Recently in Parliament, Prime Minister Albanese tried to ridicule me, saying “Senator Roberts thinks that build to rent is part of the World Economic Forum’s agenda”‘ before calling it ‘a conspiracy theory. It reminded me of Gandhi’s quote: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
After One Nation doubled our Senate representation, it seems the PM has moved from ignoring to ridiculing — and in doing so, he engaged in misinformation.
Let’s be clear: the WEF’s push to end single-family homeownership is real. Their “you’ll own nothing and be happy” slogan isn’t a conspiracy—it’s a stated goal. The Albanese government’s nature-positive plan borrows heavily from WEF’s SUB (sustainable urban policy), after meeting with the new WEF co-chair Larry Fink of BlackRock.
Everyday Australians—especially our hardworking farmers—are being ignored while billionaires get the PM’s attention. No wonder he was booed at the Bendigo bush summit and chased out of town by farmers on tractors.
Labor is no longer the party of the worker. It’s the party of predatory billionaires destroying our country for profit, power and control. We’re going to need more tractors.
Transcript
There’s a quote from Gandhi which reads: ‘First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.’ I was reminded of that quote last Thursday when Prime Minister Albanese said of me in the House of Representatives: ‘Senator Roberts thinks that build to rent is part of the World Economic Forum’s agenda’—cue the spooky music— before calling this ‘a conspiracy theory’. Now, I can understand, after One Nation doubled our senators in the last election, why the Prime Minister would feel the need to move from ignore to ridicule. In trying to engage in ridicule, the Prime Minister only managed to engage in misinformation.
The truth is the World Economic Forum opinion leader, who originated their mission statement ‘You’ll own nothing and be happy’, is the same person who used the stage at the annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos to call for an end to single-family homeownership. Danish politician Ida Auken advanced his idea as part of the West’s sustainable urban policy, or SUB—as in subhuman. SUB is where the Albanese government took the name and many elements of its nature-positive plan, after meeting with the new World Economic Forum co-chair, BlackRock’s Larry Fink. Our Prime Minister should really be better informed on WEF’s evil agenda—or perhaps he is informed.
One thing’s clear: the world’s predatory billionaires have no trouble getting time with our Prime Minister. The people who can’t are everyday Australians, including our hardworking farmers who put food on our table and who we need more than ever to feed the millions of new Labor arrivals—our farmers who contributed $72 billion in exports last year to feed and clothe the world. No wonder the Prime Minister was booed and heckled while on stage at last week’s Bendigo bush summit and then filmed being chased out of town in the company of farmers on tractors.
Labor is no longer the party of the worker. It’s the party of predatory billionaires destroying our country for profit, power and control. We’re going to need more tractors.
One of the most fundamental duties of a senator is to scrutinise the government — not just its words, but its actions. That means asking tough questions about how public money is spent, and demanding transparency when answers are withheld.
Let’s be clear: there is no such thing as “government money.”
Every dollar the government spends comes from taxpayers — from you, from your family, from every working Australian. Yet time and again, ministers dodge this truth. When asked directly, Minister Walsh couldn’t even say the word “taxpayer.” Instead, she danced around the issue, talking about “revenues” and “costed policies.” But the reality remains: it’s your money. And what’s happening with it? Billions of dollars are being funnelled into subsidies and climate schemes with no parliamentary scrutiny.
The government even refused to answer questions about an alleged fund linked to former Prime Minister Julia Gillard. I made no accusations – I just asked questions – yet the government doesn’t want those questions asked. This secrecy is becoming a pattern. Whether it’s Housing Australia or climate targets, Labor refuses to disclose where taxpayer money is going.
Meanwhile, the push for net zero continues — a policy introduced by the Liberals and Nationals – costing Australians billions. There’s no detailed plan, no milestones, no way to measure progress. Even the CSIRO can’t quantify the impact of human carbon dioxide on the climate.
So, what are we paying for? Australians deserve better. We deserve transparency. We deserve respect. And above all, we deserve to know how our hard-earned money is being spent.
https://youtu.be/nWGyg9fpVfk
Transcript
I rise to take note of Minister Ayres’s comment. One of the most fundamental parts of a senator ‘s job is to review and scrutinise the government. That’s why I support almost every single order for the production of documents, regardless of who moves it. Most importantly, scrutinising the government means scrutinising how the government is spending money—and, by the way, scrutinising the impacts of government policy on the national economy and on individual Australians is part of scrutiny of government.
To build back on the first point, scrutinising how the government is spending our money: the government forgets that what it spends isn’t the government’s money; it’s taxpayer money. Minister Walsh recently couldn’t utter the word ‘taxpayers’. I asked her what government money was. She said it is about revenues and that the policy was fully costed. She twisted and turned and gave me several other answers, but she could not utter the words ‘taxpayers’ money’. There is no such thing as government money. It is all taxpayer money. As taxpayers, we all pay taxpayer money. It is Australians’ money.
Last week I spoke in the Senate about Minister Bowen taking subsidies, completely away from parliamentary scrutiny. It was a cosy little deal worth billions of dollars. I mentioned a potential deal with a fund taken over by Julia Gillard, the former Labor prime minister. I made no imputations. I’m just saying we need to have a look at that data. The government is hiding, hiding, hiding and stopping scrutiny, stopping us from doing our jobs, which is a theme for this government. Too often the government is willing to waste hard-earned tax dollars. The minister has just been hauled in front of the Senate to explain because the government refused to answer where they’re spending taxpayer money. This is the second—we’ve just had discussions about Housing Australia—and the government has refused again. This secretive Labor government refuses to tell Australians where it’s spending its taxpayer money. Why the secrecy? Why the hiding? It’s not your money. It’s the Australians’ money. It’s because you don’t want Australians to know that you don’t treat taxpayer money with respect.
Now we come to the second motion that Labor is trying to keep secret, on climate targets. There’s a backstory here that shows how incoherent the Liberals and the Nationals are. The motion is from the Liberal-National coalition asking the government to hand over documents in relation to the Climate Change Authority and their targets. Australians hear all the time that the Liberals and the Nationals want to ditch net zero, yet here’s a motion that the Liberal-National coalition pursues that’s criticising the government for not putting out information on net zero targets. This is insane. It’s almost as insane as the net zero pipedream.
While the Liberals and the Nationals spin their wheels and try to figure out which way the wind is blowing, One Nation is clear. On this motion, One Nation says to the government, we’re not bothered about you handing over your net zero targets. We say, don’t bother pursuing net zero at all. All of these billions of dollars amounting to trillions of dollars and efforts to keep things secret are a waste of time and money. Every minute you spend making climate targets, bogging businesses down in green and blue tape and hamstringing our productive capacity harms the country. Give it up, government, and start putting Australians first.
Remember that the Liberals and the Nationals introduced every major climate and energy policy, including net zero. You did it. That Liberal prime minister Scott Morrison introduced net zero after breaking his election promise to not pursue net zero. What about the government spending trillions on net zero without a detailed project plan—no milestones, no measures of progress, just leading Australia towards an economic cliff blindfolded. Worse, net zero is taking Australia to energy ruin without any policy basis. The CSIRO have never specified—and I’ve asked them repeatedly in personal sessions and in Senate estimates—the specific, quantified effect of human carbon dioxide on the climate. Without that, you can’t have a policy. Thus there’s no basis for policy cutting human carbon dioxide. That’s why there’s no way of measuring the progress of implementing climate and energy policies. That’s why you’ve got to keep it secret. That’s why you’ve got to hide it. I’ll continue my remarks on this topic in the future.
It was a pleasure to speak at an “Australians for Better Government” event on the Gold Coast, where we discussed Australia’s political future.
At the end, I got a warm standing ovation — clearly what I shared struck a chord with everyone there.
Note: This is a re-record of my original speech.
Transcript
Love. Care. Reason. Traits unique to our human species. Everyone in this room is proof humans care. We survived years of infancy and childhood when completely dependent.
Thank you to Australians for Better Government, organisers, speakers, audience, viewers, my wife Christine and Pauline who is the only politician who didn’t run from my climate work and instead came to me.
I’m excited. This is about restoring human potential and progress.
I’m proud to be here because we all have pride in our country. WE ALL want OUR country to be much better.
I’ll clarify my speech’s goal for you. The one thing I want everyone to remember is: why I detest most politicians, yet love and admire humans.
This matters because it’s the key to restoring our country, lifestyle, standard of living.
The second thing I want everyone to remember is that we’re told the biggest purchase of our life is our house. That’s wrong – taxes, fees and levies make our biggest purchase government.
Are we getting value?
The direct cost of government is taxes. The direct cost of government waste is excessive taxes. The INDIRECT cost of government is failed or destructive policies choking productive capacity, driving waste, killing initiative.
120 years ago, our country had the world’s highest per capita income. What the hell happened?
I’ll share what I’ve done for 18 yrs on a key issue – climate fraud – in the senate and before the senate.
Starting in 2007, I worked voluntarily for nine years researching climate science – pursuing Empirical Data in Logical Points to understand Cause-And-Effect. Thank you, Christine. Then, I researched the corruption of climate science leading to the UN. And to drivers behind the UN’s climate politics – the World Bank, IMF, World Economic Forum, global banks, global wealth funds like BlackRock.
Then to motives. And to beneficiaries. Stealing money from Taxpayers.
I held people accountable – politicians, journalists, academics, agencies.
For another nine years from 2016, as a senator I held organisations and ministers accountable – climate and energy agencies, departments. Using my initiative and Question Time, Senate Estimates, speeches, letters.
(I’m feeling vulnerable, anxious. Right shoulder and hand tremor. Look beyond it and pay attention to my words).
I’ve written a speech because I’ll be covering a lot of ground and want to respect your time.
So, what’s the core climate claim? Climate alarmists claim carbon dioxide from human use of hydrocarbon fuels – coal, oil and natural gas – and from farming animals for food, is raising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels – which they claim will raise temperature for catastrophic warming in some distant unspecified future.
That’s the basis for claimed solutions with devastating impacts on society:
Taxing and controlling farming and food – to stop raising animals, including stealing property rights to control land use and control citizens.
Taxing and controlling energy.
Pursuing UN Sustainable Development Goals to control every aspect of people’s lifestyle and life: what we eat, energy, travel, finances, homes.
All claimed to be based on science.
So, what’s science?
When done properly, science investigates and explains our physical world. Science is the systematic objective study of our physical world through observation, experimentation and testing of theories against the EMPIRICAL DATA. Hard data in LOGICAL POINTS proving CAUSE-AND-EFFECT. SCIENTIFIC PROOF needs Data in Logical Points proving Cause-And-Effect.
Graduate Engineers like I are trained in science because we apply science. We understand scientific proof because it prevents us killing people.
My science training includes geology and atmospheric gases – two of the most important topics of climate science.
To understand empirical data, we need to understand variation. There’s variation in everything. There are two broad types of variation:
Inherent natural variation
Process change
Plus, Cycles – some daily, others 150M years
Time frames are important. Daily variation in temperatures is huge. Seasonal variations can be large. Yet over a 30-year climate cycle temperature may be consistent.
So, let’s define the problem.
Every person, business, employer uses and relies on electricity, petrol, diesel – at home. And at work. Australia has gone from having the most affordable power to having one of the world’s highest power prices.
The key to global competitive advantage is having the lowest power price.
China uses our coal to generate electricity for 12 cents per Kilowatt Hour [8 c/KWh]. We pay 26 to 33 cents per Kilowatt Hour.
Consider Parliament
From 1996 to 2007, John Howard’s Liberal-National government committed to comply with the UN Kyoto Protocol introducing HIS solar and windRenewable Energy Target, HIS National Electricity Market that’s really a National Bureaucratic Racket, stealing farmer’s property rights, and being the first major party to promise a Carbon Dioxide TAX policy.
All claimed to be based on “climate science”.
Yet 6 years later, in 2013, Howard admitted in distant London that “on climate he is agnostic”. HE DID NOT HAVE THE SCIENCE.
Since then, the LNP introduced every major climate and energy policy. Labor then accelerated each.
As a senator, I wrote letters to 10 Members of Parliament. All confirmed in writing they had NEVER been given scientific proof.
I wrote letters to another 19 senators who advocate cutting carbon dioxide from human activity. Four replied. NONE provided scientific proof.
The Greens and others refused to debate me – Larissa Waters in 2010, in 2016, and repeatedly from 2019.
Waters is a lawyer and makes many false and unsubstantiated claims, and misrepresents climate. She’s never provided scientific proof.
Members of Parliament like David Pocock show no understanding of science. His donors include Climate 200 with huge conflicts of interest.
They invoke so-called “experts” and other logical fallacies. They use emotion especially fear and catchy slogans. They have no scientific proof. Greens repeatedly lie, misrepresent, and sideline science with personal attacks.
From 2007 to 2016, I sent hundreds of Registered Post letters to Ministers and politicians. Most MP’s don’t know what’s science. Others lie. Others are cowed, gutless.
Why? Let’s see why they never present scientific proof.
CSIRO and What it Calls Climate “Science”
My 2013 Freedom Of Information request revealed that no CSIRO Chief Executive had sent a climate report to any MPs, Ministers, parliament.
My 2013 Letter to the CSIRO Chief Executive and to the head of CSIRO’s climate team produced no scientific proof. And their replies were evasive.
In 2016 in the senate, my first actionrequested CSIRO’s Climate team to provide scientific proof that human carbon dioxide needs to be cut.
At CSIRO’s first three-hour presentation to me, CSIRO’s climate chief stated – CSIRO has NEVER said that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger.
He said, quote: “Determination of danger is a matter for public and politicians”. Yet politicians say it’s a danger. And say the CSIRO advised them.
CSIRO acknowledged to me the need for empirical data as scientific proof – yet failed to prove that human carbon dioxide causes climate change.
CSIRO admitted it lacks empirical data in logical scientific proof. Instead of physical data, CSIRO relied on unvalidated, erroneous computer models.
After 50 years of so-called research, CSIRO presented just ONE paper on temperature: Marcott, 2013. CSIRO used it to claim today’s temperatures are unprecedented. Yet Marcott himself had previously admitted his paper’s twentieth century temperatures are NOT robust and are NOT representative of global temperature.
CSIRO’s temperature graphs were all over the place. Some showed the 1998 El Nino peak which in other graphs disappeared.
On carbon dioxide, CSIRO presented just ONE paper: Harries, 2001. It did NOT support CSIRO’s claim of unprecedented levels of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. We made CSIRO aware of the paper’s flaws that made it unscientific and statistically invalid. CSIRO admitted NOT doing due diligence on reports. Nor on external data.
At CSIRO’s second three-hour presentation, CSIRO confirmed today’s temps are NOT unprecedented.
CSIRO presented Lecavalier’s 2017 paper on temperatures, which our team showed is hopelessly flawed. CSIRO acknowledged that, effectively withdrawing it. And the authors withheld data from our scrutiny.
CSIRO presented a second paper on Carbon Dioxide: Feldman, 2015. It refutes Harries’ paper that CSIRO presented earlier. We showed CSIRO that Feldman’s paper is flawed. CSIRO acknowledged, effectively withdrawing it.
At CSIRO’s third presentation, CSIRO claimed RATES of temperature increase are unprecedented. Yet NASA satellites reveal temperatures are essentially flat and have now been flat for 30 years.
CSIRO presented five new references on temperatures. Some contradicted others. All were nonspecific. Scientifically useless. CSIRO never specified the effect of human carbon dioxide on climate. Thus, there’s no basis for policy cutting carbon dioxide.
We devoted eight hours listening to, and cross-examining CSIRO across three presentations with no scientific proof.
Internationally, 18 eminent scientists and statisticians confirmed CSIRO’s material is NOT adequate for policy.
CLEARLY CSIRO had never presented a climate report or presentation containing scientific proof. CLEARLY no one had held CSIRO accountable on climate – ever. Yet CSIRO Chief Executive is paid more than a million dollars per year.
Former CSIRO Chief Executive Dr Megan Clark was on two banks’ Advisory Boards – Bank Of America Merrill Lynch and Rothschilds Australia, both seeking windfall profits from Carbon Dioxide Trading.
Conflicts of interest?
At Senate Estimates hearings, CSIRO has never presented scientific proof for Australia’s climate and energy policies. We need a real scientific debate that CSIRO and parliament avoided.
Bureau of Meteorology (BOM)
My 2013 Freedom Of Information request revealed that BOM sent 17 documents to MP’s and Ministers. Many were just one-page broad, general UN updates. None contained scientific proof.
My 2013 letters to BOM executives produced no scientific proof and whose replies instead unscientifically claimed a consensus.
BOM has been exposed for tampering with temperature data. Repeatedly. Example – temperatures at Rutherglen weather station in Victoria were changed from a long-term cooling trend to concocting a warming trend. And many other weather stations. Other temperature data adjustments have been made under the label “Homogenisation“. With no audit. Fabricating warming.
BOM displays omitthe 1880’s/1890’s that were significantly warmer than today. Heatwaves back then were longer, hotter and more frequent. BOM’s not aware of many station Meta data errors.
In Senate Estimates hearings BOM has never presented scientific proof nor any scientific basis for climate policy.
Australia’s Chief Scientist
In 2017, I organised a personal meeting with Chief Scientist Alan Finkel and Science Minister Arthur Sinodinos. After taking just a few questions Finkel admitted he does NOT understand climate science. Yet governments used him to publicly speak as if he’s a climate expert.
We then requested and he promised a four-hour presentation and discussion covering scientific proof and specific references. A date was agreed. Soon after he cancelled and failed to set a new date.
No Chief Scientist has provided scientific proof.
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on CC – UN IPCC
Both major parties, the Greens and Prime Ministers cite UN IPCC reports as the basis for climate policy. The UN has no scientific proof for its claims of warming and climate change. And no specific effect of cutting human carbon dioxide. Thus, the UN has no basis for climate and energy policies cutting human carbon dioxide.
The UN has no scientific basis for its temperature targets – initially fabricated at 2 degrees Celsius and later 1.5 degrees.
Both the UN IPCC Chair and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd claim 4,000 scientists said in the UN’s 2007 report that human carbon dioxide caused global warming. Yet the UN report’s own figures show only five UN reviewers endorsed the claim. And, there’s doubt they were scientists.
CSIRO is a major contributor to UN climate reports.
UN climate research excludes natural climate drivers. The UN defines “Climate Change” as studying only theories of man-made climate change. Ignoring and excluding natural drivers of climate.
The key graph driving the UN’s reports was the infamous “Hockey Stick” temperature graph scientifically proven to be fraudulent. Instead of scientific proof, UN reports rely on unvalidated, erroneous computer models. With outputs falsely labelled as “data”!
The UN told us that no UN report states carbon dioxide to be a pollutant. Because it’s not a pollutant, except in politicians’ speeches. UN Lead Authors rebelled against the UN’s corruption of climate science, yet the media did NOT report it. The UN, after initially hyping extreme weather to scare people globally, now projects no increase in so-called “Extreme weather” events.
The UN IPCC is a political entity pushing political goals.
The senior UN bureaucrat Maurice Strong fabricated both global warming, and later climate change. His stated life’s aims were to:
De-industrialise Western civilisation, and
Install an unelected socialist global government.
He said:
“humanity is the enemy.”
He was a co-founder and Director of the Chicago Climate Exchange seeking to make trillions of dollars from global trading of Carbon Dioxide Credits. American police sought Maurice Strong for crimes, and he went into self-exile in China, a major beneficiary of the west’s climate and energy policies.
UN senior climate bureaucrats like Figueres and Edenhofer admit the climate agenda is NOT about the environment. It’s about changing society and economics.
“a New World Economic Order”.
It’s all about control and wealth transfer from we the people to globalist corporations, investment funds, banks, aligned billionaires and the UN.
NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies G.I.S.S. (GISS)
Head of NASA-GISS climate group, Gavin Schmidt, admitted to me in writing that what GISS had previously claimed as four nations’ independent temperature graphs are NOT independent. All four used the same base data and each then made separate ”ADJUSTMENTS”. When I pointed out his accidental admission he stopped corresponding.
I held him accountable for NASA-GISS fabricating Iceland temperature records. Indeed, NASA-GISS has created temperature data in places where it’s NOT measured.
NASA executives, scientists and astronauts wrote a scathing letter to NASA’s head pleading with him to stop GISS from corrupting climate science.
NASA-GISS has never presented scientific proof that human carbon dioxide needs to be cut. Other agencies prominent in claiming or inferring that human carbon dioxide needs to be cut have never provided scientific proof.
ALL depend on government funding.
America’s National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration.
The British Meteorological Office’s Hadley Centre with its HadCRUT dataset – the basis for the UN climate report.
Australian Academy of Science – who I held accountable in writing.
Ross Garnaut’s 2008 Garnaut Review admits his influential report has no Scientific Proof. Despite his massive conflicts of interest, the Rudd government often used Garnaut’s review to justify climate & energy policies.
No university. No scientific society. No agency. No government. No journalist. No NGO – not Greenpeace, WWF, Climate 200. No celebrity. No company. No industry group. No politician anywhere has provided scientific proof.
Federal government energy agencies and departments currently crippling Australia’s energy grid have never provided scientific proof. Nor specific scientific basis for policy.
I conclude that some climate academics are really activists misrepresenting climate science while having substantial conflicts of interest, including being on government payrolls. In my view, these include Tim Flannery, Will Stefan, David Karoly, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Lesley Hughes, Kurt Lambeck, Matthew England, Andy Pitman and Stefan Lewandowsky.
Summary
Canadian Climatologist Professor Tim Ball, with 40 years holding alarmists accountable, said I’m the ONLY member of parliament or Congress anywhere in the world to hold a government climate agency, CSIRO accountable. Marc Morano confirmed. This is not said to brag. It shows that most western politicians and governments have gullibly swallowed or ignorantly supported climate fraud.
Across parliaments, politicians – like many people – bow to groupthink, party dictates and peer pressure to meet an ever-present need to belong.
Former senior American Senator James Inhofe was about to vote for a Carbon Dioxide Emissions Trading Scheme, as the basis for a global Carbon Dioxide Tax, when Morano showed him it’s part of UN Agenda 21 to lock up land across America. At the last minute, Inhofe stood up and rallied opposition. The American Senate rejected the scheme, and the world was spared the UN’s global Carbon Dioxide Tax.
All scary forecasts of climate catastrophes have failed. Polar ice caps, storms, Great Barrier Reef, polar bears. Yet here in Australia, the Greens, Labor, Liberals, Teals and Nationals say they rely on CSIRO, BOM, UN, NASA-GISS for climate and energy policies including the UN’s Paris Agreement and Net Zero.
What Does Nature Tell Us About Climate Variability?
Analysis of our 24,000 datasets worldwide show no process change in any climate factor. Just inherent natural variation. And, natural cycles.
The last 30 years of data from NASA satellites measuring atmospheric temperatures show no warming despite ever-increasing production of carbon dioxide from China, India, America, Russia, Europe, Brazil.
The longest temperature trend during industrialisation is 40 years of COOLING from the 1930’s through 1976.
Carbon dioxide is essential for all life on Earth and is classified as a trace gas because, at 0.04% of Earth’s atmosphere, there’s bugger all of it. Nature controls the carbon dioxide level, regardless of Humans, as major global recessions in 2009 and 2020 proved. And as shown in seasonal variation of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
Our atmosphere COOLS the land and ocean surfaces through conduction and convection, latent heat of evaporation and condensation and finally radiation. The atmosphere does NOT and CANNOT warm our Earth.
Natural drivers of climate variability include Galactic, Solar, Planetary, Earth’s surface topography, atmospheric, water vapour, oceanic, regional decadal cycles, biological, regional changes to vegetation, interactions.
Conclusion
Climate and energy scammers prey on people’s ignorance of variation to falsely portray natural variation as process CHANGE.
It’s NOT climate CHANGE. It’s natural climate VARIABILITY.
Alarmists are preying on people’s ignorance of Science.
In many people – especially politicians – Groupthink and peer pressure cripple reasoning. And override care.
There’s no need to worry about warmer climate. INSTEAD, worry about governance.
Application of Fraudulent Climate Claims
CSIRO’s fraudulent “GenCost” report grossly understates the cost of changing to Solar and Wind, the most expensive forms of energy generation.
CSIRO’s fraud is based on flawed assumptions about: sunk costs, interest/ discount rates, generator life expectancies, estimates of costs to build, unspecified firming costs, unknown pumped-hydro costs, …
The Liberal Labor Uniparty fail to closely scrutinise CSIRO’s GenCost report.
Solar and Wind consume enormous resources and energy during manufacture – making them expensive.
Eking energy from low-density sources makes them very expensive.
Plus, they return humanity to dependence on the vagaries of weather when promoters claim future increased weather variability.
They’re not suitable for an industrial economy such as Aluminium smelting.
Subsidies are essential and reduce national productivity and wealth creation making solar and wind parasitic.
Solar and Wind are reversing Human Progress.
There’s no scientific, economic, environmental, social, or moral case for Solar and Wind.
Who’s responsible?
Almost the whole parliament. And the federal bureaucracy.
They’re getting away with it because people are dumbed down on science. And have yet to feel the huge pain of higher electricity prices.
Members of Parliament avoid data and are not scientifically literate.
And on that is based the destruction of our economy, our country.
Other Governance Failures
The same people driving the lie about Nature’s trace atmospheric gas essential to all life on Earth, are driving other governance failures:
The Covid response across western nations.
Money and banks.
The tax system.
The Anti-Human scam: which I may discuss in more detail later
Summary
Every major problem is created in Canberra. Or is worsened there.
The core problem is that most politicians simply do not care, and are ignorant, dishonest, fraudulent, stupid or gutless.
Shoddy governance avoids or contradicts data. Instead, the Lib-Lab Uniparty uses emotion, fear, headlines, paybacks for donors and vested interests.
They justify theft from the people and cede sovereignty.
History shows government is prone to being a vehicle for transferring wealth.
How? Our constitution is armed to prevent this.
Pamela Meyer in her book “How to Spot a Liar” said, quote: “Lying is a cooperative act … Think about it, a lie has no power whatsoever by its mere utterance. Its power emerges when someone else agrees to believe the lie.”
The people have abdicated. We, the people unwittingly ceded our authority over parliament. THIS MATTERS BECAUSE IT’S THE KEY TO RESTORING OUR COUNTRY.
In Australian politics, love, care, reason and truth have been pushed aside for ego, betrayal and illogical contradiction of data.
Reason has given way to subtle control, theft, aggression and suppression.
Western politicians are reversing 170 years of remarkable human progress.
Our society, our western civilisation is in decline.
Politicians across many western parliaments have betrayed our species.
People Need:
Leadership that serves the people – based on solid data.
Freedom for personal enterprise with a small central government as Australia proved early last century. Instead, we now have less freedom than Eastern Europe and less enterprise than in China and Vietnam.
In current governance, what’s worth keeping?
Appreciation for what we have is important. Let’s keep what works.
In our Constitution the people are paramount – yet Australians are not active participants in democracy. Australians for Better Government says people should take the lead in restoring sound governance. I agree.Our constitution is not perfect, yet is largely fine.
The Senate is designed as a House of Review – yet political parties sidelined this role.
States are constitutionally responsible for most services. With that comes Competitive Federalism bringing choice and accountability. A marketplace in governance. That’s been derailed and led to an unaccountable bloated central government with the power of the purse.
Our constitution is based on Christian values – truth, freedom, respect, yet woke ideologies supplant these.
Australia has abundant resources – yet lacks leadership and vision.
Some Broad Solutions
Start with restoring compliance with our constitution. Shrink central government to fit the Constitution. Return to Competitive Federalism with states providing most government services. This will restore the marketplace in governance, essential for accountability. Enshrine free speech & Medical Rights in our constitution. Adopt Citizens Initiated Referendum to hold MP’s accountable.
Realise free humans are wonderful. The source of all enterprise and progress. Despite each of us being imperfect, remember that generally humans outside parliament do care – once we’re aware something needs action. Be pro-human. Proudly pro-human. My experience in Australia, India, America, China, Korea, Japan, Britain, Canada & other nations overwhelmingly proves that humans love to contribute when work is worthy. In meaningful work, people take responsibility and opportunity to contribute. When taking initiative to start a business, people need to share in the wealth created. Please awaken, stir and energise people to be active and to take charge.
Get government out of people’s way. Shrink the federal government. Bulldoze Canberra, a self-perpetuating, productivity-killing PARASITE. We need to get government back to enabling people to fulfil their potential.
SYSTEMS DRIVE BEHAVIOUR THAT IN TURN SHAPES ATTITUDES. We need to change governance systems to enable productive behaviours and culture.
Culture and leadership are the most powerful drivers of productivity, initiative, creativity, security.
Establish an Office of Scientific Integrity with public scrutiny of science on every policy claimed to be based on science.
We need to restore compliance with our constitution, reform our governance structure and systems and hold politicians accountable.
Australia needs real leadership. From leaders who CARE. And who want to do good, not just look good. Leaders with courage to make hard decisions and to communicate the benefits of those decisions in honest messaging that informs and excites people. Truthfully. Based on hard data.
It starts with we, the people. Since 2007 I’ve held MP’s, departments, agencies, academics, corporations and others accountable on climate. Because I detest politicians killing our country and stifling people.
We need to curtail politicians. And, we need to release the people. Freeing people to use our inherent personal enterprise.
We all want to restore our country.
I commend Australians for Better Government for your initiative.
The one thing I want everyone to remember is – why I detest most politicians, yet love and admire humans.
Instead of ego, betrayal and illogical contradiction of hard data, we need to change the governance and political SYSTEMS to restore Love, Care, Reason.
And truth.
To tap into human potential to restore human progress and abundance.
That’s OUR challenge. Restoring love, care and reason.
I dedicate this speech to Professor Tim Ball, Marc Morano, Tony Heller, my wife and family, all climate sceptics, all critical thinkers and to everyone here today.
Factors driving climate—the dynamic sun radiating to a dynamic earth FACT There appear to be hundreds, perhaps many hundreds of factors affecting global climate. These operate across many scales including the following partial list (with those likely most significant in italics):
Galactic – e.g. 150 million year cycle of our solar system passing through high cosmic wind radiation bands in our galaxy.
Solar system and sun – These are many, varied and appear highly significant for climate including variations in sun’s solar output; output of solar particles; sun’s magnetic field polarity and strength; Earth’s orbit; solar system’s centre-of-gravity; Earth’s axis tilt and precession; sun’s polarity; sun spot cycles; moon’s orbit.
Planetary – These appear to include Earth’s axis tilt; geotectonic and volcanic activity; many forms of energy including kinetic and magnetic; Earth’s polarity and movement of the poles; length of day; seasons of the year; volume of water in the global hydrological cycle; Earth’s geothermal heat flow; Earth’s interior heat source – vastly greater by many orders of magnitude than oceans as a heat sink.
Earth’s surface – e.g. topography; Earth’s surface temperatures; seasonal variations in temperature; fires; relative differentials between regions around the Earth’s surface, especially polar to tropical; photochemical -dynamical changes; sea ice; sea level; Earth’s internal constitution.
Atmospheric – e.g. variations in strength of Earth’s magnetic field – deflecting of photons; atmospheric water content; cloud cover; precipitation – rain, snow; variability in wind currents; lower and upper atmospheric temperatures and their relationships; natural aerosols (far outweigh human-made aerosols); ozone; natural mineral aerosols; atmospheric pressure; storm activity; auroral lights.
Oceanic – e.g. ocean temperature; salinity; currents; sea surface temperatures; iron content; Earth’s tides due to interaction of sun and moon.
Cyclic regional decadal circulation patterns such as North American Oscillation and the southern Pacific ocean’s El Nino together with their variation over time.
Biological – e.g. marine phytoplanckton producing natural aerosols like sea salt and dimethyl sulphide; enzyme action of microbes;
Nature’s large scale changes to vegetation.
Interactions – e.g. of wind currents and ocean currents; conversion of energy forms (eg, from sun’s e-m energy to cloud seeds); environmental processes involving the interaction of climate, biological and geological processes and, at times, extraterrestrial bombardment by meteorites; area of snow cover; heat content and transfers spatially and vertically around and within Earth; heat transfers between ocean and atmosphere and between land and atmosphere;
Water Vapour transfers spatially and vertically; release of volatiles at deep ocean vents.
Human – e.g. relatively tiny human production of aerosols (eg, soot); aircraft contrails; land use. Due to Earth’s relative enormity, the impact of human factors is restricted to local and occasionally regional.
Energy is about more than fuel; it is about freedom!
America is leading the fight against Climate Change fraud.
That’s fitting, considering a collection of charlatans, politicians, and paid-off scientific bodies birthed doomsday climate propaganda was birthed within American shores.
July brought good news!
The Climate Working Group in the US Department of Energy produced the document A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate.
Since Donald Trump took office, the US Department of Energy has been waging war against all things dodgy and ‘green’.
Critically, his Administration has cut off billions of dollars incentivising Australian companies to pursue Net Zero instead of critical energy infrastructure.
Americans are now talking about ‘unleashing US energy’, creating a ‘nuclear renaissance’, and – yes – drill, baby, drill!
The Climate Working Group responsible for the paper carry familiar names, many of them reformed from their days in the climate movement: John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer.
The title of the Secretary of Energy’s forward sets the scene: Energy, integrity, and the power of human potential.
He goes on to say:
‘The rise of human flourishing over the past two centuries is a story worth celebrating. Yet we are told – relentlessly – that the very energy systems that enabled this progress now pose an existential threat. Hydrocarbon-based fuels, the argument goes, must be rapidly abandoned or else we risk planetary ruin.
That view demands scrutiny.’
The US Department of Energy is on a quest to prove (or disprove) one of the most costly ‘assumptions’ in modern politics.
The Secretary adds that ‘media coverage often distorts the science’ and ‘many people walk away with a view of climate change that is exaggerated or incomplete’.
He picked a competent collection of scientists and says ‘readers may be surprised’ by the report’s conclusions – some of which I’ll share here.
‘That’s a sign of how far the public conversation has drifted from the science itself’.’
I have pulled out some of key findings from this report that I believe are most interesting.
These comments appear under their chapter headings so that you might further explore them in the report.
Here is what the Department of Energy had to say.
Part 1: Direct Human Influence on Ecosystems and the Climate
Carbon Dioxide as a Pollutant
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and fails to meet the criteria set out in the Clean Air Act (1970).
It has no toxicological effects in humans, is naturally occurring in the atmosphere, and key for life. In this way, it is remarkably similar to water vapour. The report confirms that a rise in CO2 promotes plant growth and while it may play a role as a greenhouse gas, how the planet responds to this is a ‘complex question’. ‘Brimstone and fire’ are not among the options…
Part 2: Direct Impacts of CO2 on the Environment
CO2 as a Contributor to Global Greening
The report confirms that CO2 enhances plant growth and that a ‘global greening’ is well-established on all continents. They refer to this as the Leaf Area Index which is measured with satellites. Greening has naturally mitigated any warming. Using modern fertilisers has helped with this process.
When the basic structure of modern plants evolved, there was an enormous amount of CO2 in the air. In one of the many studies done concerning raised CO2 levels, plants respond positively – becoming more water efficient. This changes the calculations for crop production, which should benefit.
This is important, because it challenges the view that rising CO2 will ‘exacerbate water scarcity’. Odds are, it will have the reverse effect.
The IPCC admits to this in its Special Reports, yet rarely discusses it.
Acidic Oceans?
While oceans absorbing CO2 become less alkaline, this trend is well-within historical norms and most ocean life evolved when the oceans were more acidic than today. The report points out that ‘ocean acidification’ is a misnomer and should be called ‘ocean neutralisation’ instead.
Life evolved when oceans were mildly acidic (pH 6.5-7.0). Today they are around pH 8.04.
This is where much of the discussion regarding The Great Barrier Reef comes in – a topic which ‘climate experts’ like to view as the canary in their apocalyptic coal mine.
The report references Peter Ridd’s fine work which includes a body of evidence that strongly suggests the media frenzy regarding a temporary reduction in coral was due to tropical cyclones, not ocean temperature. The bounce-back in growth would seem to confirm this assumption.
It is within the topic of The Great Barrier Reef that the American report calls out political bias and publication bias in the published research. This is alarming. It speaks to the untrustworthiness of government funding and scientific bodies that may be feeding off the ‘climate change’ fear mongering.
Part 3. Human Influences on the Climate
Components of radiative forcing and their history
There is a long discussion here about how the United Nations’ climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, downplays the natural effects of solar radiation – long known to be the primary driver of climate. The UN IPCC’s disproportionate and incorrect thinking has then been imported into government and industry through UN-approved ideology and goals.
In other words, the IPCC’s many serious mistakes and assumptions have filtered through into the ‘global consensus’. This is very concerning.
While the report makes clear that humans, like all animals, are capable of changing the composition of the atmosphere, it does not follow that a catastrophe looms.
Something we very rarely hear our Minister for Climate Change and Energy discuss, for example, is the impact of aerosols which have a cooling effect.
‘Although the IPCC does not claim its emission scenarios are forecasts, they are often treated as such.’
The report notes something that the IPCC’s doomsday predictions often omit, and that is the changing nature of the Carbon Cycle.
Scientists already know that there is a ‘greening effect’ happening across the planet, and if this continues, the absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere will naturally accelerate thanks to hungry plants. This impacts the forecast for atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and yet it is almost always ignored.
Part 4. Climate Sensitivity to CO2 Forcing
Essentially, this is where the report attempts to ask the question our government should have tabled at the start: ‘How will the climate respond to CO2?’
Destroying capitalism, democracy, and the modern age doesn’t seem to be a recommendation of the report…
As the US Department of Energy X account wrote, ‘Energy is about more than fuel; it is about FREEDOM!’
Simply put, are the climate models that are being used to reshape our civilisation, actually any good?
It is an extremely long, detailed, and technical chapter and the short answer is: ‘No.’
Part 5. Discrepancies between Models and Instrumental Observations
This is a continuation of the above topic, with specific examples on where climate models have shown distinct ‘warming’ biases.
We’ve been told to ‘trust the science’ but what we’re actually being asked to ‘trust’ is an environment of failed modelling from unvalidated and erroneous computer models.
The detail of this is interesting, and the ramifications are frightening.
We are being led to believe that successive governments scuttled Australia’s future based upon climate models that have consistently proven themselves to be wrong. One would hope that the energy grid was torn up for better reasons…
‘Problems with climate models are not just in their disagreement over the future,but also in their ability to replicate the recent past.’
Part 6. Extreme Weather
This is the topic that keeps the Bureau of Meteorology alive. Every storm must be extreme – every weather event must be ‘unprecedented’. A fine perfect day such as today isn’t particularly useful for frightening voters into supporting ‘climate change’ and energy legislation. If Australians doubt the ‘global boiling’ narrative, they may start asking questions of the Treasurer such as, ‘Why am I giving you so much of my money for ugly and environmentally damaging wind turbines?’
The chapter’s beginning states that it is not whether extremes in weather conditions occur (as they always have done), it is if these are becoming more frequent and if the cause is human activity.
This last part matters, because if humans are not to blame, the solution is not to pour trillions of dollars into Net Zero.
The report did not find an increase in hurricanes or heat waves nor did it see a rise in hottest day records. Even severe tornados were decreasing. Their weather studies agree with Australia where the 1880-1945 period was the roughest.
Indeed what the report reveals is that the bias of our short-lived memory (dating back roughly 50 years) makes human beings a poor judge of climate trends which often operate on much larger time scales.
Part 7. Changes in Sea Level
This is the UN’s favourite topic. Who hasn’t seen the photoshoot of the UN Secretary-General wading out into surf in his expensive suit to ‘prove’ rising sea levels and thereby imply we need to free up hundreds of billions in ‘aid’ relief from countries such as Australia and given to Pacific Islands?
If the sea levels aren’t rising, there are a lot of taxpayers who might start demanding a refund.
There are two major problems with detecting small sea level rises.
The first is its dependency on geological activity on landmasses that may be themselves sinking or rising.
The second is the enormous historical variability of sea levels (up to 400 metres) which follow glacial periods. This modern era is an inter-glacial period in which we have been experiencing a rise in sea levels entirely unrelated to human activity.
20,000 years ago, the sea level was 130 metres lower. That’s how ancient people were able to walk across land bridges and why there are human civilisations across the world now drowned under water. Even between 14,000 years ago and 6,500 we have experienced a 110 metre sea level rise.
Was this ‘catastrophic climate change!’ or a natural cycle to which humans adapted?
What could we have done to stop this? Nothing. We didn’t cause it.
The glaciers which caused this enormous change in sea level started before the Industrial Age and continue to this day. So, when it is claimed that sea levels have risen 8 inches since 1900 – it is perfectly valid to assign that cause as natural.
This is the conclusion the report reaches – that there is no evidence that human activity has influenced sea levels.
Theoretically, to reverse sea level rise, we would almost have to manufacture an Ice Age. No one wants that. Certainly not the animals and plants.
Part 8. Uncertainties in Climate Change Attribution
This chapter critiques the way scientific reports assign the cause of data to anthropogenic activity instead of natural causes. (Anthropogenic is an adjective describing something that is related to or due to human activity.)
‘There are ongoing scientific debates around attribution methods, especially those for attributing extreme weather events to “climate change”. The IPCC has long cautioned that methods to establish causality in climate science are inherently uncertain and ultimately depend on expert judgement.’
In other words, most of the time you read an article or a report that says, ‘This flood is because of climate change!’ there is no proof, only an ideologically skewed assumption, possibly a lie.
The more incorrect the attributions in a report, the more difficult it becomes to untangle ordinary weather events from genuine outliers.
For those who are interested in how the IPCC decides if a weather event is due to ‘climate change’, they use several methods:
Optimal Fingerprinting (based around computer models)
Time Series Analysis (to pick outliers from data)
Process-Based Attribution (observations, computer models, and theoretical understanding)
Extreme Event Attribution (a guess about the likelihood of human impact)
The report is highly critical of the IPCC’s methods, especially given their reliance on computer modelling which is known to be mostly wrong.
Part 9. Climate Change and US Agriculture
This part of the report is geared toward the US market although the lesson for Australia is simple: while climate variance may slightly impact some crops, most crops are expected to increase their yields or demonstrate no change. Positive impacts are seen on corn, wheat, and soybeans.
If the world is to starve, it won’t be due to ‘climate change’. Instead, it will be due to the UN’s interference in fertiliser use which saw Sri Lanka collapse into anarchy almost overnight and their agricultural sector wiped off the map.
It is very likely that efforts to combat the non-existent threat of climate to agriculture will itself create a threat.
In Australia’s case, this can be seen in the tearing up of farmland for wind turbines, solar panels, and transmission lines.
Part 10. Managing Risks of Extreme Weather
It’s not the severity of weather events, it’s their proximity to increased populations… With more people in the world living in reclaimed areas and on artificially constructed land (for example China and its mega projects), it is inevitable that videos of floods running through cities will occur at a time when before these places were uninhabited.
Despite this, the report finds that technological advancements, particularly to building codes, has resulted in a significant decrease in mortality and property loss relative to storm severity.
Part 11. Climate Change, the Economy, and the Social Cost of Carbon
This is the most-quoted portion of the report because it handles the question facing Western economies: What is this whole carbon discussion going to cost the average taxpayer? Indeed, what will it cost our civilisation? Of what advancements will it rob us? Will it hold back our progress? Are we creating new classes of control with climate measures?
‘Economists have long considered climate a relatively unimportant factor in economic growth, a view echoed by the (UN) IPCC itself … mainstream climate economics has recognised that CO2-induced warming might have some negative economic effects, but they are too small to justify aggressive abatement policy and that trying to “stop” or cap global warming even at levels well above the Paris target would be worse than doing nothing.’
Of chief concern in this report is the ‘Social Cost of Carbon’ – a new concept. The report says, ‘Estimates are highly uncertain due to unknowns in future economic growth, socioeconomic pathways, discount rates, climate damages, and system responses.’
Key takeaways that defy conventional government narratives on climate include the observation that human societies do well in warm climates and poorly in cold climates. ‘This implies that warming will tend to be harmful in hot regions but beneficial in cool ones.’ Even the UN IPCC noted that climate was a minor consideration compared to population, technology, and other things such as conflict.
So far, any historical ‘warming’, if real, has led to the greatest period of human flourishing. It has not been a ‘catastrophe’.
Indeed, Earth’s past far warmer periods are scientifically classified as ‘climate optimums’ because during such warmer periods humans thrived, civilisations thrived, and the natural environment thrived.
‘Even as the globe warmed and the population quintupled, humanity has prospered as never before. For example, global average lifespan went from thirty-two years to seventy-two years, economic activity per capita grew by a factor of seven, and the death rate from extreme weather events plummeted by a factor of fifty.’
The takeaway?
‘Most climate economists thus recommend humanity to just wait-and-see.’
Following this is a list of serious reports into historic human economies which, when examined, display significant benefits to warmer climate on every metric.
What’s startling is the way in which economists measure the Social Cost of Carbon and, as with computer modelling of temperature, it is riddled with assumptions, bias, and dodgy data.
Here’s a sample:
‘Economists use IAMs to compute the SCC. Two of the best-known are the Climate Framework for Uncertainty, Negotiation and Distribution (“FUND”, Tol 1997) and Nordhaus’ DICE. EPA (2023) introduced new ones for its recent work. IAMs embed a “damage function” or set of functions relating ambient temperature to local economic conditions. The assumptions embedded in the damage function will largely determine the resulting SCC. IAMs also assume a long-term discount rate or, as in DICE, compute the optimal internal discount rate as part of the solution. One approach to developing a damage function is to begin with estimates of the costs (or benefits) of warming in specific sectors in countries around the world and aggregate up to a global amount.’
As I am sure you have worked out, and as the report goes on to state, there is no escaping the fact that most of this is guesswork.
‘Suppose we assume a relatively high Social Cost of Carbon of, say, $75 per tonne. Deflated by a MCPF value of 1.5 that would result in a carbon tax of $50 per tonne.’
It’s a nonsense accounting system for which we’re paying a fortune – in part to the UN to fund its operating budget.
In conclusion:
The closing chapters of the report address the reality about the oft-repeated mantra of ‘taking action on climate change’.
‘Even drastic local actions will have negligible local effects, and only with a long delay. The practice of referring to unilateral US reductions as “combatting climate change” or “taking action on climate” on the assumption we can stop climate change therefore reflects a profound misunderstanding of the scale of the issue.’
In particular, it calls out the ‘war against cars’ (one of Chris Bowen’s favourite topics) saying, ‘…emissions from US vehicles cannot be expected to remediate alleged climate dangers to the US public on any measurable scale.’ If that is the case for the US, imagine what that means for the tiny population of Australian car owners.
The report concludes with a call for sanity, reality, and a serious approach toward the energy system that encourages and ensures future prosperity.
Under the Biden and Obama regimes, energy and climate experts were forced to remain silent. Under Donald Trump, these same experts have finally been able to speak freely and lay the reality of energy generation on the table for the world to see.
The Australian Uniparty’s ambivalence to this report, to the Executive Energy Orders, and to the constant messaging of the US Energy Department indicate that our government remains in a state of denial. Being willfully dishonest.
Stealing from taxpayers and transferring wealth from we, the people to parasitic billionaires and multinational corporations sucking on subsidies.
While dishonest governments cede sovereignty to the UN, World Economic Forum, and supra-natural agencies including the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.
Governments fraudulently use concocted, unfounded climate alarm to cripple children’s mental health and impose unwarranted claims on every aspect of people’s lives from energy to food, to property, to money … to lifestyle. And to curtail basic freedom.
Fighting back against climate hysteria by Senator Malcolm Roberts
Energy is about more than fuel; it is about freedom!
The rising cost of living in Australia is due to Net-Zero “rorts” and now they’re adding another one – the Capacity Investment Scheme (CIS).
The Labor government is using taxpayer money to fund solar and wind in a way that lacks transparency and accountability. For example: Energy Minister Chris Bowen awarded substantial taxpayer money to a wind turbine project fund whose chair is former Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard. Bowen did so just days after the fund purchased the project. How much did he give? Possibly billions of dollars.
This process allows for unethical profiteering and lacks proper oversight. Decisions are made behind closed doors with no public access to the bidding or selection criteria. The secrecy surrounding the CIS could enable “favouritism” and corruption without any way to verify or challenge decisions. Tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money may be getting handed out in long-term contracts without public knowledge or scrutiny. We just don’t know!
CSIRO’s GenCost recent report on electricity prices is biased and misleading, with even CSIRO now admitting coal is cheaper than wind and solar. Despite this admission, the report relies on a secret model and questionable assumptions that appear designed to discredit coal, raising concerns about transparency and integrity.
Government agencies pushing net zero policies are misleading Australians. Ditch the Net-Zero nonsense and put Australians first.
Transcript
Australian lives are getting more expensive every day because of net zero rorts. Power bills keep going up and the national debt keeps going up, because Australian taxpayers, renters, pensioners, small businesses and anyone who turns on a light are paying for rorts.
I use this opportunity to detail just one of these rorts—it’s not illegal, yet it’s completely unethical—occurring under the Capacity Investment Scheme. The Capacity Investment Scheme is a wind and solar slush fund that Minister Chris Bowen personally administers. I’m going to quote energy expert Aidan Morrison extensively, and we thank him for all of his contributions to the energy debate in this country. He said:
This is the story of how a fund chaired by former Labor PM Julia Gillard acquired a wind farm project just six days before Labor Energy Minister Chris Bowen underwrote its future revenues with taxpayer money.
Today we’ve learned Julia’s fund is trying to flip it. For a profit.
HMC Capital’s ‘Energy Transition Fund’ rushed to acquire the Neoen Victoria portfolio. They hadn’t even raised any money in their fund. They closed with almost a billion dollars worth of borrowed money and IOU’s.
Less than a week later, Chris Bowen announced Kentbruck Wind Farm to be successful in the first round of the Capacity Investment Scheme. My rough calculations suggest they will receive something like a billion dollars from taxpayers (and maybe much more) over 15 years.
Sweet deal. A billion dollars of fancy financial monopoly money one week. A billion dollars of promised taxpayer dollars the next.
… … …
Unlike the UK who publish a ‘going rate’ for technology subsidies, our renewables—
unreliables—
are subsidised through a secret tender process—
under the Capacity Investment Scheme. He went on to say:
Every project gets to ask for whatever revenue they want to proceed. @AEMO_Energy—
that’s the Australian Energy Market Operator—
facilitates a secret beauty pageant, where they award points for things like indigenous participation or community engagement, alongside financial value.
And Chris Bowen makes the final call.
The bids remain secret. There’s no cap to the pay-outs. Since AEMO is a private company, there is no scope for an FOI—
freedom of information—
request, and AEMO aren’t not subject to parliamentary oversight through Senate Estimates.
So—
based on the public information—
no-one can ever prove an allegation that Bowen has bestowed special favour on a friend’s project if that was what he did. But equally, he can never prove that he selected strictly according to merit. We are just expected to trust the black-box of Bowen’s subsidies.
Mr Morrison continues in a reply to his post:
Originally it always appeared to me that @DCCEEW—
the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water—
would administer the scheme.
But Bowen is determined they don’t administer it. In fact, going so far as to change the National Electricity Law to make it possible for AEMO Services to do it, and making an interim request to AEMO.
… … …
He could have just used the department, but that would make the process more transparent and accountable to parliament. He’s basically cutting corners to cut out any chance of oversight.
In Mr Morrison’s original post, he says:
Every dollar of profit in this industry—
the so-called solar and wind industry—
is really a cheque signed by a politician, with Chris Bowen signing all the biggest cheques, worth untold billions, in the next three years.
It’s all legal. It’s all official. And it’s absolutely obscene.
The most concerning part of the Capacity Investment Scheme is that we have no idea how big it is. Right now, tens of billions of dollars may be getting handed out in lock-in contracts lasting for the next 15 years. Labor created the Capacity Investment Scheme in 2023. It’s since proven extremely popular with solar and wind developers. I wonder why. Now, Minister Bowen wants to expand the program 15 per cent to 40 gigawatts. How many billions of dollars will all this cost taxpayers? We will likely never know. How much are overseas foreign companies ripping out of Australian taxpayers’ pockets under the Capacity Investment Scheme? We will never know. With this level of secrecy, rorts are almost guaranteed—and for what?
The biased, discredited CSIRO GenCost report on the cost of electricity was released just this week. You only have to skim the Centre for Independent Studies’ energy publications to understand how, yet even CSIRO had to admit that the lower estimate for coal-fired power is cheaper than wind and solar. Now they admit it, after their fraudulent GenCost report. That’s despite a secret model the CSIRO refuses to release to the public and a number of assumptions purpose-designed to make coal look worse than reality—fraud. Fundamentally, Australians have been lied to repeatedly by government agencies. Ditch the economic nonsense from net zero. Ditch the net zero nonsense, in fact. End the corruption. Put Australians first.
One Nation stands firmly against the Albanese Government’s push for electric vehicles (EVs), and the billions in taxpayer-funded subsidies and infrastructure spending that overwhelmingly benefit wealthy Australians. While everyday Australians face rising costs for housing, groceries, and fuel, the government continues to pour money into EV incentives and charger installations—despite low public uptake.
Australians should be free to choose the vehicle that suits their needs and budget—whether it’s a ute, a four-wheel drive, or a V8.
One Nation would cancel all policies that penalise internal combustion engines and calls for the return of reliable, efficient petrol and diesel vehicles.
It’s time to revoke the EV slush fund and put Australians first.
Transcript
I move:
That the Industry Research and Development (Dealership and Repairer Initiative for Vehicle Electrification Nationally (DRIVEN) Program) Instrument 2024, made under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986, be disallowed [F2024L01460].
What a mouthful! It’s an instrument made under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986. This is where the fun bit starts. This regulation One Nation seeks to revoke is a $60 million slush fund that climate change and energy minister Chris Bowen—there he is again—will have to splash around on pet projects. Specifically, this is $60 million for the installation and repair of electric vehicle chargers. These are electric vehicle chargers from which only some of the most well-off of Australians, who can afford an EV, will benefit. While rents are skyrocketing, houses are more unaffordable than ever, groceries keep getting more expensive and beer is heading towards $15 a pint, taxpayers should not be slugged with more taxes to pay for this government’s slush fund.
Why is the government obsessed with putting everyone into electric vehicles? Some of them have decent speed, admittedly, when you put your foot down, yet the range on purely electric vehicles—battery electric vehicles—is mostly terrible. It gets even worse when trying to tow something. Forums for the Ford F-150 Lightning, a battery powered ute, are full of horror stories that unfold as soon as a trailer is attached. This is worldwide.
Australians already know all of this and are voting with their wallets. The rejection of battery EVs shows up in new car sales figures. Battery electric vehicles were just 6.5 per cent of new car sales, and how long have they been offered? Years. Even here, in the capital of ‘Wokeistan’, Canberra, home of the country’s loudest virtue signallers, battery electric vehicles are just 3.6 per cent of all vehicles on the road. This is despite every effort of government and multinational corporations trying to pull Australians away from the trusty petrol and diesel engine. There has been a near decade of propaganda and lies trying to convince Australians to make the switch—we’re not buying it.
Never mind the hugely expensive tax breaks that give an EV buyer tens of thousands of dollars. These tax breaks include exemptions from the lower luxury car tax threshold; exemptions from the penalties under the new vehicle efficiency standard, or the ute tax, as it has become known; no fuel excise at 50.8 cents a litre; exemptions from fringe benefits tax, representing a $12,000 saving on a $60,000 EV but costing taxpayers $550 million a year. Taxpayers pay for this. This is Robin Hood in reverse; robbing the poor to pay for the wealthy. Plus there is an array of rebates from state governments across the country. They’ve thrown just about every tax break in the book at EVs, and still Australians aren’t fussed over the inferior electric vehicle products.
More than 95 per cent of the vehicles on the road still contain internal combustion engines, the trusty petrol and diesel, the reliable petrol and diesel, the safe petrol and diesel. Naturally aspirated, turbocharged, supercharged or a hybrid set up, Australians have rightly shunned battery EVs for engines that make a noise when turned on. Tradies cried out in horror when the legendary V8, from the Toyota LandCruiser 200 series and utes, was removed from market in anticipation of the coming government regulations and crackdowns.
Are EVs cheaper to run? Well, a CarExpert road trip test throws real doubt on that. They drove two BMWs on a road trip from Melbourne to Sydney. They were the same exact car, the same year of make, with the same start and the same finish point. The only difference is that one was the battery electric version and the other was hydrocarbon fuelled. When they arrived in Sydney, the electric vehicle charging had cost more for the road trip than filling up with the most expensive 98 petrol. Of course, electricity isn’t free, and neither are these chargers. The minister’s slush fund that we’re seeking to disallow here is paying for the installation of chargers that are businesses in themselves, so we’re paying for a business. Taxpayers will foot the bill for installing a charger, and the EV business will reap all the profits from the charge they sell through it forever, for eternity. We would never do this with service stations, because it’s bloody ridiculous. Taxpayers should not be paying for the profits of these often foreign multinational companies who run charging services.
Then there’s the fire risk. Everyone knows about this. The electric vehicle industry’s dirty little secret: the batteries and these chargers present an extreme fire risk. Car ferries carrying thousands of new car deliveries have been left to burn and potentially sink after battery fires have broken out mid-ocean. Just last month, News.com reported:
There are concerns an abandoned EV carrier floating aimlessly in the Pacific Ocean could continue to burn for weeks …
Salvage operators have finally reached the Morning Midas around 350km south of Adak, Alaska, a week after it first caught fire and 22 crew were rescued by the US Coast Guard after being forced to abandon ship.
The floating inferno is said to have been caused by the lithium-iron batteries in the 70 electric vehicles on board—batteries that can cause fires that can burn for weeks.
Some apartment tower complexes have banned battery electric vehicles in their car parks. Our fire departments are sounding the alarm on the increased risk battery fires present. These battery fires often can’t be simply put out and must be left for days to burn themselves out. One suggestion to deal with an electric vehicle fire is to have the burning wreck forklifted—imagine the forklift driver!—into a waiting shipping container of water to try and keep it contained. That’s a suggestion. Seriously! That’s the best firefighting strategy we have when one of these EVs goes up.
Insurance companies have confirmed the risk in electric vehicles is real with their increased premiums. Insurance comparison site Compare the Market conducted a study of 12 insurers and has shown the top five bestselling EVs are 43 per cent more expensive to insure than similar internal combustion models. So EVs are more expensive to buy, more expensive to drive, more expensive to charge and more expensive to insure. We are running out of categories to find out where EVs are actually cheaper.
What about environmentally friendly? Let’s ask that question. As for being environmentally friendly, the process for making batteries is one of the most environmentally destructive in the world, killing the environment to save the planet. The hundreds of kilograms of minerals that go into a battery include aluminium, copper, steel, iron, graphite, nickel, lithium, manganese and cobalt. These require extremely intensive mining and refinement and huge, huge amounts of energy. The resources and energy consumed in electric vehicle manufacturing is way above those consumed in making a petrol or diesel engine car. Many of these raw minerals are sourced from conflict-torn places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, using child labourers and slaves. The overall environmental impact of building an EV is devastating, as is the social impact. The raw materials are sourced from ethically questionable countries and processed almost exclusively by Communist China controlled companies. That’s where the focus on EVs leaves Australians—completely reliant on China.
Then there’s Minister Tony Burke, whose Chinese EV says ‘Don’t plug in the phone.’ Worries about being reliant on China aren’t overblown. Government departments are warning Labor politicians of the same thing. The Strategist journal reported in November:
Senate estimates … heard the remarkable revelation that Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke has had to take ‘precautions’ based on warnings from his own department to protect himself and the nation’s sensitive information from Burke’s own Chinese-made electric car—
He’s got to protect himself and the security of the country from his Chinese electric car—
The risks with such cars, according to Home Affairs officials, might include having data collected from the owner’s phone if it were connected to the car, voice calls eavesdropped on, image collection from the car’s external cameras and geolocation tracking—meaning that if Burke drove to a sensitive government location the car’s manufacturer would be able to see.
If these are risks to ministers, those same risks are inherent for all Australians. Bloody ridiculous.
What is even more confusing about the government EV push is that petrol and diesel engines are only getting better and more efficient in their newest versions. Did anyone mention weight? Electric vehicles are humongous in weight. Small, turbocharged, extremely efficient diesel engines were becoming the powertrain of choice, especially in small cars. Fuel efficiency numbers we couldn’t have dreamt of 20 years ago were being beaten. Then all the car makers in the world, and many stupid governments around the world, seemingly overnight, had to imagine that petrol vehicles and diesel engines were dead. Imagine that. Everyone would be driving an EV, apparently blind to or not caring for the downsides in range, resources and longevity. Just as we were getting to some of the cleanest, most efficient diesel and petrol vehicles ever made, why did the government decided no-one would ever want to drive them again? They decided for the taxpayers. They decided for the citizens of Australia.
Why does the government want to splash billions of dollars into technology that Australians clearly don’t want and that is environmentally reprehensible? The answer may lie in the plan for Australia’s energy grid. The government needs electric vehicles hooked up to the grid under their plans for a consumer energy resources like EV batteries to be connected to virtual power plants. They want to use your car as a battery. The government can’t afford to build all the batteries needed under their net zero plan. They don’t even know how much. There is no plan. So the government wants Australians to buy an EV with a battery that can be taken over and discharged to the grid. They don’t tell you that, do they, but that is what they are wanting. The Australian Renewable Energy Agency says that batteries from EVs ‘can help stabilise the power grid by supplying power back during times of high demand’. There it is. Do you hear that in their advertisements? No.
Like many things, this will start off as a voluntary scheme, currently called ‘bidirectional charging’ or ‘vehicle to grid’. That sounds good, but think about what it means. It means stealing your electricity when you want it. Then the inevitable threat of blackouts and the instability of the electricity grid under net zero will become an emergency, and everyone with an EV will be forced to participate. What we have now is power shortages in some states as they destroy perfectly good coal and gas generation and try and fail to replace it with solar and wind. So we’ve got a shortage of reliable electricity. And now they want to convert the car fleet, the transport fleet, to EVs to add more demand to the electricity sector. Then they want to promote artificial intelligence, which is an electricity hog. And then they want to support bitcoin mining. Where is all this going to lead? It’s going to lead to massive, sky-high prices as well as shortages, unreliability, instability and insecurity.
The government’s plan, or what it claims is a plan, is all very complicated, but they don’t know what they’re doing. That is fact. One Nation’s solution is much simpler: Australians should be allowed to drive whatever car they want, whatever car they can afford, whether it’s a four-wheel drive, a ute or a smart car. Only One Nation has a policy to cancel all policies which lead to the death of the V8 engine being provided as an option to Australian car buyers. Porsche and Mercedes-Benz said that EVs would take over, and they stopped making V8s. Now they’re bringing back V8s and they’re scaling back their EV plans. I ask the Senate to revoke this electric vehicle slush fund and join One Nation in bringing back the V8.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/251AKYjzs5I/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-08-07 09:24:362025-08-07 09:24:41Scrap the EV Slush Fund
One Nation is the only party completely united in our belief that Australians deserve a better, cheaper way of life by ditching Net-Zero.
Groceries, power bills, insurance and running a small business can all be made cheaper.
Only One Nation can be trusted to put Australians first over what foreign, unelected organisations tell us to do.
Transcript
To get to what matters most in this debate over net zero, we just have to ask Australians some simple questions: is your life more affordable or more expensive over the last five years? Are you paying more or less for groceries? Is your power bill cheaper? How about the cost of a new car—how about your insurance premiums? Has your salary increased more than inflation? The answers are almost the same. It hasn’t gotten better; it’s far worse. All of these problems Australia is suffering from can be traced back directly to net zero policies.
This isn’t just a culture war, as some people try to write it off as; this is a fight for the survival and prosperity of all Australians. This is a fight to restore our country’s position as the envy of the world. Australia is the richest country in the world for resources. We have abundant energy resources. Australia is awash with vast amounts of proven coal, oil, natural gas, uranium, rare earths and critical minerals. We should have the cheapest power prices in the world, yet we pay more for electricity than the countries to which we sell our resources. Back in 2004, the energy white paper proudly boasted Australia’s average price of electricity as being just a touch over 4c a kilowatt hour—amongst the cheapest in the world. Now the average is 33c a kilowatt hour, just 20 years later. Japan imports most of its energy resources from Australia. Japan’s electricity used to be four times more expensive than Australia’s. Now, ours is 20 per cent more expensive than Japan’s—all because of net zero. Thank you so much!
We don’t make Fords, Holdens, Toyotas or Mitsubishis in this country anymore, because of net zero. Our steel mills, like the one in Whyalla, are going broke because of net zero. The copper smelters, like the one in Mount Isa, are shutting down because of net zero. Chocolate-maker Cadbury have said they may have to pull out of Australia because it has become undeniably expensive to manufacture in Australia. In the words of Matt Barrie, ‘Australia is about to be a country that cannot make a chocolate bar’—because of net zero.
Wind and solar pushers have been promising Australia that it’s the cheapest way to go. They’ve been saying it for 25 years, since the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act was implemented in the year 2000, under John Howard, yet here we are today, facing desolation. With the largest amount of wind, solar, batteries and pumped hydro on the grid than ever in recorded history, life has only gotten more expensive. As the solar, wind, batteries and pumped hydro increase, electricity costs increase. This is the experience of every country that has gone down the path of net zero. As electricity gets more expensive, good jobs in manufacturing are getting shipped overseas and life gets worse for that country.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/M-XYa5nxCSI/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-07-31 16:40:552025-07-31 16:41:00DITCH Net-Zero to Fix Cost of Living
Electric dreams left to rot on the ocean floor as Albanese heads to China …
Three thousand cars are rotting at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean – 800 of them electric – after the Morning Midas cargo ship burst into flames sank on its trip between China and Mexico.
The cause of the fire remains unknown, but many suspect lithium-ion batteries may be to blame.
Morning Midas burned for a week, pouring toxic fumes into the air, before aimlessly tipping over and taking her cargo of heavy metals to the ocean floor where they will leak into the surrounding water for the next century.
All the crew are safe, thank goodness.
What about the environment?
You and I could not dump these materials into the water without severe repercussions.
Meanwhile, our Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, and his Coalition-deputy (?) Larissa Waters, have said very little about the issue to his counterparts in China.
Albanese is off on a six-day $325 billion trade trip where he has confirmed he will meet with Xi Jinping, head of the Chinese Communist Party.
The Prime Minister has not met with US President Donald Trump – leader of the nation whose defence structure protects Australia from China’s ambitions in the Pacific.
We should not forget (and neither should the Greens, who remain silent) that China’s environmental credentials include pouring concrete over coral atolls to build military bases inside disputed waters while deliberately transgressing against its Asian neighbours.
China’s neighbours are our Pacific partners, and together we rely on America to police the Hague’s freedom of navigation rules. Without an American presence in Pacific waters, China would control our critical trade routes and no doubt treat them with the same care as their history of ransoming river water in Asia as an ‘incentive’ to sign agreements.
The Prime Minister seems very keen to empower China inside the Australian economy, encouraging foreign business prosperity at the expense of our children’s careers.
While Treasurer Jim Chalmers mulls over tax reform to punish successful Australians, Anthony Albanese is all-but gushing over the prospect of Chinese cash.
‘Trade is now flowing freely, to the benefit of both countries and to people and businesses on both sides. We will continue to patiently and deliberately work towards a stable relationship with China, with dialogue at its core. I will raise issues that are important to Australians and the region including my government’s enduring commitment to pursuing Australia’s national interest.’
He is taking 14 people with him to sit on an Australian-China business roundtable to talk about food, resources, banking, and tertiary education.
Strangely, pollution is one of the many things left off this ‘green’ economic agenda…
How odd.
There is no chance Albanese and his delegation will question China about recycling guarantees for the millions of tonnes of solar panels and wind turbines headed for Australian landfills every single year as industrial projects are decommissioned.
Whose responsibility is it to clean up after the Chinese Net Zero boom?
Australian taxpayers.
Who could have guessed?
Pollution is a sore spot with China. The communist empire courting our Prime Minister has made a mess of its own landscape.
67.7% of China’s water is unsafe for human contact, let alone consumption. Its air pollution crisis, much of which is from the factories that churn out ‘clean’ technology, is so severe it’s thought to kill two million people every year. China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand are responsible for 60% of plastic in the ocean – and yet the Prime Minister is handing hundreds of millions of dollars to these countries as an apology for Australia’s (factually dubious) contribution to ‘rising sea levels’.
China is not, as the UN claims, a beacon of ‘Net Zero’ environmentalism.
If anything, China’s environmental catastrophe reveals the dirty side of the so-called renewable empire. It has led to polluted rivers, destroyed sacred mountains, slave-run factories, and an export chain that includes debt-trapping vulnerable nations with loans repaid with land acquisition, the empowerment of brutal dictatorships, and even child labour in the rare-earth mines.
In China, environmental and cultural protesters who stand against the renewable energy industry are harassed, arrested, or simply vanish.
Activists in Wuhan, famous for its dodgy gain-of-function labs, demanded the Chinese government ‘give back the green mountains and clear waters’.
Their social media posts were scrubbed and the story suppressed by digital censors.
It’s a process familiar to Australians who lived through the Great Digital Dark Age of Covid where the government saw fit to issue take-down notices to Twitter and Facebook to keep vaccine-injured victims quiet. Many of these social media sites still have legacy community guidelines that warn about the ‘misinformation’ of posts sceptical about Climate Change while Australian policy is littered with clauses determined to protect the narrative of the political movement even if it means listing environmental concern as ‘dangerous’ or ‘misleading’.
Chinese activists were not exaggerating their pollution problem, and neither are Australian farmers or beachside residents furious about the solar and wind industrial projects tearing apart the serenity of Australia’s landscape.
Soon, the curse of Net Zero will touch every corner of our continent.
The Morning Midas and Net Zero monstrosities share a fate decomposing into the landscape, poisoning everything around them – abandoned by the companies and governments responsible for their creation.
A toxic legacy left for nature to remediate.
It’s unlikely the Morning Midas will be remembered as anything other than a sidenote on the next article about a sinking EV cargo ship, but the EV problem is not going away.
Cheap Chinese vehicles are being welcomed into Australia as a market disruption by a Labor government desperate to prove that EVs can be ‘cheap’.
This is despite their questionable green credentials, service standards, and quality control.
How long will EVs stay cheap as the resources used in their manufacturing double and triple in price?
Market forces are sinking EVs, while Labor, and particularly Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, remain oblivious.
They would prefer to allow TEMU-style EVs to destabilise the auto industry, causing permanent damage, for the sake of a product that may not survive given its concerning track record in other countries. This is not good for the Australian consumer, the global environment, or the industries that support the car industry which employ many of our skilled young people.
Are we going to outsource auto-workers and mechanics to a Chinese helpline that goes unanswered?
Do we really want to keep pushing jobs and skills away in exchange for a collapsing ‘green’ dream with all the appeal of algae?
What about when these cheap cars break – which they undoubtedly will – where do they end up? In landfill, sheltering under a busted solar panel? Parked beneath a derelict wind turbine? In an abandoned shed with all the plastic we are meant to be recycling?
This is not a good look for an industry that exists purely to capitalise on environmental credentials.
It is hideous.
Electric vehicles are not better products. They are a technical solution to an ideological problem propped up by government subsidies and corporate Environment and Social Governance programs.
In this respect, EVs occupy the same ideological market space as lab-grown meat.
The third sinking of a cargo ship laden with electric cars is not a one-off event.
With Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen pushing Australia toward EVs – specifically China-made EVs – we can only wonder if the next cargo ship will sink onto the Great Barrier Reef.
EVs are a sinking ship by Senator Malcolm Roberts
Electric dreams left to rot on the ocean floor as Albanese heads to China
Nigel Farage’s unapologetically anti-Net Zero #Reform party is making headway in Scotland.
This sounds strange.
Scotland has always been a rather left-leaning, working class, union-centric nation so for Net Zero to suddenly become a defining feature of a minor-right movement is worth a second look.
The answer is simple.
Jobs.
By 2030, it is expected that 58,000 jobs in North Sea oil and gas will be gone.
Replacing them is a meagre (and as yet unproven) 29,000 jobs in offshore wind.
There’s a real and serious concern about how many of these jobs will be filled by foreign nationals, especially as this was already happening before loopholes were closed. If offshore wind cannot convert workers locally, businesses will hire internationally.
Bureaucrats seem to believe that all forms of energy production fall under the same portfolio and that workers can wander between oil rigs and wind farms…
The truth is, just because the two industries revolve around ‘energy’ it does not follow that those employed in the oil and gas industry can change their qualifications to work in offshore wind.
Oil rig workers are highly specialised, well-trained, and experienced. Throwing their livelihoods into the dustbin in pursuit of an increasingly dodgy-sounding ‘decarbonisation’ project is starting to turn voters away from environmental fascism.
Most oil and gas workers know they’ll be forced to retire.
This is a truth Australian Unions refuse to acknowledge.
They remain prepared to throw Australian workers under the Net Zero bus.
The UK is ten years ahead of Australia when it comes to the energy ‘transition’ – and they are in a serious mess.
Net Zero has become the failure that unites Labour and the Tories.
Reform saw the truth early, and maintained its position in support of reality, workers, and sensible energy. One Nation saw the truth years before Reform even existed as a movement.
Of all the parties in the Western world on the centre-right, we were the first to warn about the dangers of Net Zero.
There is nothing modern about Net Zero. If anything, it’s an idea past its use-by date which is starting to fester and grow all sorts of nasty things.
Under Sussan Ley and David Littleproud as leaders, the partly repaired Coalition has shied away from rigorous support of Net Zero, yet they are defending ‘climate goals’ and ‘decarbonisation targets’ with the same zeal that Treasurer Jim Chalmers eyes-off super balances.
Which is the same thing.
When the next election rolls around, we will have an agreement from the major parties that Net Zero is law and the ‘transition’ is unstoppable.
Sadly, we’ll also see voters with little understanding about the source of civilisation’s trappings telling tens of thousands of young Australians who work in the coal and gas industry that they are dirty, evil, and unwanted in the ‘modern’ world.
This is not their fault. Inner-city voters have been lied to by the whole damn system, and they often lack real-world experience to combat these cruel untruths. Nor can they see the families being hurt by green policy.
The Australian Greens, for instance, want to stop fossil fuels.
Except, of course, for the coal, gas, and oil mined and shipped offshore to generate cheap energy for China so they can make solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries used in the so-called green energy revolution.
Green energy is built on fossil fuels.
This is a wasteful way of utilising Australia’s natural resources while saddling the highly skilled men and women who mine them as the villains of history.
Well, I refuse to believe that, and I refuse to allow Australian miners to be thrown out by ideologues in Canberra chasing inner-city seats.
There are 94,400 workers in the sector under 35 and 52,600 under 30.
The Greens, Labor, the Teals, and a majority of Liberals, all claim to be against this industry and yet the truth is they want these mining jobs to be shipped offshore to places like China, Africa, and the Pacific. They want someone else to benefit economically from the creation of energy and for Australians to circle the drain of consumerism until this nation becomes so dependent that it can’t so much as manufacture the shovel to dig itself out of the mess.
This is the dirty side of carbon trading.
One Nation supports Australian workers. We do not demonise them.
Our party wants young Aussies to have the same opportunity we had to turn the natural gifts of this country’s soil and rock into cheap, reliable energy for other Aussie families – including those who live in the city.
From miners to retail workers, energy is the foundation of a safe, affordable, and prosperous country.
94,400 young Aussie miners at risk by Senator Malcolm Roberts
This article was first published on my Substack. If you enjoy in-depth content like this, consider subscribing to get future posts delivered straight to your inbox.
Australia has abundant natural resources, yet the Labor-Liberal uniparties want to DESTROY our prosperity with Net Zero policies!
One Nation says NO to this madness. It time our resources were used for cheaper energy and Australian jobs! It’s time to end this attack on Aussie families!
