 billion allocated in the previous appropriation bills for departmental expenditure and on top of $5 billion for funding projects this financial year. And this is on top of the $24 billion that has been spent so far in off-the-books expenditure for net zero measures and the additional $9 billion which has been allocated to fund projects in the near future, for a total off-the-books spending of $33 billion. For clarity, these figures are to date, not just this financial year.
Off the books is an accounting trick the uniparty has come to rely on. It’s based on the premise that, if the government borrows money and then on lends that money to other people, that is not a budget expenditure and, as such, does not form part of the budget spending or contribute to the deficit. Now, $33 billion is a huge amount of money to have sitting off the books, much of which will result in financial loss to taxpayers when these projects fail and their mates’ projects fail. If these projects were any good, private enterprise would be building them. The fact the government has had to stump up $24 billion so far, with another $9 billion expected over the forward estimates, suggests the private sector knows something the government doesn’t know—that is, that these projects are boondoggles which will never recover their full or lifetime cost.
This includes not only the cost of the solar panel, the wind turbine, the battery transmission line and such like; it includes the installation cost, maintenance cost and replacement cost—batteries last 10 years; solar panels last 15 years, being generous; and wind turbines last 15 years. This means every piece of net zero generation and storage we have in Australia right now will have to be replaced before 2050, some twice, and replaced three times before 2060. The cost won’t end in 2025; it keeps going forever and ever, because these things have to be replaced. They have short, limited lifespans. In addition, lifetime costs include the thing net zero idealists never talk about: the disposal and remediation costs. New wind turbines are massive to tear down. They’re up to 250 metres tall, and the installation cost per turbine is over $1 million. Plus, removing them when they are damaged, catch fire or reach the end of their life costs $1 million each.
If a company wants to open a new mine in Australia, it must put aside money or a surety to cover the cost of remediation: a bond. This bond payment has been law in mining for years, and it should be there. No such law, though, exists for wind and solar installations. I can understand why. Blowing the top off a mountain to create the flat area necessary for the massive footprints these things require is permanent environmental damage. No remediation can fix it. One can’t come along after the projects have been shuttered and glue the mountain back together again. The damage, the vandalism, is permanent. In these appropriation bills, the government has made provision for subsidising the build of these things, although not removing and remediating afterwards.
Nobody has added all these expenditures together to compile a whole-of-government cost of net zero. One Nation has asked the Parliamentary Budget Office for that figure, so stay tuned. The total economic cost of the transition out to 2026, government and private sector, has been estimated at between $7 trillion and $9 trillion. These people in the government do not even know, and these people in opposition did not have a clue when they started this transition. This information is from the independent Net Zero Australia, a project of the universities of Melbourne, Queensland and Princeton. Bloomberg puts the figure at $2.4 trillion out to 2050. Net zero spend is up 400 per cent under this government, between 2022 and 2026. The expectation is that this government will keep throwing money at an imaginary, confected problem for as long as the public think humans can change the weather on a global scale. This is insane.
Decarbonisation now extends right through the bureaucracy and agencies. There are decarbonisation offices in every government department plus the net zero reporting, plus government grants to industry—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, you will be in continuation. It being 12.15, we will move to senators’ statements.
These Appropriation Bills allocates an additional $9 billion in spending for the current financial year, with roughly one-third ($2.9 billion) directed toward “net zero” measures.
This Labor government is using an accounting trick by borrowing money and on-lending it, keeping $33 billion in “off-the-books” expenditure out of the formal budget deficit. This money will result in financial losses. If these projects were viable, private enterprise would be funding them.
Net-Zero infrastructure (solar panels, wind turbines, batteries) has short lifespans, requiring multiple replacements before 2050 and 2060, incurring massive, overlooked installation, maintenance and disposal/ remediation.
Unlike the mining industry, “renewable” energy projects cause permanent environmental damage to landscapes without requiring environmental bonds for remediation.
Independent groups like Net Zero Australia and Bloomberg estimates that the total economic cost of the transition ranges from trillions of dollars up to $9 trillion, while asserting that government spending on net zero has surged by 400% between 2022 and 2026.
Transcript
In accordance with the arrangements made with the whips of the major parties, I seek leave to continue my remarks, and I express my regret that I wasn’t here at the start of the debate.
Leave granted.
I’ll continue my speech from the other night. Decarbonisation now extends right through the bureaucracy and agencies. There are decarbonisation offices in every government department, plus the net zero reporting, government grants to industry and academia to research this made-up problem. It really is a fabricated nonproblem; a monstrous, calamitous fabrication that is costing the Australian people dearly. Some of these grants are substantial, including $444 million to the Great Barrier Reef Authority to counter the effects of climate change. I’ll talk more about that in a minute. The further we get into the pointless, disastrous ‘transition’, the more that the burden of funding of these measures will fall on the taxpayer through direct payments, loans and sovereign guarantees, not to mention the inefficiencies—sorry, Siri is trying to talk to me.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator O’Neill): Siri doesn’t have the call, Senator Roberts!
I’ll pay that one!
Senator Cox: You were caught out at estimates doing that. Come on, now.
Senator McKim interjecting—
You’ve got a fertile imagination. Conspiracy theorist, is it? These measures will cost so much in the years ahead that, ultimately, the government of the day will be faced with a choice of social security, free health and education or saving the planet from a natural trace atmospheric gas that’s essential to all life on earth. One Nation does not worship the sky god of warming. We know the climate varies naturally and inherently and that nothing in the current data suggests the variation is outside of normal cycles.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order!
We have 24,000 datasets from around the world, including CSIRO and BOM, and they prove no change in climate at all, just natural, inherent variation superimposed on cycles. A One Nation government will terminate net zero measures and withdraw from international agreements which provide the heads of power the requirement on our government to spend this money—not necessary. We will immediately suspend all government activity associated with net zero and review all expenditure and loans to see what can be clawed back legitimately under the contract terms. I suspect noncompliance with contract requirements—especially around supply agreements—is widespread, so it shouldn’t be too difficult. We will terminate all ongoing subsidies where that option is available under the contract, and we will renegotiate contracts where it’s not. This will save around $10 billion a year in recurring expenditure, which we will put towards eliminating the deficit—$10 billion taken out of this year’s budget figures.
I foreshadow my amendment No. 3662 in the committee stage to return these bills to the Treasury to have net zero spending removed and ask for the Senate’s support. It’s time to call out this parasitic net zero nonsense and get back to the real business of government: making people’s lives better, not harder, as net zero measures currently do.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just before you resume your seat, Senator Roberts, it would assist the Senate if you would move your motion. I believe it has been circulated as a second reading amendment.
I move:
Omit all words after “That”, substitute “further consideration of the bills be made an order of the day for the first sitting day after amendments are circulated removing all funding for net zero measures and the administration of net zero measures”.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/cRxZeI8kgXc/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-10-14 09:58:502026-10-14 10:15:43Billions on the Line for Net Zero
Prompted by a glossy, heavily illustrated 57-page clean energy report for the Wide Bay-Burnett region that could easily have been a 10-page document, I questioned department officials regarding its substance and design.
I asked for the exact cost of this publication, whether similar reports were produced for other regions across Australia and what the cost-benefit analysis was for printing such a marketing document. I also questioned the total marketing spend of the regional development agency for the 2025-26 financial year.
Highlighting the accompanying letter’s call to advocate for a clean energy transition, I expressed my view that the brochure is nothing more than taxpayer-funded government propaganda filled with misinformation.
Minister Chisholm disagreed with my opinion and defended the government’s support for renewable energy and community engagement.
This Labor government is persisting with squandering billions of your hard-earned taxpayer dollars on a pipe dream, trying to “trick” people into believing that an unreliable net-zerorenewable energy transition is somehow going to control the weather.
They label any dissenting view as “misinformation” ignoring the fact that the worst offenders of climate alarmism and energy fear-mongering are in the Labor and Greens parties.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Could we have the regional development agency, please?
Ms Rauter: They are not part of the department. The regional development authorities, do you mean?
Senator ROBERTS: Regional development agencies: outcome 3.
Ms Rauter: We are outcome 3. How about you ask your question, and I will see whether we can answer it.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This glossy brochure—
Senator Chisholm: Is that from the RDA—Regional Development Australia?
Senator ROBERTS: Regional Development Australia, yes.
Ms Rauter: They are government funded authorities, but they are not part of the department. We would have to take the question on notice and direct it to the RDAs.
Senator ROBERTS: Tell me what you can answer of these questions and put on notice what you can’t. This glossy brochure was posted out in January. I received a copy, as I am sure other senators did. It’s the Industry engagement report: industry perspectives on the path to clean energy. It is for the Wide Bay-Burnett region. Wide Bay is in Queensland. We are very keen to know. I care about the people in Wide Bay Burnett. This publication is 57 pages of full-page illustrations and white space. Distilling the actual information here, it would come to about a 10-page publication. How much did this publication cost? You can take it on notice.
Ms Rauter: Yes, we would have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Secondly, was this publication required by an act of parliament? Why was it even produced?
Ms Rauter: No, it is not required by an act of parliament. We do fund the Regional Development Australia organisations, which are across Australia, to work with local government, councils and others, on the regional investment framework and to make sure that that is delivered in the regions. They also support regional stakeholders, including the not-for-profit sector and local government, to seek grant opportunities. They support decarbonisation efforts that are happening in the regional areas. They build evidence for economic development. They contribute relevant data and local intelligence. We don’t require them to produce that publication, but we can certainly ask them what the process is for them going into that, and the cost.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are they doing this same exercise in other regions around Australia? My question is: how many more of these publications exist?
Ms Rauter: Again, we will take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it just Wide Bay, where there has been a huge, justifiable backlash on solar and wind? You can take that question on notice.
Ms Rauter: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you explain to me the cost benefit of this publication being produced as a glossy brochure instead of a simple emailed PDF?
Ms Rauter: That would be a question for the RDA, specifically. We will pass that on.
Senator ROBERTS: How much did the regional development agency spend on marketing in the 2025-26 financial year? I count this as marketing.
Ms Rauter: Yes, I understand that.
Senator ROBERTS: How does the carbon dioxide footprint manage to be factored into every Infrastructure Australia application, although the department can chop down trees for this nonsense propaganda? Where is the consistency in the management of your department, Minister?
Senator Chisholm: I don’t really know that we’re responsible for that.
Senator ROBERTS: I quote from the letter that accompanied the glossy propaganda brochure: We are seeking your support to advocate for a regional clean energy transition strategy. Then they go on and name five points, including many points of misinformation. Isn’t this just propaganda from people in a region strongly opposed to solar and wind and its environmental destruction, community destruction and economic destruction, Minister? This confirms that the biggest source of misinformation and disinformation is the government, yet again.
Senator Chisholm: It would be fair to say that I disagree with you on that basis, Senator Roberts. I am supportive of renewable energy projects. I come across many people in the community who are as well. I make the point that those things are best done when there is strong community engagement with the proponents. I see evidence in many places around the country that that is happening. I think that the work of the federal government and various state governments around the place is leading to better outcomes. Councils play an important role in that.
Senator ROBERTS: It doesn’t bother you that it is crammed with misinformation and disinformation?
Senator Chisholm: I haven’t actually seen the document that you’re talking about, Senator Roberts. I think it would be fair to say, being someone who has observed the way that you have operated in the chamber and in Senate committees over the years, we probably have a different point of view on some of these matters.
Senator ROBERTS: We certainly do. Ms Rauter, thank you so much for stepping forward. It is appreciated. I am not holding you accountable for this, just the regional development agencies. Thank you.
Ms Rauter: Not a problem, Senator.
CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts. That’s a nice way to finish.
I wanted to get some clarity regarding UN General Assembly Resolution A/80/L.65 and the International Court of Justice’s 2025 advisory opinion. Specifically, whether the ICJ’s ruling is merely advisory and non-binding and that any enforcement action would require another country to successfully prove direct economic harm, something that has never occurred regarding greenhouse gas emissions.
When department officials deferred these questions, Senator Ayres stepped in to shield them. I highlighted that the Paris Agreement is only binding because domestic legislation implements it and that Australia could legally withdraw from it just like the United States did.
I pointed out that UN resolution A/80/L.65 was only backed by 141 out of 193 member states, with major industrial countries like the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Iran opposing it. I challenged the entire narrative, stating that manmade climate change is nothing more than natural temperature variation and cycles – and that the government has swallowed UN “Kool-Aid.”
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. I’d like to clarify a United Nations resolution last week on climate change, which was General Assembly resolution A/80/L.65, titled ‘Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the obligations of States in respect of climate change’, dated 20 May 2026. Australia strongly supported the resolution. The resolution welcomes and gives political weight to the International Court of Justice opinion from 2025, affirming states’ obligations under international law to protect the climate system from greenhouse gas emissions, prevent significant harm, cooperate globally and address consequences including potential reparation. It emphasises following through on Paris Agreement commitments. Is that all good so far—all accurate?
Ms Munro: We understand; yes.
Senator ROBERTS: The International Court of Justice ruling was an advisory, meaning it carried no compulsion. Is that correct?
Ms Munro: It is an advisory opinion. Its impact on international law, though, is still to be tested through the courts.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come to that. Isn’t it true that any action taken by the International Court of Justice against a nation like Australia must be brought by another country and, only then, when that country can prove they have suffered economic harm caused by the respondent country they’re seeking restitution from?
Ms Munro: This is getting into the details of how the International Court of Justice works, which is beyond what we in this department can appropriately advise you on. The Attorney-General’s Department, the Office of International Law and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade are probably best able to provide you advice on the operation of the law.
Senator ROBERTS: The Attorney-General was yesterday. Wouldn’t it pay you to understand that as well? Could you take it on notice?
Ms Munro: We could take it on notice, but perhaps you should finish your question.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it true no nation has ever sued another, and is that because it is not possible to prove that greenhouse gas emissions are causing another country damage?
Senator Ayres: I think—
Senator ROBERTS: The minister to the rescue!
Senator Ayres: just to assist the officials, it’s hard to see how these officials could answer questions about the legal impact of UN resolutions. I’m not a lawyer. I’m not even really a bush lawyer, but my experience of these questions is that resolutions of the General Assembly rarely have the kind of legal gravamen that you are asking about. On whatever day—the chair might be able to assist me—Senator Wong will be here with a team from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. They will no doubt now be aware of your question and enthusiastically preparing a response for you.
Senator ROBERTS: What a great idea! I’ll just finish off on the questions. The International Court of Justice has never taken action against a country over their greenhouse gas emissions using a proxy, such as access to the international settlement bank, which is controlled by the UN, because they are an advisory body only. If we turn to the Paris Agreement itself, the reason for this resolution—it’s only binding because we passed legislation to implement it, which can be repealed. The Paris Agreement itself is not binding on Australia if we withdraw from it, as the United States has done. Is that correct?
Ms Munro: There are a number of statements in there. Australia has entered into a treaty to join the Paris Agreement. There are provisions, though, under the Paris Agreement, should any one country decide to leave the Paris Agreement.
Senator Ayres: It would just not be in Australia’s interest to do such a thing. It would make our economy smaller, diminish our standing in the world, reduce our energy security, impoverish our people and make us less secure. You couldn’t imagine a more destructive thing to do if you cared about our national interest.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve swallowed the UN Kool-Aid, haven’t you?
Senator Ayres: That’s the kind of language that you and your colleagues use. We operate in the real world, where there are real jobs and real industry involved that rely upon the government taking an approach that’s in the national interest of Australia, and that is the approach that the government is determined to deliver.
Senator ROBERTS: Can I conclude that UN resolution A/80/L.65 was supported by only 141 out of 193 member states and opposed by some significant industrial countries—the United States, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Iran, which is no minnow—to make it look like the world still believes the manmade climate change concept is real when it’s nothing more than natural temperature variation and natural temperature cycles. Can I conclude that?
Senator Ayres: What you can conclude is that that’s not the view of the Australian government—
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Senator Ayres: and that, particularly given our country’s exposure to the risks that climate change poses—for our agriculture, for the safety and living standards of our citizens and for the region of the world in which we live with our Pacific and South-East Asian neighbours, the fastest-growing region of the world in human history, where Australia’s economy depends so much on our capacity to export that one in four of our jobs relies upon exports, and where the scale of the opportunity for Australia, in regional Australia in particular, in our mining and resources sector and our manufacturing industries is so large—you would have to have rocks in your head to walk away from sensible efforts to integrate the world’s approach on these questions. We had an experiment with that during the Morrison era. We became less secure, we became unable to engage with our trading partners, and we became weaker and less prosperous as a result. That is not the position of the Albanese government. Our position is to lean in for Australian industry with the biggest pro-manufacturing package of policy measures in our history, to fix our electricity system, which was debauched over the decade before our government took place and got smaller while the country got larger, and to reserve Australian gas for Australian industry. These measures are the measures of an adult government that’s actually in the national interest, not doing what your party and your colleagues in the Liberals and Nationals do, which is import foreign ideology and export Australian jobs. That’s not what we will be doing.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve made a number of bold statements. I disagree with them. Could you provide me with the scientific proof for each of the key points you made, please? That’s empirical scientific data in logical scientific points that proves cause and effect, a simple thing. You’ve made bold statements. I’d like to see the evidence.
Senator Ayres: I’m sure the officials will be able to come up with something for you on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you take it on notice, please.
Senator Ayres: It’s a well-worn path.
Dr Box: Well, I can—
Senator ROBERTS: Scientific proof being empirical scientific data in logical scientific points, proving cause and effect—human carbon dioxide affecting the climate.
Dr Box: Yes, we can answer it now or we can take that on notice.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/qsle6pmG24k/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-10-14 06:48:082026-10-14 06:48:18Swallowing the UN “Kool-Aid”
These questions pertain to the GenCost 2025–26 consultation draft, a collaborative report used to estimate the cheapest levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) for various energy technologies.
This report assigns shorter financial lifespans to baseload and firming technologies (30 years for coal, nuclear, and hydro) compared to their physical capabilities, which artificially inflates their per-megawatt-hour costs while favouring wind and solar.
The report incorrectly excludes brownfield site advantages for coal and nuclear generation, putting them at an unfair cost disadvantage against greenfield wind and solar.
And battery backup costs are separated rather than bundled directly into wind and solar expenses, masking their true total cost.
I asked whether the government had directed agencies to produce “fraudulent costings” to support net-zero targets, an assertion strongly rejected by the officials and Senator Tim Ayres.
Dr Mayfield from the CSIRO defended the GenCost methodology as a consistent, independent and robust process developed in consultation with industry and technical experts. Because he didn’t have the specific draft on hand, Dr Mayfield took detailed questions regarding capacity factors, exact asset valuations and cost adjustments on notice.
Senator Ayres strongly defended the government’s energy transition, dismissing my position on this as “imported talking points.” He argued that the GenCost framework reflects modern economic, engineering and technological realities, such as falling battery costs and said that attempting to revive old baseload models would weaken the economy, driving up costs.
One Nation will scrap Australia’s Net Zero by 2050 policy target along with all associated legislation, mandates and subsidies. We will withdraw from all international climate commitments like the Paris Agreement and back cheap base-load energy sources like coal, gas, hydro and nuclear energy.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. I’d like to go to your GenCost 2025-26 consultation draft. The purpose of GenCost is to show the different costs of each type of generation when all factors are taken into account—in essence, industrial wind and solar as compared to nuclear, coal and hydro. Do you think the assumptions made in this report around assessment periods for each type of power are conducive to producing an accurate cost of full life cycle generation?
Dr Mayfield: The latest consultation draft—so our final report—is not out at this point in time—
Senator ROBERTS: No, I meant the consultation draft.
Dr Mayfield: It is the same methodology, as we’ve discussed many, many times—so, yes, we think it’s an appropriate methodology that’s being applied.
Senator ROBERTS: One of the most common uses of this report is to show Australians, the media and the government which is supposedly the cheapest levelised cost of electricity. This in turn informs the debate around which type of generation is cheapest and accordingly should be the focus of the government’s energy plans. Does this draft report make the right assumptions in the economic life of each type of generation?
Dr Mayfield: We’ve been through various assumptions; if you want to be explicit about some, that might help. We’ve talked about coal-fired power in the past. The assumptions that we have been using either are based on work that sits with AEMO or come out of the consultation process done with industry representatives as we develop the report.
Senator ROBERTS: Your answer is yes?
Dr Mayfield: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The life of the project makes a huge difference to the cost of the electricity it puts into the grid. Coal, nuclear and hydro have higher construction costs than wind or solar. They also last much longer than wind and solar, so the higher cost can be repaid across a much longer period, which makes a huge difference to the final cost of electricity. Your draft sets the life span of coal, nuclear and hydropower stations at 30 years, with industrial wind and solar at 25 years. That’s the absolute limit of cheap Chinese solar and wind installations. I would call 25 years fanciful, based upon what’s happening around the world. This draft appraises coal, hydro and nuclear over less than half their life. Wind and solar are appraised over their entire life. Can you explain that to me, please?
Dr Mayfield: If you go back to previous estimates, Mr Graham has explained all those assumptions.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking you to explain it. This is the latest draft.
Dr Mayfield: I will take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: You haven’t got the answer here?
Dr Mayfield: I haven’t got the draft here with me, but I’ll take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Coal power stations last 50 years, which the draft acknowledges before using the shorter figure anyway. You show hydro at 100 years but use 30 years anyway. You show nuclear at up to 80 years but use 30 years anyway. You are saying the decision has been taken based on the financial decision-making, which is based on risk mitigation. It’s an unrelated metric to the actual cost of building out these power stations and makes coal, hydro and nuclear artificially more expensive. Is your argument simply designed to inflate the cost of baseload power and reduce the cost of wind and solar?
Dr Mayfield: We’re technology agnostic. The assumptions are consistent across all the technologies. You’ll appreciate there’s reinvestment required during the lifetimes of all of those technologies, in various aspects. They’ve been done on a consistent basis.
Senator ROBERTS: Wind and solar reinvestment—you’re absolutely right—is after about 20 years; let’s go with 25. Coal is after 50 to 60 years, nuclear is after 60 years and hydro is after 100 years. Snowy Hydro has been going how many years—80-odd?
Dr Mayfield: You’ll have to reinvest in turbines during that time.
Senator ROBERTS: Turbines. Snowy.
Senator Ayres: All these technologies require reinvestment.
Senator ROBERTS: Not completely—
Senator Ayres: That’s not new news.
Senator ROBERTS: Maintenance is not replacement of capital.
Senator Ayres: It’s the same old argument. You don’t like the numbers provided by Australia’s experts; I understand that. There’s nothing credible about the approach that you bring to these questions. We’ll endure the same imported talking points again. Go through it; we’ll do our best to answer the questions. You will find that Dr Mayfield and others will have to refer you back to the same answers to the same questions that you insist on asking. I know you don’t like the result, but that’s science, that’s engineering and that’s economics right there.
Senator ROBERTS: And I’m all about protecting the taxpayer and the Australian citizen.
Senator Ayres: Sure. There’s not much evidence of that either!
Senator ROBERTS: In any event, your assumptions are still wrong. Nuclear is being financed over 15 years to 20 years, hydro over 15—which is crazy for a 100-year asset—and coal is under 10 years. If this was to try and make GenCost accurate, you’ve failed. Your basic assumption of the life of the asset is wrong from a financial perspective, and it’s certainly wrong from a reality perspective. Why are you making such a fundamental mistake repeatedly?
Dr Mayfield: If you can put your questions to us, I’ll take them on notice and let the experts answer those.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got it. If a One Nation government were to issue 50-year infrastructure bonds or ones for a shorter period with a rollover option to fund nuclear, coal and hydro, what would that do to your report assumptions? You would have no reason to use the life-of-project figure you use, and you would then have to use the real life one. The government issuing financing in return for owning the generation would completely ruin this core assumption of GenCost, wouldn’t it?
Senator Ayres: In the event that there was a ‘One Nation Liberal National’ uniparty government—
Senator ROBERTS: I said a One Nation government.
Senator Ayres: then you would bankrupt Australia with that kind of approach. You would drive manufacturing offshore. You would make us weaker and less secure. I know that doesn’t suit the imported talking points that you insist on running through. It’s a matter for you if you want to indulge that kind of perspective, but we are dealing with the real issues in a real economy for real firms—
Senator ROBERTS: That’s what worries me.
Senator Ayres: and real generation. You are in an imaginarium of your own making.
Senator ROBERTS: If a One Nation government chose to fund the construction from consolidated revenue and own the generation, that would destroy your core GenCost assumption, wouldn’t it?
Senator Ayres: You would bankrupt the government as well as the economy in that instance, Senator. You’ve got the right to put out the funny dodges and all that sort of stuff that you guys do—that’s fine. We’re going to deal with the real things in the real economy.
Senator ROBERTS: The draft GenCost figures are large-scale solar photovoltaic, $52 to $88 per megawatt hour; onshore wind, $78 to $129 per megawatt hour; black coal, $121 to $195 per megawatt hour; large-scale nuclear, $200 to $328 per megawatt hour. The capacity factor here is important. The more power that’s generated out of the nameplate capacity, the cheaper the power. What reliability figure have you used in the lower range and higher range figure for coal and nuclear?
Dr Mayfield: I’ll take that on notice and refer you back to previous answers. We’ll get the experts to give you detailed answers to your questions.
Senator ROBERTS: Did the experts produce this?
Dr Mayfield: The techno-economic people that we employ have produced that report in conjunction consultation with industry and with guidance through that process. It’s a well-used process. We think it’s a very robust process. We’re very happy to provide those answers on notice. We’ve provided many of them already.
Senator ROBERTS: What capacity figure have you used in the lower and higher range for large-scale photovoltaic and onshore wind?
Dr Mayfield: I’ll take that on notice again. I don’t have the report with me today.
Senator ROBERTS: I look forward to your answers, On notice, please, what change would assessing project life for coal at 50 years, nuclear at 60 years and hydro at 80 years have on your draft levelised cost of electricity?
Dr Mayfield: Again, we’ll take that all on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: We’re getting through this pretty quickly, CHAIR. Coal power stations would likely go into a brownfield site, or the existing generation would be replaced with modern clean generation with higher capacity. This reduces the cost, whereas wind and solar are all greenfield—the highest cost—especially to the environment. Senator Whish-Wilson has been trying to shut down the Robbins Island wind turbines! Why have you removed the issue of brownfield versus greenfield from the calculation? It makes coal and nuclear look artificially bad, doesn’t it?
Dr Mayfield: The whole basis of the GenCost report is to look at greenfield, new generation, costs; it’s not looking at brownfield.
Senator ROBERTS: You don’t consider brownfield at all?
Dr Mayfield: Not for GenCost—not for the purposes that AEMO are looking at.
Senator ROBERTS: Battery—
CHAIR: Senator, you’re at 10 minutes.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve just got two more.
CHAIR: Okay.
Senator ROBERTS: Battery backup is shown as a separate levelised cost of electricity. It’s only needed to firm wind and solar, so it should be shown against the cost of wind and solar. Showing it separately will produce a misleading, much lower, figure for the cost of wind and solar. Why have you chosen this misrepresentation— omitted the cost of battery backup to make wind and solar look cheaper?
Dr Mayfield: Again, I’ll take it on notice. We’ll get the experts to give you detailed answers to your questions. As I said before, it’s a robust process. We’ve provided many of those answers before.
Senator ROBERTS: Transmission lines appear to be included against wind and solar. Can you provide the annual cost here? What appears to be a $10 per megawatt hour charge would factor in how much in transmission line construction and maintenance? And will it be enough?
Dr Mayfield: Again, we’ll take that on notice and provide you with a detailed answer.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you received any instruction or direction from the government to produce fraudulent costings to justify the net zero agenda? Yes or no? It’s a simple question.
Dr Mayfield: I don’t agree with the premise of that question at all.
Senator Ayres: Senator, I can assure you this is an independent process that is robust—and it deals with the with the technology changes, and the lowest possible cost of electricity. Battery costs, for example, have fallen by 91 per cent since the 1990s—that’s the truth of it. Now, you want to take the country back to a sort of weaker, more expensive system? Really! We’re trying to build a modern electricity system. You want to put people back in the caves, basically.
Senator ROBERTS: Senator Ayres, are you not aware that Australia had the cheapest—
Senator Ayres: We are getting—
Senator ROBERTS: coal-fired power station in the world?
Senator Ayres: In the olden days, Senator—in the olden days—
Senator ROBERTS: And we’re now amongst the highest in the world—
Senator Ayres: when it was the only—
Senator ROBERTS: with solar and wind?
Senator Ayres: technology that—
Senator ROBERTS: Are you not aware of that?
Senator Ayres: was available for Australia—
Senator ROBERTS: These are basic things for manufacturing.
Senator Ayres: And, back in its day, coal was terrific—it was terrific. But the world has changed and technology has changed. These are lower cost, for a good environmental outcome. They are lower cost and they will make Australian industry more efficient. Our job, as electricity use expands, is to provide addition into the system and build a modern system. You want to take the joint backwards? Make that case. Go your hardest!
Senator ROBERTS: China burns more than 53 per cent of the world’s coal consumption every year, and manufacturing is going to China.
Senator Ayres: If you want to argue that Australia should go backwards—
Senator ROBERTS: Manufacturing is going to China.
Senator Ayres: and get weaker and poorer—which is the outcome of your kinds of policy prescriptions: less secure, weaker and poorer—then go for your life! But you’ll get the same answers from experts—
Senator ROBERTS: You’re taking us backwards on standard of living already.
Senator Ayres: and from proper, robust processes.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, do you have any more questions?
Why is the Labor government deceiving Australians by claiming electricity prices are falling when the reality is that electricity bills are RISING?
I pointed to the facts.
Connection charges have surged from 26 cents a day to as much as $1.46 a day over the past decade, adding around $530 a year to household power bills.
Solar feed-in tariffs have fallen to as little as 5 to 15 cents per kilowatt hour, while households are being charged 25 to 45 cents per kilowatt hour for the electricity they buy from the grid.
Australians with rooftop solar are getting less for the power they generate while paying more in fixed charges and connection fees.
When I asked why Australians are being told electricity prices are falling while their bills keep rising, the government did what it does best – blame someone else and avoid the question.
Australians don’t care about Labor’s talking points. They care about what leaves their bank account every quarter.
If electricity is supposedly getting cheaper, why are Australians paying more?
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. In the early 2000s, electricity companies were allowed to charge a special solar metre fee to customers with home solar. Over time, it morphed into a daily connection fee. In 2025, the Australian Energy Regulator reduced electricity charges, and energy companies responded, increasing the connection fee—in one case, up from 26c a day 10 years ago to $1.46 a day, $530 a year, 15 times the inflation rate. Minister, are the energy companies profiteering, or is your government trying to hide the real cost of electricity?
Senator Watt interjecting —
Senator AYRES (New South Wales—Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Science): I was giving some thought to that as I got up, actually, Senator Watt. The idea that you would, as the minister for energy, conceal from Australians anticipated price rises in electricity that you had been provided and that you would make all sorts of administrative arrangements to cover that up until after an election—that dubious honour only belongs to one bloke. I can tell you he’s not a comedian, this fella, Mr Taylor, from the other place, who was the minister for energy under the Morrison government. He did share that honour with Mr Morrison for a period. You asked you asked about concealing—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts?
Senator Roberts: On a point of relevance, I asked about the current government’s policy, not someone else in the lower house.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I’ll draw the minister back to your question.
Senator AYRES: If there’s anything we can provide you in addition to that answer in relation to the relationship between connection fees—these things are very clear. We have just provided, for example, starting yesterday, three free hours of solar power, which are required to be produced for the 455,000 Australians who have solar panels on their roofs and have now got a home battery, who will pay zero in electricity costs because of the support of this government. These are not people in inner-city suburbs, I can tell you, but, overwhelmingly, people in the outer suburbs and in the regions of Australia, who are benefiting from low or zero cost and delivering benefit to the rest of the electricity system. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: Electricity feed-in tariffs—the price energy companies pay people for rooftop solar electricity fed into the grid—have fallen. Retailers pay 5c to 15c per kilowatt hour on new contracts while charging 25c to 45c for additional power plus $530 a year just for connection. Minister, did you deceive Australians into installing rooftop solar to save money when the benefit is being ripped away in increased connection charges and reduced feed-in tariffs?
Senator AYRES: Senator, I know that One Nation doesn’t like solar electricity. I know. Australians have benefited from this. Many, many households, pensioners and working Australians are benefiting from having solar on their home. Many hundreds of thousands of households are benefiting from batteries. Now, I know you don’t like it. I know One Nation doesn’t like it. I know you’ve led the National Party into not liking it—they don’t like it any more—and, of course, dragged the Liberal Party into this far-right vortex and into taking wilder and wilder positions that have got nothing to do with the experience of suburban and regional Australians who have benefited from solar on their roofs, benefited from batteries in their homes, benefited— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, why is your government deceiving everyday Australians, telling them electricity prices are falling when, owing to connection fees, electricity bills are actually rising and rising quickly?
Senator AYRES: It will be a source of disappointment. Every time Australia succeeds, it’s a source of heartache and misery over there, isn’t it? You feel sad when Australia does well.
We are making progress. There are 22 gigawatts of new generation capacity in the grid. Default market offer shows that the Albanese government’s work in this area, after a decade of disinvestment and decay in the electricity system—it was utterly irresponsible, what Mr Taylor did. He wrecked our fuel refineries. He wrecked our electricity system—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts on a point of order?
Senator Roberts: It is on relevance. Why are electricity bills rising? I didn’t ask about someone in the lower house.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I will draw the minister back to your question.
Senator AYRES: He wrecked our electricity system, wrecked our fuel refineries, didn’t invest in transmission—
The PRESIDENT: Minister Ayres.
Senator AYRES: and did more to damage Australian energy security—
Chief Financial Officer Mr Lyons of The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) stated that their total budget/revenue for 2026–27 is $723,346,000, which includes a capital component of $100,846,000. The exact expenditure figures for the current year are still in development.
The BOM’s budget has nearly doubled since 2017–18 (when it was under $400 million). What caused this “massive cost blowout?” What is the comparison of staff numbers between 2017–18 and the present?
As they did not have the historical figures on hand, they have taken the question on notice.
I then questioned BOM officials about an incident in South-East Queensland where a severe weather warning predicted up to 200–300 mm of rain (leading to local council flood activations), but only 30 mm actually fell in Brisbane. The BOM frequently over-forecast and their predictions are so often wrong.
Dr Minchin responded that rainfall forecasting is not a perfect science and involves significant uncertainties and probabilities. While acknowledging forecasts will sometimes be incorrect, she maintained that on average, the BOM is accurate.
I disagree! BOM data consistently overstates rainfall, so I asked if this was done deliberately to “perpetuate myths about climate.” Dr Minchin strongly denied this, while Michael Logan added that their probability forecasts are well-calibrated based on validation data.
I asked – why do farmers often find third-party services like Weatherzone to be more accurate? Are BOM’s algorithms leaning towards predicting hotter and drier conditions?
Dr Minchin again defended the BOM’s accuracy, explaining that third-party providers simply package and present data differently to suit diverse user preferences. They said that the Bureau freely shares its data with partners like Weatherzone.
The BOM is filtering its forecasts through an ideological lens, and this is costing farmers money and the economy food production.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. Please confirm your expenditure for 2025-26, which would include operating expense, special purpose allocations, your own revenue and capital expenditure. What is it?
Dr Minchin: I will pass to Astrid Heward, my chief operating officer, to answer that question for you.
Ms Heward: Can you repeat the items that you were looking for?
Senator ROBERTS: What you spent totally—operating expense, special purpose allocations, own revenue and capital expenditure.
Ms Heward: I’m actually going to call the chief financial officer up for this one.
Mr Lyons: In the recently published public benefit statements in the May budget, the overall revenue for the bureau will be $753 million. That makes up both our operating and capital components. The actual expenditure for this year is still in development. That’s our revenue that we’re working towards for both. Capital is $100,846,000.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the budget for 2026-27?
Mr Lyons: Sorry, that’s the 2026-27.
Senator ROBERTS: What the total amount for budget?
Mr Lyons: It is $723,346,00.
Senator ROBERTS: In 2017-18, your budget was under $400 million. Now it’s $723 million. What’s causing the massive cost blowout in the Bureau of Meteorology. Why? I’ll ask another question. How many staff did you have in 2017-18, and how many now?
Ms Heward: We’d have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: You don’t know?
Ms Heward: We don’t have the 2017 and 2018 figures in front of us, I’m sorry.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s one of the key figures. Has anyone been fired for wasting $96 million of taxpayer money?
Dr Minchin: We don’t believe $96 million was wasted, so no-one has been fired.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on. In February, the BOM predicted—the Bureau of Meteorology has defended its warnings—a weekend deluge in Queensland, leading local councils to activate major flood response measures, only for as little as 30 millimetres of rain to fall. Meteorologist Angus Hines said on Thursday: … some of those higher-end numbers could certainly exceed 200mm, but I wouldn’t rule out one or two locations getting 300mm in the next few days … Brisbane ultimately measured just 30 millimetres of rain across the entire weekend, with the Sunshine Coast hinterland recording up to 60 millimetres. This is becoming a joke in South-East Queensland: ‘catastrophic floods imminent’, and we get 30 millimetres. How did the forecast get it so wrong and how does it happen so often?
Dr Minchin: I think one of the challenges that we have with perceptions in the community is that people think that forecasting rainfall is a perfect science. It’s not. It comes with uncertainties—significant uncertainties. So, when we provide a forecast, we provide a range of probabilities, and we do our best to ensure that the public have the best information that they can rely on for their decision-making. There are always going to be times when our forecast is not correct. I want to be clear on that: there will always be times when our forecast is not correct, but, on average, we will get it right.
Senator ROBERTS: I have this graph, from the BOM website, I believe, on ‘rainfall range reliability’. You repeatedly overstate the rain—repeatedly. If it were natural variation, some would be below, some would be above. This is repeatedly overstated. Is that to perpetuate myths about climate, because of our water shortage?
Dr Minchin: Absolutely not. We have a rigorous program of assessing the accuracy of our forecasts, and I’ve asked Michael Logan, who’s a general manager in our forecasting area, to provide a little bit more explanation of the validation that we do for the accuracy of our forecasts.
Mr Logan: That’s correct—that is posted on our website, and we are talking about the probability forecasts for rainfall and the rainfall ranges that we do provide on there. We are finding that we are honing those, over the years, as they go on. For example, when we looked at the last financial year and the probabilities for the next day rainfall, when the bureau forecasts indicated a 25 per cent, 50 per cent or 75 per cent chance of exceeding a certain amount of rainfall, observations showed that that forecast rainfall was exceeded 19 per cent, 49 per cent and 80 per cent of the time, respectively. So the forecasts are pretty well calibrated, but we are absolutely constantly working to make sure that they are as calibrated as we can possibly get them, and, over time, we’re focusing on making sure that is for the higher end rainfall. But all rainfall is very important.
Senator ROBERTS: Last question, Chair; I’ll put the rest on notice. I still don’t have an explanation for why farmers tell me Weatherzone is more accurate than the BOM—when they take your data, then reanalyse it themselves. Is there something in your algorithms that leans towards predicting hotter and drier conditions than Weatherzone do? Elders Weather actually adds Weatherzone data to their own rural stations, to produce accurate forecasts in the bush—more accurate than yours. Have you thought of licensing Elders’ own station data to make your data more accurate?
Dr Minchin: There is no doubt that there are a range of different ways that the Australian public, including farmers, can access weather data, not just from the bureau’s forecasts. We stand by our accuracy, as has been identified by Michael, about the way that we assess that. There is always the ability for other providers to package data in a way that is more accessible to different audiences, and we encourage that third-party engagement. We provide our data to partners like Weatherzone to ensure that they’re able to deliver to their audiences the information that they want. That’s not a reflection of our accuracy or lack of accuracy. This is about different preferences. The challenge we have is that we have 28 million customers in Australia and they all have slightly different preferences for how they want to receive their weather information. We are trying our best to meet all of those needs at all times. The farming sector is a key sector for us that we treat very seriously, and we try and get our information as correct as we can through that process.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/lkNXP_ZQvTQ/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-10-13 11:59:122026-10-13 11:59:15Public Trust in the BOM Is Fraying!
While I acknowledge Senator Whish-Wilson’s passion and past efforts against environmental waste, and while I agree that we need to control excessive packaging, this bill is simply not the answer.
This Bill will force Australia’s National Packaging Targets to be compulsory, replacing state rules with a heavy, uniform Commonwealth-led framework.
It introduces producer-funded fees and financial penalties based on packaging weight and materials. Ultimately, everything coming in a package will go up in price, driving more inflation and reducing wealth for everyday Australians.
The bill also contains an extremely complicated formula for calculating the level of recycling which will quite simply drive small and medium business crazy, requiring the additional expense of a dedicated consultant.
The revenue funds a circular economy, which is code for everyday Australians never owning anything new while the wealthy simply pay the penalty.
One Nation opposes this bill – which will impose a very high cost on business and consumers for a very small and unproven reward. It’s another prime example of the excessive green tape that strangles our society.
Transcript
I thank Senator Whish-Wilson for his bill, the Extended Producer Responsibility Scheme for Packaging (No Time to Waste) Bill 2026. I acknowledge Senator Whish-Wilson’s passion for reducing environmental waste and his efforts, which resulted in a ban on Australia exporting recycling waste to Third World countries where it was picked over and then in some cases dumped into rivers which took the rubbish out to sea. Australian waste was partially responsible for the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.
I do agree there’s a need to control waste from excessive packaging. This bill, though, is not the answer. The purpose of this bill is to provide for the government of the Commonwealth to establish a uniform national Extended Producer Responsibility, an EPR, a scheme for packaging through a legislative instrument. The Extended Producer Responsibility scheme would place a direct and legally binding obligation on producers, importers or distributors of packaging for the end-of-life management of the packaging they place onto the Australian market. This bill would see Australia’s National Packaging Targets made mandatory and legally binding. The bill would cumulatively serve to meet the intent of reducing demand for virgin plastic, preventing plastic waste, supporting the economy, increasing recycling and resource recovery rates, as well as reducing emissions and better protecting the Australian environment. These are represented in the National Packaging Targets, which in this context are as follows. The scheme enforces benchmarks for 100 per cent reusable, recyclable or compostable packaging alongside a 70 per cent plastic recycling rate and 50 per cent recycled content. Currently, this is voluntary. This bill would make it mandatory—compulsory. The law applies a strict nationwide mandate to anyone defined as a ‘responsible person’, which covers commercial manufacturers, importers and distributors of packaging. Businesses can no longer opt out or ignore recycling targets. It replaces fragmented state rules with a single, uniform, Commonwealth-led framework. The core economic driver of the scheme is a producer funded fee structure. Companies pay levies based on the type and total weight of the packaging they introduce into the Australian market. Hard-to-recycle materials, composite plastics and virgin plastics face heavy financial penalties. Levies are heavily discounted—that’s ‘eco-modulated’, to use their term—for businesses using highly recyclable materials or high percentages of local recycled content. Modulated!
Now the part which is typical of the Greens, sadly, taking the kernel of a good idea and taking it so far it becomes intolerable. I’m talking about their bill’s lifecycle data tracking. The scheme requires transparent continuous data reporting into an independent national tracking system. Companies must log exact material weights, chemical composition and supply volumes. I’ll say that again: companies must log exact material weights, chemical composition and supply volumes. This data is used to calculate their exact financial obligations and verify whether they’re meeting the mandatory 2030 recycling targets. The revenue collected from producer levies forms a dedicated stable funding stream explicitly earmarked to build up Australia’s circular economy. Now, the phrase ‘circular economy’ is code for everyday Australians never owning anything new. The wealthy will be able to pay the price penalty for new products; everyday Australians will not.
The elitism of the concept of circular economy sits poorly with One Nation’s approach of advancing the lives of everyday Australians. It does seem typical, sadly, of the inner-city Greens, though, marketing themselves as the party of the disenfranchised while bills like this will serve to weigh down the economy, reduce productivity and reduce opportunity for the very people the Greens pretend to represent. This bill will impose a very high cost on business and consumers for a very small and unproven reward for the environment. Everything that comes in a package will go up in price. More inflation, higher prices, less wealth for everyone. This bill, especially its compulsory nature, onerous reporting conditions and cost, is what One Nation means when we talk about excessive green tape. One Nation opposes green tape strangling our society. One Nation opposes this bill.
I strongly supported Senator Colbeck’s motion regarding the sale of Rushy Lagoon, Tasmania’s largest agricultural property.
The Albanese Labor government, through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, used $69 million of YOUR money (nearly half of the $142 million purchase price) alongside foreign investment firms to price local farmers out of the market. The new owners, Tasmania Natural Asset Trust (TNAT), plan to destroy 9,000 hectares of prime dairy and beef land to plant 12 million pine trees for “carbon credits”.
Rushy Lagoon was a thriving property with a rich history of agricultural production, including the Ringarooma River irrigation pipeline, supporting 30,000 head of livestock, dairy operations, and grain and potato storage.
The government provided an additional $8.8 million grant to help turn prime food-producing land into a timber plantation, all to generate carbon dioxide credits and woodchips.
This project sacrifices regional communities and food security for city-centric climate ideology. The promised jobs are mostly short-term, while real breadwinner jobs are 25 to 30 years away.
Australia already has 1.6 million hectares of timber plantations. The real crisis in the timber industry is driven by soaring energy bills caused by net-zero policies, red tape and intrusive bureaucracy.
This purchase is part of a broader ideological war on red meat, dairy and farming, compounded by water policies destroying agricultural productivity.
With 99% of the local community opposing the sale, One Nation will do everything in its power to unwind this deal and ensure Australia’s best farmland is returned to food production.
One Nation will bring this “green” agenda to a halt on day one of our government.
Transcript
I thank Senator Colbeck for his motion, which One Nation strongly supports. Rushy Lagoon is Tasmania’s largest agricultural property, covering 21,745 hectares in the north-east of Tassie. The property sold recently for $142 million, with settlement due last week. The new owner is a special-purpose vehicle called Tasmania Natural Asset Trust, TNAT, with three shareholders. The federal government, through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, contributed $69 million—almost half. This is taxpayer money, not government money. The remaining $73 million came from UK investment companies Gresham House and Aviva Investors. The latter has BlackRock as its largest shareholder.
The previous owners were New Zealand’s Pye family, who held the property for 30 years. In that time, the Pye family built the Ringarooma River irrigation pipeline, which, with dams and 11 centre pivots, provided irrigated cropping across 1,100 hectares. What an amazing achievement. This supported a massive dairy operation, with two automated milking parlours and substantial storage vats. The shearing sheds and stockyards supported 30,000 head of livestock. Improvements included grain and potato storage sheds to feed the world. The property has a main homestead and workers cottages. In short, until the Albanese Labor government got its dirty hands on Rushy station, the property was actively involved in growing food to feed Australia and the world with foresight and ingenuity.
This sale is a perfect example of the Albanese government hollowing out the bush, including by covering prime farmland with industrial solar and wind installations, transmission lines and, in this case, pine plantations. For those who don’t know—I learned this recently—nothing native grows under pine. Over the next five years, the new owners plan to plant roughly 12 million radiata pine seedlings across 9,000 hectares of the farm to generate an estimated 3.2 million carbon dioxide credit units—try eating them!—each production cycle.
There it is. This ideology driven, delusional, dishonest Labor government is turning Tasmania’s largest agricultural producer into a subsidised farm for carbon dioxide credits. In case the government wants to pretend this was nothing to do with them, the Albanese government provided an $8.8 million grant under the Support Plantation Establishment program before the land sale had been approved by the Foreign Investment Review Board. It was a taxpayer funded grant. Turning productive farmland into a timber plantation was planned and financed through deliberate Albanese government policy. Taxpayer money is being used to destroy productive farmland. It is a measure in part justified through the timber production, which will eventually be used for housing, so they say, which could happen in 25 to 30 years time when the trees are ready for harvest. That’s not going to help the people sleeping in cars, sleeping under bridges, sleeping in tents and sleeping in caravans right around Australia because of this government’s policies. Given the miserable performance of this Albanese government in providing for the housing industry, we might still need the timber in 30 years time.
By the way, those jobs Labor is claiming will be created are largely short-term jobs ripping out 100 years of farm improvements and then planting seedlings. That’s it. The real, breadwinner jobs will occur during harvesting, and those jobs will be 25 to 30 years away. The local community will not survive until then, but Labor and the Greens don’t care about that. This agenda is about sacrificing the bush to win votes in the city. It’s about sacrificing the regions, which feed Australia, which are crucial for the income of this country, to satisfy the city. Until the trees are mature, all the Tasmania Natural Asset Trust will produce is woodchips, most likely to be burnt for electricity to earn Albanese government issued large-scale generation certificates.
Let’s review it so far. The Labor government spent $69.9 million to force the price of Tasmania’s largest agricultural producer so high that local farmers could not afford to buy it. It knocked them out of the market. Then they spent another $8.8 million to encourage the new owners to grow timber, not food. Then they will spend more taxpayer money giving certificates for woodchipping those trees and in turn burning them for power. This is insane. Under this arrangement, the government is giving money to itself and destroying our best farmland and productivity in the process.
The truth is that Australia does not need this timber. According to ABARES, there are already 271,000 hectares of timber plantation in Tassie alone, part of 1.6 million hectares of timber plantation right around Australia. Nine thousand hectares of timber going into the national estate of 1.6 million hectares is not going to make any difference to timber supply. This is a lie. If the government were serious about increasing our plantation area, it would look to the 800,000 hectares of native plantation forests that have recently been locked up to prevent logging, despite there being seven million hectares of suitable forests. It just gets worse and worse.
Logging has never taken a large percentage of the national timber estate—just 10 per cent—and logging does not destroy those forests. They remain habitat for native fauna and flora because they’re selective. Of course, this does not include old-growth forests, which One Nation would protect. I note the Greens and the Labor Party are actively clear-felling old-growth forests for industrial wind and solar installations and the related access roads and transmission lines, yet non-destructive logging is the problem, so they say. The real reason Australia’s timber supply is falling is that timber mills can’t pay their power and energy bills. Net zero power costs and intrusive bureaucracy are killing our precious timber industry. One Nation will lower power prices—we’ve given you the policies—remove the red tape, remove the green tape and remove the blue UN tape and encourage the Australian timber industry and the jobs it creates. We want jobs now, not in 30 years.
Rushy Lagoon is about hollowing out the bush and hollowing out the regions. It’s about this Albanese government’s ideological war on red meat and dairy in the name of saving the planet from nature’s harmless trace atmospheric gas, carbon dioxide. Importantly, the war on cows is based on supposed science that is fundamentally wrong. The methane cycle has no impact on the environment. It’s a closed loop. A more important question is this: what are people going to eat if this Labor government continually destroys Australia’s agricultural capability? Only last week, SunRice laid off 78 workers in the Deniliquin and Leeton food processing plants because this government is knowingly, deliberately, deceitfully taking irrigation water off farmers and sending it out to sea. Listen to this: last year, over 4,000 gigalitres of water were sent out to sea against a basin plan target of 2,000 gigalitres—double the target wasted into the ocean. Why? It was so irrigators could not use the water to grow food and fibre to feed and clothe the world. Go for it, Labor! You’re destroying farming in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia.
Labor is just one part of the uniparty. The other part of the uniparty, the Liberal-Nationals coalition, introduced the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in their 2007 Water Act, which has a list of aims for the act, one of which is to enforce international agreements. What the hell is that doing in our water act? Farming industry body TasFarmers strongly condemned the buyout of Rushy Lagoon, calling it a ‘disgraceful outcome’ that locks up prime dairy and beef country into a ‘monoculture pine plantation’. They nailed it on both. It is just so they can ‘tick a carbon abatement box’. A TasFarmers survey revealed that 99 per cent of local community respondents oppose the sale—99 per cent. For this reason, the new owners are now talking about undertaking ecotourism and community projects to moderate the fallout, and the state Liberal government is now holding an inquiry into its own stupid decision to allow the purchase. I mean, this is farcical. One Nation will do everything in its power to unwind this deal and ensure Australia’s best farmland is devoted to food production—to food.
Australia’s farmers have had enough of the Liberal-Labor-Greens war on the bush in the name of saving the environment, killing the environment in the name of saving the planet. One Nation will bring this agenda to a halt on day one of our government.
