The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) runs our entire electricity grid. Sounds like a government agency, yet it’s a private body.
No FOI’s allowed, no Senate scrutiny, no transparency.
Net zero = hide the costs, hide the damage, hide the plan.
They are taking us over a cliff – blindfolded.
Transcript
A culture of hiding behind secrecy, spin and broken promises—the Australian Energy Market Operator, AEMO, operates our entire electricity grid. It sounds like a government agency, yet, somehow, it’s a private body. No-one’s allowed to lodge a freedom-of-information request with them. They don’t turn up to parliamentary hearings or Senate estimates. They hide from scrutiny. That’s a key word for this government and for net zero: hide. Hide the costs, hide the lack of a policy basis, hide the environmental damage, hide the economic damage, hide the social damage and hide the lack of a plan. They’re taking us blindfolded over a cliff.
Where did it start? It started in the years from 1996 to 2007 under the LNP and John Howard’s prime ministership. He started this insanity, based, they assured us, on science. Yet six years after getting the boot in faraway London, John Howard confessed that ‘on the topic of climate science I’m agnostic’. He didn’t have the science. The whole parliament has been hijacked for the last 30 years—three decades.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/NdcU-Rkh_QI/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-11-27 11:47:522025-11-27 11:47:55AEMO and the Net Zero Deception
According to the Australian Energy Regulator, the last quarter of 2024 recorded the second-highest number of extreme electricity price spikes ever, with prices exceeding $5,000 per megawatt hour. This is what happens when baseload generation is not in the mix. Coal, when operated continuously, delivers power at around $50 per megawatt hour—reliable and affordable.
Senator Ayres responded by doubling down on the government’s plan to “modernise” the system, dismissing concerns about cost and reliability. Instead of addressing the real issue—keeping affordable baseload power in the mix—the Minister ridiculed critics and pushed for more renewables, calling opposition arguments “too silly for words” and driven by “imported ideology.”
When will this government stop forcing Australians to pay record electricity prices and run our coal generators properly?
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My question is to Senator Ayres, representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Mr Bowen. Minister, is coal powered electricity generation intermittent energy or base-load generation?
Senator AYRES (Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Science) : Well, here I am. Senator Roberts’s question really does bell the cat in terms of where One Nation and their almost coalition partners over here in the National and Liberal parties really are on some of these climate and energy questions. If I go directly to Senator Roberts’s question, the unreliability of our current aging coal-fired power fleet is, as I cursorily read in the newspaper, what I think Minister Bowen was referring to. What is going on every single day is that there is an unplanned outage of one or more of these facilities. That unplanned redundancy causes additional cost, puts pressure on industry and reminds Australians that, under the previous government, with all of that uncertainty and all of that policy failure—I’ll come back and let you know, Senator Roberts, if I get this wrong—I think 24 out of 28 coal-fired power stations announced their closure. And what do we have from the Liberals and Nationals? Relitigation the same old nonsense that held Australia back—a $600 billion nuclear power plan and Mr Littleproud saying, ‘We should sweat these assets.’ If you went to some of these power stations in New South Wales, you would know that the only people that would say you should sweat that asset would be someone who had never been to one. (Time expired.)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: Coal power is base-load generation. It’s designed to run continuously, and when operated continuously electricity generation from coal is reliable and affordable. It only becomes intermittent and expensive when the generator is deliberately turned on and off all the time to give preference to what is really intermittent power: solar and wind. Minister, why is the government’s energy policy set to deliberately destroying base-load power—coal?
Senator AYRES: I suppose there are a number of responses, Senator Roberts. The first is that coal-fired power stations fail when there is a breakdown or planned maintenance. Now, planned maintenance is a good thing because you’re improving the capability of the asset. When an asset like that has gone on for so long that it can’t continue to function reliably—
Senator Canavan: Thanks for your TED talk.
Senator AYRES: Old ‘Koala Canavan’ over here!
The PRESIDENT: Senator Ayres, withdraw that remark.
Senator AYRES: I withdraw. But that is the problem. So we are moving to modernise the electricity system, to deliver the lowest-cost and most reliable approach—the Australian approach—and we won’t be deterred by imported ideas about political means and weird ideologies about the future of our electricity system.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Ayres. Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: According to the Australian Energy Regulator, the fourth quarter of 2024 saw the second-highest number of extreme electricity price events ever, with prices exceeding $5,000 per megawatt hour. This happens when baseload power generation is not in the mix. Instead, when run continuously, coal can run electricity at just $50 per megawatt hour. Minister, will you give Australians suffering from record high electricity prices are break and run our coal generators properly? (Time expired)
Senator AYRES: What this government will do is continue to modernise our electricity system in the interest of industry, in the interest of households, in the interest of future industry, because what we require in this country is additionality—more generation capacity and more transmission capability. The coalition and One Nation campaign against energy generation capability around Australia, wandering around complaining, whether it’s about koalas or that somehow offshore wind projects will be bad for whales. There are whales who go up and down the eastern Australian coast, dodging container ships and bulk carriers. Are they somehow going to door themselves on a stationary offshore wind tower? It is too silly for words. It’s too silly for words, sillier than a two-bob watch, and it’s imported, weird ideology coming from overseas that’s being used to try and stop progress right here in Australia.
PM Albanese called communist China a “friend.” Let’s be clear: China produces Australia’s yearly carbon dioxide output every 12 days and is building more coal-fired power stations—98 gigawatts last year alone, one-and-a-half times Australia’s entire electricity market. Yet Australians are being forced to sacrifice our living standards, pay skyrocketing power bills, and lose manufacturing jobs on the altar of net zero. I asked Minister Wong what penalties she’s threatened against China for doing the opposite of what her government demands from Australians. The answer? None.
Instead of holding China accountable, this government is destroying our cheap, reliable coal generation to satisfy foreign dictates from the UN, the World Economic Forum, and the Paris Agreement. Minister Wong admitted the market has turned against coal because of policy instability—but that instability was created by the very politicians pushing net zero. They claim this is about “opportunity” and “prosperity,” yet Australians are paying the price while China powers ahead with coal.
Net zero is not about facts or fairness—it’s about control. The government says the world is moving, but the truth is China is moving in the opposite direction, using our coal while we shut ours down.
This hypocrisy is costing Australians jobs, wealth, and affordable energy. One Nation will keep fighting to end this madness and put Australia first.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Last week, Prime Minister Albanese called communist China a friend. A recent study shows that, in every 12 days, China produces Australia’s yearly carbon dioxide output. Each year, China increases its carbon dioxide output. China has 66 coal-fired power stations for every one of Australia’s and is building more. Australians have been asked to sacrifice our living standards, power bills and manufacturing jobs on the altar of net zero. Minister, what have you threatened to levy on China if they don’t do the same thing your government is asking Australians to do—to stop using our coal? Or are the climate dictates turning your government into hypocrites on the world stage?
Senator WONG (Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate): Thank you, Senator. I would make a few points. The first point I’d make about our commitments to reduce emissions is that we are making commitments as a country because we recognise the economic imperative of transforming our economy in the context where so much of the global economy is doing the same thing. I appreciate, Senator, that you and I just simply will not agree on this. We see the imperative to transform our economy and take advantage of the opportunity renewable energy brings. We see what is happening across the world, and we want to ensure that Australia has the opportunity to continue to be a prosperous and strong nation in that context.
We simply have a different view on why, as a country, we should not turn our back on climate change. We should not turn our back on renewable energy, and, frankly, we should not turn our back on facts. The facts are that the world is moving. The facts are that coal-fired power is declining in this country. Was it 24 out of 28—24 out of 28 coal-fired power stations announced they were closing under the coalition. That gives us a very clear view about what the transition is.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: If the Prime Minister’s friends in communist China can use Australia’s coal and you won’t tell them off, why can’t Australia use our coal here? Are you too scared of communist China to hold them accountable?
Senator WONG: Senator, 24 out of 28 coal-fired power stations announced they were closing within the decade under the coalition. At that time, eight had already closed, including Hazelwood, because they were too old and at the end of life. The absence of a stable policy framework meant that investors voted with their feet—or, in this case, the money—and didn’t invest.
The PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts?
Senator Roberts: I rise on a point of order: relevance. We’re talking about China, not the coalition.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Roberts. The minister is being relevant to your question.
Senator WONG: I am making the point that, whatever you may think—and I disagree with a great deal of what you say—about why you support coal, the market is not supporting coal. I mean—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Minister Wong, did you want to continue?
Senator WONG: No.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Come to order. Senator Roberts, a second supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: Your friends in communist China began and resumed construction of 98 gigawatts of coal power last year alone. Many of these will use Australian coal. That is one-and-a-half times Australia’s entire national electricity market capacity in one year. Why is your government destroying our cheap coal generation in our country to satisfy foreign dictates from the United Nations, the World Economic Forum and Paris Agreement while communist China does the opposite—China, not Malcolm Roberts?
Senator WONG: Again, I disagree with almost everything you have just put to me in that question. What I would respond to specifically is the point about the why. You see, we are not doing this because other people are telling us to do this; we are doing this because we believe it is the right thing for the country, the right thing for future generations but it is also the right thing for our economy. Amidst all of the interviews that were done recently by the coalition in the last 72 hours, Senator Bragg made a very important point when he was talking about net zero and the policy debates of the coalition. He said, ‘The debate is over. What I am saying is, in terms of the economic debate around the world, it is over. Capital markets have made their minds up. There is a wall of money going to renewable energy.’
The Fair Work Ombudsman, when considering 33 cases involving claims of underpayment among coal miners, stated that it was using an Enterprise Agreement (EA) as the base document. This EA is being challenged as invalid and void due to alleged fundamental deficiencies and fraud. The EA pays less than what comparable workers receive under the Award.
I challenged the Ombudsman’s office for betraying workers who were clearly being exploited by their employers, in collusion with the CFMEU. This exploitation was enabled by a highly questionable decision made by a Commissioner, who appeared not to have fully considered the Better Off Overall Test (BOOT) before approving the proposed, inadequate EA.
It appears the Commission can approve an EA “on the papers” when the union and employer are aligned, without a thorough examination of the agreement’s impact on workers.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
CHAIR: Great. Thank you very much. We’ll open with questions, then, and I’ll start the call with Senator ROBERTS.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again tonight. We’re getting pretty familiar, Ms Booth.
Ms Booth: Yes, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: My questions are pretty simple tonight. What is the total number of matters being investigated in the coal sector? I’m particularly interested in those matters that came out of the One Nation analysis, in which labour hire payments to coal workers were and are below what would be an award casualised rate, if such a thing existed—it doesn’t, but if it did. Can you confirm for me again how many matters are in that category? My recollection is that there were around 14 individuals.
Ms Booth: As of 26 September this year, we had 33 cases under investigation and had finalised an additional 13 cases in the black coalmining industry. That is in Mr Campbell’s jurisdiction, so I will pass to him.
Mr Campbell: I’ll obviously assist you with questioning on this subject. We have Steven Ronson here to assist with details as well, given the nature of your questions. We are happy to go into any detail you like.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll let you get on with resolving the cases and the complaints.
Mr Campbell: That works for me.
Senator ROBERTS: Good. Can you give me a rundown on the number and types of entities that have been consulted in relation to those matters—specifically the labour hire companies and the mine owners, perhaps—and what sort of feedback and cooperation you have received?
Mr Ronson: Of those 33 cases that Ms Booth referred to, there are 25 employing entities. There are 25 different companies, if you like, that are being investigated.
Senator ROBERTS: Ms Booth, can I come back to you: what was the total number you said?
Ms Booth: There are 33 currently under investigation.
Senator ROBERTS: Thirty-three? I thought you said three! Thank you. I know that the analysis we published states that there are large underpayments, based on a comparison to what would or should be a casualised award rate. But there’s a trick, because the coal award does not have casualised rates, as we’ve discussed at length. That being the case, are you investigating the matters and assessing whether underpayments have occurred compared to what would be a casual award rate if such a rate existed?
Ms Volzke: As I think we’ve discussed on a number of occasions, these issues and some of the complexities arise in relation to the absence of casual operation rules under the award. What we’ve done is proceed on the basis of the information before us in determining what, if any, underpayments might be payable in relation to each of those matters that we’re investigating.
Senator ROBERTS: What would be the base rates, so to speak, because you’re talking about casual?
Ms Volzke: If there’s an enterprise agreement in operation in relation to a particular employee, then it would be the enterprise agreement that, notionally, we would be looking at. Obviously, if there weren’t one, there might be contracts of employment et cetera as well. It’s obviously going to depend on the particular circumstances.
Senator ROBERTS: What I’m getting to is this: would you compare it with the base rate of permanent employees doing the same job and add 25 per cent to take into account a lack of other conditions of employment?
Ms Volzke: As we’ve spoken about before, because the award doesn’t provide for that for those employees— who, I think, in that cohort, mostly had enterprise agreements relevant to their employment. That would be the document that we would look to test against any potential underpayments.
Senator ROBERTS: So the enterprise agreement, which we think was not fair, would still be the base rate that you would compare it to?
Ms Volzke: As we’ve spoken about previously, as the independent regulator, we apply the law as it stands. Where agreements have been made and approved by the Fair Work Commission as valid enterprise agreements, then those are the industrial instruments that we will use to determine any underpayments.
Senator ROBERTS: If the Fair Work Commission has approved an enterprise agreement that is grossly underpaid compared to the award, you would go with the enterprise agreement.
Ms Volzke: I can’t comment on the fairness or otherwise, but what I would say is that, where it has been lawfully made and is in operation for the particular period of time that might be in question for a particular employee. That’s the instrument that we test those underpayments against.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you identified instances where labour hire casual employees have been paid below the full-time award rate? If so, that would clearly constitute underpayment.
Mr Ronson: I’m not aware that that’s the case so far, but I’m happy to take that on notice just to double-check.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Ongoing underpayments is the next topic. Minister, we have been following the same job, same pay applications in the coal sector, which, on our observation is a very slow process. By the way, I led the development of same job, same pay in the Senate. Given that there are a significant number of coal operations not yet subject to the same job, same pay regime, One Nation would assess that there are still large numbers of casual labour hire coalminers that continue to be underpaid when compared with the casualised award rate. Would you concur with that assessment? I guess you would not.
Mr Ronson: I think the best way of answering that question would be that what we’ve tried to do in the course of this investigation is heighten awareness of our investigation. We have a dedicated email address specifically for these cases alone, so that anyone who’s working in the sector, or has worked in the sector, can request our assistance. Yet, as we’ve explained, I suppose each case will fall on its own merits. We investigate each case as to what we find. We follow the evidence in that particular case.
Senator ROBERTS: At the nub of this issue, from the very start, has been the claim by many casual coalminers—and I agree with them entirely; so do some experts in industrial relations—that the enterprise agreements under which they’re working are dodgy. They’re grossly under the award rates. But what you’re saying is that’s become the new benchmark. That’s what I got out of Ms Volzke and you.
Mr Ronson: What we’re saying, as Ms Volzke put, is that we’ll apply the law as it is. If the enterprise agreement is in place for that particular worker, that’s what we apply.
Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t look at the roots of the enterprise agreement—that it’s below the award rate with a lack of the casual premium.
Mr Ronson: We will look to see whether the enterprise agreement has been approved by the Fair Work Commission. If it has, and if it’s a valid industrial instrument and it’s operative, we will apply it.
Senator ROBERTS: So you won’t look into whether or not it passes the BOOT test?
Mr Ronson: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Given that the 33 matters we’re focused on, and that you’re investigating, are of coalminers who have worked across a range of labour hire companies in a range of mines, would it be fair to say that the numbers of labour hire coalminers who have potentially been underpaid is probably very significant—that is, that large numbers of coalminers worked, and are continuing to work, under exactly the industrial instruments of the individuals you are investigating? Our estimate is that the number would easily exceed 5,000, possibly 10,000. Would that be a reasonable guess?
Ms Volzke: The premise of that question is something that we wouldn’t agree with, for the reasons that we’ve spoken about. Where there are enterprise agreements that applied and were validly approved by the commission, that is the document or instrument that we use to determine whether or not there have been underpayments. The other thing, and I know we’ve spoken about this previously, is that it’s not necessarily the case that, because the award doesn’t provide for operational casual roles, it means that a particular employee would therefore be full time. It might, for example, be that they are award free, in which case their entitlements are by reference to the national minimum wage, for example. Another outcome might be a technical breach of the award that doesn’t necessarily carry consequences. As we spoke about previously as well, the original 15A definition of casual employment that was inserted back in 2021, I think, applied with retrospective application, which was close to a designation approach to casual. It would capture many of the historical complainants in this particular cohort that we’re talking about.
Senator ROBERTS: It seems to me that miners are not getting justice for a trick that was pulled on them by the mine owner, by the labour hire firm, which includes in one case an Australian offshoot of the world’s largest labour hire firm, Recruit Holdings from Japan, and by the mining division of the CFMEU, which is now back to being the Mining and Energy Union. You’re going to endorse it because they came up with a Fair Work Commission approved document.
Ms Volzke: We’ve also spoken previously about who has standing to determine or challenge whether or not an agreement has been validly approved. It’s somebody who’s aggrieved by that, and that doesn’t extend to the Fair Work Ombudsman. Certainly it would be open to another party if they so wish to challenge that.
Senator ROBERTS: Good luck getting a law case cheaply in this country. We’re aware that, in your investigations, the Fair Work Ombudsman has a six-year time restriction on being able to litigate to require compensation for underpayment. You’ve indicated, Ms Booth, in prior Senate estimates hearings that you have not restricted your investigations to the six-year limit but have gone back much further. Is that correct?
Ms Booth: That is my recollection of the evidence we gave.
Mr Campbell: That is correct.
Senator ROBERTS: I think we’ve discussed in these hearings in the past that the underpayments that we have assessed occurred because of the absence of a casualised rate in the coal award. We’ve discussed that to some extent. I’d like to look at it from another angle. If your investigation finds the practical evidence that supports our analysis in the 33 matters that you are investigating, I assume that there may be legal difficulties in successfully prosecuting for compensation because of this legal trick, which is what I’m hearing now. It may be legally complex to have the courts agree that underpayments were illegal. Is it that underpaid casual labour hire coalminers are victims of a legal trick? Could that be a reasonable point of view?
Mr Campbell: I don’t think that we’d come to that view. We wouldn’t make a decision around the enforcement outcome we’d seek to impose in a certain circumstance until the conclusion of the investigation. The statute of limitations we’ve talked about previously goes to enforcement by way of litigation, for example, but there are other ways that we can seek to resolve a historical matter, which is also something we’ve discussed before, where we’ve found evidence of that contravention or an enforceable entitlement. We haven’t got to that point in these matters, so it remains open to us to consider how we will resolve them.
Senator ROBERTS: Would the Fair Work Ombudsman’s task of seeking compensation be more straightforward if legislation existed that resolved the legal trick? We refer to clarifying that casualised labour hire coalminers should be and should have been paid 25 per cent more than the full-time rate under the coal award. Yes or no—would legislation make it easier?
Mr Campbell: I don’t think we’ve got an opinion on that.
Ms Booth: I think you’re asking us, if the law were different, would we apply the different law?
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll ask the minister. Minister, we congratulate the government on eventually requesting the Fair Work Ombudsman to investigate gross underpayments of casual labour hire coalminers. It’s taken about 6½ years. The investigations from the Fair Work Ombudsman to date appear to be heading in the direction where the underpayments that we assessed were occurring may be confirmed on the evidence of the cases being investigated by the Fair Work Ombudsman. Further it is likely, we believe, that any potential compensation may be legally difficult to enforce, which is what I’m hearing, because of a trick using enterprise agreements to get around the fact that the black coal mining industry award does not allow for a casual rate for comparative purposes. It’s our view that the most likely way to obtain justice for casualised labour hire coalminers would be to have legislation that resolves the legal trick we referred to, clarifying that casualised labour hire coalminers should be and should have been paid at least 25 per cent more than the full-time rate under the award. Assuming that the evidence from the Fair Work Ombudsman that supports the underpayment analysis is forthcoming, would the government be interested in considering such legislation for wage justice for these coalminers? If so, One Nation would be very keen to work with the government on such legislation and to lend our full support. Would the government consider that?
Senator Walsh: The government has passed a suite of reforms to our workplace laws to get wages moving in this country, including the closing the loopholes legislation that established the same job, same pay principles and the secure jobs, better pay legislation. We’ve improved rights for casuals, we’ve reinvigorated bargaining, we’ve done a lot of work to close the gender pay gap and we’re really focused on improving the rights of Australians to be paid fairly for the work that they do. You’re referring to matters that I think are best addressed by the team that’s at the bench in terms of matters that the Fair Work Ombudsman has apparently been investigating.
Senator ROBERTS: They’re not allowed to talk about policy and legislation. That’s what I’m asking.
Senator Walsh: You referred, I think, in your question to a report that may be coming. Is that correct?
Ms Booth: We haven’t concluded the investigation at this time.
Senator ROBERTS: You talk about rights, Minister. When you look at the people on a dodgy enterprise agreement compared with those on the black coal mining industry award base rate plus 25 per cent casual loading, you see that this is clearly Australia’s largest wage theft case, and that means that workers have been betrayed. This has been signed off on by the Mining and Energy Union, or the CFMEU mining division, by the labour hire companies, including the largest in the world, by mine owners and by the Fair Work Commission. Workers have got no protection whatsoever. If this goes through, workers have got no protection. There are thousands of them in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley. It’s blatant exploitation. Will the government step in, subject to the report?
Senator Walsh: From a government perspective, it seems appropriate to wait for the report of the Fair Work Ombudsman and give it due consideration when the report’s concluded.
We need One Nation’s national-interest-first policies that will:
✔️ restore and protect Aussie industries
✔️ fix energy
✔️ cut immigration
✔️ restore sovereignty
Thanks for having me on your radio show Jason @2GB873
Transcript
Jason Morrison: There’s a lot of talk about Donald Trump, but there is actual stuff going on today with respect to tariffs. There’s a whole batch of countries that have had letters sent to them from the US government in the most bizarre manner on Truth Social, signed letters from President Trump saying, “Dear Japan, Dear South Korea, Dear Malaysia, Dear Kazakhstan, Dear South Africa, Dear Laos” – informing their leaders of the tariff situation and what will be imposed on them. Japan, Korea, 25% tariff to the US. The other nations – Malaysia, South Africa, Myanmar, Laos – they’re at 40%. You could go through the list. Now we haven’t got ours yet. And perhaps we could be given an extension because we still haven’t had a conversation with the guy. Right?
So maybe, just maybe, we might get it but there is a chance that we may get a letter too telling us what the outcome will be. So, when you think about it, this puts at risk our food industry exports, our mining industry exports, our gas and you think – put all those together, there’s really, I mean Queensland is the home of gas, of coal, of food. There’s a lot on the line for the state of Queensland, but a lot online for all of us here with this.
So, I thought I would just dip into Queensland for a second and talk about what the impact of this will be if this goes the way we fear it will go for Australia.
Malcolm Roberts is Senator for QLD – One Nation and One Nation has got, you know, they’re heading towards as many senators in the parliament as the National Party. So their view on this matters. I thought I’d talk to him. Malcolm Roberts, gidday.
Malcolm ROBERTS: Gidday. What do you mean dipping into Queensland? Is it just before the State of Origin, Jason?
Jason Morrison: Just before it, yeah. Just a little trip up north. I must say …
Malcolm ROBERTS: You’re not playing psychological games on us, are you?
Jason Morrison: I’ll tell you, we’ll try anything, anything at all. But you’ve got to think about it. Food exports, huge Queensland. Coal, huge Queensland. Gas, huge Queensland. It all happens in Queensland. And unfortunately NSW has made itself the recipient state, because if it wasn’t for you blokrd generating all the power, we wouldn’t have enough here too. Now that’s got nothing to do with tariffs, but it does show that these economies are fragile, and tariffs could do something.
Malcolm ROBERTS: I’m glad you mentioned energy actually. It’s not a distraction at all, Jason – it’s fundamental to a modern economy and modern civilization. And when we’re destroying our electricity grid, as we are across the whole of the East Coast of Australia, you know, SA, Victoria, NSW and Queensland, we are making ourselves into a very precarious position. But there is something else that needs to be added. Queensland has the potential for enormous exports of rare earths in minerals from northwestern QLD – there’s a whole area there still to be opened up and our state government for decades now have neglected the northwest. But we have got the potential for really putting Australia on the map when it comes to rare earth metals.
Jason Morrison: I should point out, Malcolm is (was) a mining engineer and I guess you never stop being a mining engineer and thank goodness he understands it because very few in parliament do, but what would be the impact of these US tariffs on the Australian mining industry, which powers this country?
Malcolm ROBERTS: I don’t know enough about the actual details of what they’re what tariffs are putting on, but I think Trump has shown throughout his life that he’s a negotiator. He throws the cards up in the air, catches everyone off guard and then jumps in when he’s picking up the cards. So I don’t know what he’s got in mind, but he has shown signals with other countries that he’s after rare earth metals for America to compete in the modern age. So there’s a huge opportunity for us there. But you know what’s really – what this is really is a wake up call. We haven’t been given a letter. We’ve just been assumed that we’re going to be treated like we’re still at 10%. But they are part of Trump’s agenda to put America first. And that’s something that our country needs to start doing. Under Liberal and Labor, for decades, we have not put Australia first. We’ve sold out on free trade agreements. We’ve sold out our manufacturing with the Lima Declaration in 1975, which the Labor Party signed and the Liberal Party ratified the following year in 76. So what we’ve got to do is take a lead from Donald Trump and start putting Australia first.
Jason Morrison: So let me turn that around. Would you support Australia having a tariff attitude?
Malcolm ROBERTS: I think we have – yes, I would.
Jason Morrison: So let’s put this practically speaking. So we could have maybe protected the Australian car industry from where it is now, which is almost non-existent. I mean we make buses and caravans here, we don’t make cars here, we could have actually kept one going?
Malcolm ROBERTS: Correct. We do need to consider – you know Whitlam signed the Lima Declaration which basically transferred our manufacturing to China and other Asian countries. That was done deliberately under the UN Lima Declaration in 1975. The Liberals have ratified that in 76 and have perpetuated it. Manufacturing has been shot. It’s not only tariffs that have caused the problem. The number one cost component in manufacturing, Jason, is not labour anymore, it’s not wages. It’s electricity by far and what we’ve done in this country with putting up UN policies, Net-Zero Paris Agreement etc, we are destroying our electricity sector. We’ve now got – we’ve gone from being the cheapest power in the world to amongst the most expensive. All due to the UN policies. And that is destroying our manufacturing. What we’re doing is we’re subsidising with our taxes and with electricity prices, the Chinese to build subsidised solar and wind complexes in this country. And we’re subsidising the Chinese to do it and to run it. And we’re then sending our manufacturing jobs to China.
Jason Morrison: It’s a really interesting point. I think people do forget that often. We think because this is an expensive country, our labour’s expensive versus the rest of the world, we pay big money per hour for people working manufacturing versus what other nations do, but they’re not dumb enough to put their power through the roof. Son we’ve done both.
Malcolm ROBERTS: Correct. And it’s not just power – power on manufacturers, on employers and businesses, it’s the higher cost of living due to failed energy policies. The rampant inhuman – I would call it inhuman – excessive immigration in this country, which is shooting house prices through the roof, making it unaffordable. People in – we’re really screwing the lives of people in their 20’s, the young adults, the future leaders of this country, future citizens of this country are being jacked off because they’re just facing HUGE cost increases. And electricity is a critical component in every part of our economy. And then we’ve got COVID fraud and mismanagement, which led to Pfizer and Moderna getting $18 billion in wealth transfers.
Jason Morrison: Oh, gosh, we don’t have enough time to do that. But yeah, you’re right.
Malcolm ROBERTS: But we have looked after foreign corporations, Jason.
Jason Morrison: Over the top.
Malcolm ROBERTS: That’s just one example.
Jason Morrison: Yeah, and you know, I always think about it because people always – people in their 20’s – I have kids that are in their – 13, 11 and 9, they don’t have a vote, they don’t have a say. And yet the decisions being made today are going to be decisions that they will pay for. And the kids of today are being punished by the stupidity and ignorance of so many people that are electing clowns to high office. And we’re getting basically – we’re not paying for it because they’ll be the ones that end up paying for it.
Malcolm ROBERTS: Correct. You hit the nail on the head and the reason is because, you know, our constitution is the only constitution in the world in which the people got a vote on the constitution before it was introduced. The only one! And that the constitution puts the people at the top of the sovereignty arrangements in this country. And yet what we’re doing – what we’re seeing in this country for decades under Labor and Liberal is people serving the government. It should be the government serving the people. Put Australia’s interests first. We need to be working to restore independence and that means freeing up electricity, stopping immigration at the moment and until we catch up with infrastructure and housing and until we can start to understand what’s really going on.
Jason Morrison: Yeah, hear, hear! I mean, you know there will be people listening – “listen to this radical stuff being spoken” – never a truer thing has been said. That is it! Good on you.
Malcolm ROBERTS: Our Prime Minister has met with XI Ji Jingping four times. Why so much effort into China? I know they’re a big trading partner, but why so much effort into China? What about the rest of the countries in the world, including America?
Jason Morrison: Yeah. That’s so true. Good on you. Nice talking to you, Malcolm. Thank you.
Malcolm ROBERTS: Thank you, Jason.
Jason Morrison: That’s Senator Malcolm Roberts from One Nation, who is a smart man and he’s one of these fellows when he speaks, it’s worth listening to what he’s got to say. Doesn’t just shoot from hip – you can tell he reads a lot and knows a lot. I think what we are seeing at the moment is just – it’s like they’ve pushed levers wrongly. They’re pushing up wages, pushing up power and they’re just making everything in Australia uncompetitive at the moment, including living here. It’s just you can’t help but think there must be somebody behind them pushing the levers for them because it’s just so dumb. And surely if you’re smart enough to get elected, you’re smart enough to know these are not smart.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Q9GUgh0qurY/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-07-10 11:52:012025-07-10 11:52:10US Tariffs Could Hit Queensland Hard
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!
When the Mining and Energy Union signed agreements with big business labour hire companies to underpay coal miners, the Labor Party did nothing and remained silent.
Now, the Albanese Labor government is covering this up.
Albanese’s ‘Same Job Same Pay’ laws fail to backpay underpaid coal miners.
Labor used to be the party of the worker
NOW
It’s the party that screws the worker.
In 2019, miners in the Hunter Valley exposed wage theft. Since then, I have been fighting hard for underpaid coal miners.
One Nation has:
Documented evidence of coal miners’ wage theft.
Pushed through a parliamentary motion for a full investigation.
Prompted the Fair Work Ombudsman to investigate specific miners’ underpayments (it’s big!).
At least 10,000 coal miners in New South Wales and Queensland have been massively underpaid.
One Nation now has a parliamentary bill to compensate the coal miners. The bill will force:
Labor hire companies to compensate (pay) the coal workers.
The union (MEU) to compensate the coal workers.
The Fair Work Commission to compensate (pay) the workers.
The Bill
The important section in the Bill says:
333AA Compensation for underpayment
(2) As soon as practicable after giving the Minister a report under subsection 333Z(5), the Fair Work Ombudsman must provide a compensation notice in respect of the casual employee to the following:
(a) the employer of the casual employee;
(b) the industrial association or industrial associations (if any) that supported the enterprise agreement covering the casual employee;
(c) the Fair Work Commission.
(3) As soon as practicable after receiving a compensation notice under subsection (2) the notified party must pay the amount of compensation included in that notice to the casual employee.
(4) A person referred to in paragraph (2)(a) or (2)(b) commits an offence if the person fails to comply with subsection (3).
Penalty:
(a) for an individual—imprisonment for 2 years or 500 penalty units, or both; or
No one trusts politicians because of their lies. PM Albanese promised power bills would drop by $275 by 2025, but they’ve only increased. Despite claims that wind and solar are the cheapest, power bills have never been higher after 20 years of introducing these “renewable” sources.
The Liberal Party’s motion complains about high power bills but ignores the real issue – NET ZERO.
The ONLY elected party that opposes this scam and is committed to lowering power bills is One Nation. Labor, Liberals, and Nationals all support expensive energy. The truth is coal is the cheapest way to run our electricity grid. India and China use our coal, yet Australians can’t. Make it make sense!
One Nation has a plan to permanently reduce power prices by ensuring baseload power stability. This would cut bills immediately by 20% and ultimately by 50%.
Vote One Nation to put more money back in your pocket and end the net zero lies.
Transcript
No-one trusts politicians, because of lies. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised Australia that power bills would come down $275 by 2025; 2025 is here and power bills have never been more expensive, and they’re still increasing. Australians are constantly told wind and solar are cheapest. That might be the greatest lie in Australian political history, and that is saying something. Well, after 20 years of connecting all the wind, solar, batteries and pumped hydro to the grid, power bills have never been higher.
This is a motion from the Liberal Party, complaining, yet it says nothing about the reason power bills are still so expensive. There is a reason why Queenslanders are worried about running their air conditioning and why local small businesses are closing: that’s net zero. There’s only one elected party in the Senate that opposes the net zero scam, and that’s One Nation. We are the only ones that truly believe in making power bills cheaper. Labor is committed to wind and solar—super expensive. The Liberals the Nationals are committed to wind, solar and nuclear—very expensive. None of them will promise that your power bills will come down under their plan, because they can’t. The truth is that under net zero Australia faces decades of increasing power prices.
There’s a big secret that every politician in this room knows yet won’t say out loud: the absolute cheapest way to run an electricity grid today is coal. Even if you believe in net zero, let’s have a serious look. Australia’s annual carbon dioxide production is 465 million tonnes. India and China together are 16 billion tonnes, 35 times as much. India and China are allowed to buy Australia’s coal and use it, yet Australians can’t use their own coal here in our country. One Nation would get rid of this nonsense. We have a plan to bring down power prices permanently. Right now, baseload power is told to immediately shut down whenever wind and solar unpredictably turn on. Coal is what’s known as baseload power; it’s designed to run effectively and efficiently, 24/7, up to 98 per cent of the time. Turning baseload power off completely in unplanned ways is a huge problem. This leads to much higher prices, increased maintenance costs and, in some cases, power stations breaking down owing to the abuse they weren’t designed for.
The solution is very simple: just guarantee baseload power the minimum time needed to keep spinning. Wind and solar can fill in the rest if they happen to turn on. The most conservative scenario is that this will bring down power prices 20 per cent immediately. Taken to full effect, this could bring power bills down 50 per cent. The Liberals, Labor and the Nationals will never bring down your power bills like this, because they are completely committed to net zero nonsense—net zero lies. One Nation, and only One Nation, will put more money back in your pocket.
I’ve got a very simple goal – make it as cheap as possible to turn the lights on. Peter Dutton and Anthony Albanese say we should comply with the Paris Agreement instead.
You can only trust One Nation to put Australia and your power bills first.
