Posts

The Cost of Living Under Labor

The Albanese government’s decision to cut back on real infrastructure spending to make way for Net Zero spending demonstrates that Labor is out of control.

I spoke in agreement with Senator Babet on a Matter of Urgency that this government’s spending is wrongheaded and is doing far more harm than good. Everyday Australians are working harder yet still going backwards on a treadmill that’s worsened under Labor.

As taxpayers we have already paid to build effective base load, coal-fired power stations and all the associated structures to carry and deliver this reliable source of electricity. You’d think the government could spend the annual budget on any number of desperately needed infrastructures projects that Australians have been waiting for. But no, Albanese’s government is tearing down what works and has already been built, to replace it with short-lived wind and solar set ups that are not fit for purpose.

The Net Zero fairy-tale is a nightmare that is driving up power bills all over the country and is a major contributor to the cost of living pain.

The polls are demonstrating just how much people are over this Prime Minister, who has wrung every last cent out of everyday Australians while cosying up to foreign globalist interests.

One Nation is now the party for the workers and economic recovery. One Nation’s grounded, commonsense approach will benefit all Australians.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I agree with Senator Babet that the government’s spending is wrongheaded and is causing more harm than good. The Albanese government’s announcement this week to cut back on real infrastructure spending to make way for nonsensical net zero spending is counterintuitive, a wrecking ball for future generations. Taxpayers have already paid for the national electricity grid through their tax payments and through their electricity bills. Taxpayers have already built beautiful, cost-effective baseload coalfired power stations and the associated poles and wires.

Instead of using the annual share of the budget that goes to infrastructure to build something new and useful, the Albanese government is tearing down what has already been built and building it again—and, much like this Prime Minister, building it with something that is not fit for purpose. Wind and solar are the most unreliable and expensive forms of power, once everything is factored in, including transmission lines. Wind turbines last for 15 years and solar installations about the same. All the nature-dependent power installed under this and previous governments has to be replaced before we get to 2050 and then replaced again and again every 15 years after that—again and again and again: insanity, a permanent black hole that benefits nobody except the predatory, parasitic billionaires who pull this government’s strings.

Speaking of fit for purpose, Snowy Hydro 2.0 has proved that city bankers like Malcolm Turnbull are crap at picking infrastructure projects. To continue throwing good money after bad with this failure will come at the opportunity cost of funding sensible infrastructure projects like Big Buffalo dam and hydro, Hells Gates Dam, Koombooloomba hydro, Urannah Water Precinct, Emu Swamp and South East Flows Restoration. These are all worthwhile infrastructure projects that One Nation will build. And inland rail to the Port of Gladstone, the east-west rail line and a steel park at Abbot Point are projects One Nation will continue to push and support and build.

Then there are the road projects, schools, rural hospitals and so much more that this government is shelving so it can waste money on the UN’s net zero fairytales—nightmares. Weather-dependent generation needs batteries to back it up—more expense. The environmental destruction is finally getting attention, after scars have already been cut across national parks all over this beautiful country. Each gigawatt of coalfired power has to be replaced with five gigawatts of wind or solar. No amount of solar will provide power at night without expensive batteries that are dirty to manufacture and last an even shorter time than the solar panels they so positively affirm.

The net zero alliance puts the cost of 100 renewables with no blackouts by 2050 at $1.5 trillion—260 gigawatts of installed capacity to replace 60 gigawatts of coal. No wonder the infrastructure minister, Minister King, announced that the Albanese government would require state governments to pay for at least half of any infrastructure project in their state. And new infrastructure projects must be over $500 million before the federal government will fund their half. That will leave the states to pay for most infrastructure projects entirely. That’s Victoria done for, with all the debt Labor Premier Andrews left behind.

What next, a state levy to pay for infrastructure that the federal government should rightly be paying for now? This is socialists taxing the life out of the public. Australia already ranks 57th out of 62 of the largest economies for income tax levels, with first being the lowest tax rate, and 56th for company tax. We’re nearly the highest. Foreign corporations, of course, are not included. They’re token. Tax payments are only for public relations. Successive governments have been unable to deal with multinational tax avoidance—because they’re not really trying. Electoral donations keep getting in the way—funny how that works!

According to the OECD, Australians’ average annual wage growth from 2019 to 2022 was the seventh lowest among the 38 OECD nations, at less than three per cent. Inflation is now six per cent, after being at eight per cent. If everyday Australians feel like they’re working harder and going backwards, it’s because they are. As Senator Babet quite rightly pointed out on this motion, if it feels like your mortgage and rent are a struggle to pay, it’s because they are—thanks to Labor. Tax cuts for upper-income earners are coming next year. Here’s a better idea: index the tax thresholds so that Australians don’t pay tax when their wages rise to compensate for inflation and push them into a higher-rate tax bracket. We should be indexing taxes to the inflation rate to prevent bracket creep.

The Prime Minister has wrung every cent out of everyday Australians, and the political polls are saying quite clearly that people are jack of it. One Nation are now the party of workers. One Nation are the party of sensible economic management for the benefit of all Australians. We have one flag. We are one community. We are one economy. We are one nation.

/4 Comments/by

The market is not abandoning coal, the government is forcing the market to abandon coal

,
Australians are constantly told that banks, electricity markets and buyers are all turning away from coal and gas because it’s too expensive or the buyers just don’t like it anymore. It’s bullshit.

It is the Government that is applying direct pressure on coal and gas while it gives wind and solar a free ride. There is a sneaky, hidden piece of legislation called the Renewable Energy Shortfall Charge that is enforced by the Clean Energy Regulator (CER).

It forces your electricity company to buy a percentage of all of their electricity from wind and solar complexes. If your electricity company buys too much coal or gas fired electricity, they have to pay to buy green credits (generation certificates) off wind and solar generators or they will be fined.

Like slowly boiling a frog, the percentage of wind and solar your electricity company is forced to buy has been ratcheted up from 0.65% in 2001 to 18.64% this year. The increases are only accelerating.

So remember when anyone tells you “the market” is abandoning coal that it’s a lie. It’s only the government that’s choosing to abandon coal.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: I want to get help with an issue that constituents want to understand and so do I; I don’t understand it. It has relevance to the primacy of energy costs in the budget. I’m hoping to get into a relatively complex area and get your evidence or confirmation on how the renewable energy shortfall charge, under the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act, works. Perhaps you could bring anyone to the table who has expertise in that.

Mr Parker: Sure. Mark Williamson has the expertise.

Senator Roberts: Thank you, Mr Williamson. I will try to step my way through the legislation here, and you can pick me up where I’m wrong or missing something. The renewable energy shortfall charge applies to liable entities?

Mr M Williamson: Correct.

Senator Roberts: Which is defined in sections 35, 31, 32 and 33, and essentially talks about entities that make a wholesale acquisition of electricity.

Mr M Williamson: Yes. For simplicity, these are typically electricity retailers.

Senator Roberts: Retailers.

Mr M Williamson: Yes.

Senator Roberts: Wholesalers?

Mr M Williamson: The electricity retailers are typically the liable parties.

Senator Roberts: Okay; they are the liable parties because they sell it to the end user.

Mr M Williamson: Correct.

Senator Roberts: Okay. Thank you. That’s great.

Mr Parker: Or large users, people directly purchasing electricity.

Senator Roberts: So large users who buy direct can also be facing these charges.

Mr Parker: Correct.

Mr M Williamson: Correct.

Senator Roberts: Can I get you to explain who the liable entities for the renewable energy shortfall charge are in simple terms—again, retail or large users?

Mr M Williamson: I need to frame and explain the renewable energy target for you. It sets an obligation on these retailers or large users who are buying direct to surrender to us each year a certain number of large-scale generation certificates and small-scale technology certificates. Those amounts are based on percentages set each year in regulation by the minister. Effectively, if you’re an electricity retailer, you take your acquisition of electricity in megawatt hours, you multiply it by those percentages and that tells you the number of certificates that you need to surrender to us. If a liable entity does not surrender the certificates or surrenders fewer than they should, that makes them liable for the shortfall charge.

Senator Roberts: So it’s not power generators and not wholesalers; it’s just retail and large consumers, as Mr Parker said.

Mr M Williamson: Correct; and they’re only liable for the shortfall charge if they do not surrender enough certificates to us to meet their renewable energy target liability.

Senator Roberts: Can you talk me through the large-scale generation certificates that you just mentioned.  What are they and what is the effect of surrendering them for that company?

Mr M Williamson: Large-scale generation certificates are issued for each accredited power station that’s from a renewable energy source.

Senator Roberts: Solar or wind, for example?

Mr M Williamson: Correct. Hydro, as well, is quite common. They get a certificate for every net megawatt hour of generation. Those certificates can be used on the demand side to equip liability, so they can be sold to electricity retailers or big users, or they can be voluntarily cancelled to prove the use of renewable energy. For example, you may have heard of the GreenPower scheme. That operates in a way that businesses who want to have more renewable energy use proven, other than just the statutory renewable energy target, can buy and cancel large-scale generation certificates.

Senator Roberts: So a coal-fired power station would not get them?

Mr M Williamson: That’s correct.

Senator Roberts: Definitely not. Solar and wind would. And purchasers must buy at least 18.64 per cent right now of solar or wind power or hydro.

Mr M Williamson: Effectively, that’s the case. I think that percentage you’ve mentioned is the renewable power percentage and so, yes, those electricity retailers or big users multiply their electricity acquisitions by that percentage. That tells them the number of certificates that they have to cancel to us.

Senator Roberts: I’ve got some figures in front me about the renewable power percentage. I’ll just go through them. In 2001, it started—so that’s 22 years ago—and it was just 0.24 per cent, about a quarter of one per cent. Then it went up in the following year. You mentioned that this is a ministerial directive.

Mr M Williamson: The minister sets these percentages, based on calculations that we do each year, but the actual targets are set in the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act. A certain number of gigawatt hours of generation each year was set in the act. That got to the target, which is 33,000 gigawatt hours, which is set in the legislation from 2020, and that same number continues to 2030. That 33,000 gigawatt-hour target was reset in mid-2015 by parliament. In the early stages of the scheme, there was a table in the act that set the numbers that dictated where that percentage would be set.

Senator Roberts: Is that table in section 39(1) of the act?

Mr M Williamson: I’d have to ask the general counsel to try to find the right part of the legislation.

Senator Roberts: While we’re waiting for confirmation, in 2001 it was 0.24. In 2002, the following year, it was 0.62, and it had slow increments, mild increments, until 2010. It took 10 years to get to 5.986 per cent. Then, from 2011 onwards, it rose, in 11 years, to 18.64. So it was 5.6 per cent in the first 10 years and there was a 13 per cent increase in the next 11 years.

Mr M Williamson: These were legislated increases. That was the way that the scheme was designed.

Senator Roberts: I want to understand this. First of all, I’ve focused mainly on the climate, because I haven’t found anyone who can give me the science that proves the need for this. But I haven’t focused on the energy, and that’s where I want to go in the future. That means resolving some of the complexities. I want to no-understand this because we always hear that it’s the market that’s forcing coal-fired generators out and that one likes coal. Yet it appears to me, with this renewable energy shortfall charge—a fine, if you like—that it’s actually the government forcing the retail sellers and the end users to buy wind and solar energy or, essentially, they’ll be faced with this fine. Is that correct?

Mr M Williamson: The construct of the scheme is that the retailers should buy the certificates. The shortfall charge is only where they do not choose to or are unable to get the certificates that they need. So it’s the default mechanism. But the way the scheme works is that the retailers should get in and be buying renewable energy. That should bring through more renewable energy, and that’s the way the scheme works.

Senator Roberts: It appears deceptive from one perspective. I’m not accusing you of doing that, but it appears deceptive from one perspective, hidden in the complex legalese. Have you ever advertised to the public that the government, through you, is forcing retail purchasers and large-end users to purchase more and more wind and solar?

Mr M Williamson: We don’t do specific broad community education, but all of this is regularly published; it’s published by other bodies, such as the Australian Energy Regulator and the Australian Energy Market Commission. It is generally well known that there’s an obligation on the electricity retailers. As I said, a lot of electricity users are choosing to buy GreenPower and to go further than the minimum statutory target.

Senator Roberts: What we have is a consumer faced with a choice of buying electricity. If they don’t buy an adequate amount or proportion of solar and wind, they will have to pay a charge in addition to the subsidies that the solar and wind producers are getting.

Mr M Williamson: No. The obligation is set with electricity retailers. There are a lot of electricity retailers. In a competitive market, they should source the certificates at the best price they can and have the lowest level of input cost for the renewable energy target.

Senator Roberts: My point, Mr Williamson and Mr Parker—you can correct me or confirm—is that, in my opinion, now that I’ve had it clarified, this is the most significant intervention in the electricity market that the government has ever conducted, and not just this government but previous governments as well. By ministerial directive via legislation, they’re ratcheting up the percentage of renewable electricity that every electricity buyer has to buy, or face a fine over the course of 20 years.

Mr M Williamson: Let me clarify, again, that the underlying numbers that lead to those percentages are locked in the act, so parliament took a decision to lock those numbers in. We do complex calculations to convert that to a percentage and they are put to the minister. The act sets out the things that the minister must consider. This is all set in legislation that was passed in parliament.

Senator Roberts: Thank you for affirming that yet again. My mistake: I thought I said ‘in the act’, but maybe I didn’t. Doesn’t this confirm that solar and wind are much more expensive? We’ve all been hearing the fluff that says people are going away from coal because it’s more expensive. Solar and wind get subsidies; plus, if somebody buys coal-fired power, the retailers or large-end users can be up for a charge. Doesn’t this really confirm that, without subsidies and without a throttle on the coal-fired competition, wind and solar are too expensive?

Mr M Williamson: Not in my view; I wouldn’t agree with that at all.

Senator Roberts: On what basis?

Mr M Williamson: There are incentives in the form of those large-scale generation certificates that go to the generators.

Senator Roberts: The solar and wind generators?

Mr M Williamson: Correct. Effectively, who benefits often depends on the nature of power purchase agreements between those solar and wind power station operators and the retailers. But, in essence, the numbers—if you look at the Australian Energy Market Operator’s Quarterly Energy Dynamics report, every time that wind and solar are setting the price in the wholesale electricity market, the prices are very low and, in some cases, in negative territory. It’s quite clear that, in fact, wind and solar are driving down wholesale electricity prices, which are also an input to retailers and to all of us as consumers.

Senator Roberts: I would say that’s an aberration. What’s happening is that coal is actually being forced out by the governments—I say ‘governments’ plural—and it’s a direct market intervention in addition to the subsidies. The subsidies enhance solar and wind; the charge slams coal.

Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, in your questions just now and, indeed, yesterday, you mentioned subsidies. Are there any particular subsidies that you’re interested in? I think it’s been challenging sometimes for witnesses to engage with your questioning, because you don’t name them and I’m just unclear what it is that you’re referring to.

Senator Roberts: Subsidies on solar and wind.

Senator McAllister: Issued by whom?

Senator Roberts: Federal government, state governments.

Senator McAllister: Is there a program in particular that you’re seeking information on?

Senator Roberts: No, I don’t have any one in mind in particular.

Senator McAllister: I see. Please go on.

Chair: Senator Roberts, I’m going to wind you up as well. We can come back to you, if you need.

Senator Roberts: I’d just make the point that the market is not abandoning coal; the government is forcing buyers to not buy coal. That’s the point.

Chair: Thank you for your statement.

Senator Roberts: Thank you very much, Mr Williamson, for clarifying.

/by

What’s the “genius” plan to replace the 1200MW Liddell?

A 500MW battery, lunacy.

/4 Comments/by

Wind and Solar subsidies have to be ditched

Australia has the largest amount of money (wasted) on intermittent renewables in our history, the most wind and solar feeding into the grid in history, and what is the result? Skyrocketing power prices and risk of blackouts! Ditch wind and solar subsidies. Bring back cheap, reliable power.

/2 Comments/by

Morrison-Joyce Government speak with forked tongues over coal

,

As the cost of living pinches Australian households, the Morrison-Joyce government favours foolish net zero targets, rather than investing in a new power station for Australia’s energy affordability and security.

Shine Energy’s coal-fired Collinsville power station in North Queensland is a community-led project dedicated to providing affordable energy using Australia’s clean coal reserves and can be a vital part of Australia’s national energy and industry security.

Senator Roberts said, “An election campaign brings out the duplicitous politicking from our politicians, when they choose their words of support so carefully that the back door is always open for reneging.

“Barnaby Joyce’s lame private statements of support for the business case of Collinsville power station is no green light for the power station to go ahead.”

The Morrison-Joyce government and Labor share and continue a deceitful and dishonest stance on coal. 

Senator Roberts added, “When spruiking to city voters, it’s all about net zero and “dirty” coal, then they clean up their act in the regional areas and spruik clean coal, jobs and energy security.

“Australian voters have listened to these politicians speak with forked tongues over coal for years now, while they continue to pander to globalist agendas and put our national energy security and people’s jobs and livelihoods at risk.”

One Nation alone provides voters with a consistent and strong message about the value of Australia’s coal-fired and technologically advanced power stations for energy security, jobs and reducing our cost of living.

One Nation is the only party of energy security. One Nation is the only party of energy affordability.

/by

Is Anthony Fauci a genocidal maniac?

,

The evidence of Anthony Fauci’s previous bungles is available for all to see. This and more on Marcus Paul in the Morning.

Transcript

[Marcus Paul]

You know I’ve enjoyed my sparring sessions with One Nation Senator, Malcolm Roberts, throughout 2021. So much so that I’m gonna do it for years to come. Malcolm And I sometimes don’t see eye to eye on certain issues, and that’s okay. One thing I do appreciate is him holding the federal government to account on a number of issues. And Malcolm has been very vocal on issues that he is passionate about. Look, I don’t know a politician that seemingly does as much research and collates as much empirical data as what he does. And for that, he should be commended. Malcolm Roberts, good morning.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Good morning, Marcus, and thank you for the introduction.

[Marcus Paul]

It’s all right, Mate.

[Malcolm Roberts]

By the way, I’ve got two things. First of all, you’d be very pleased to know that you’re converting me. I’m reading a book by a lefty.

[Marcus Paul]

Ah, stop it.

[Malcolm Roberts]

And it is stunning. And the lefty is Robert Kennedy, who is Robert Kennedy Jr., actually.

[Marcus Paul]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Robert Kennedy, the assassinated Robert Kennedy’s son.

[Marcus Paul]

Right.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Marcus, It is absolutely stunning.

[Marcus Paul]

What’s it about?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, it’s called, the title is called, “The Real Anthony Fauci”.

[Marcus Paul]

Right, okay.

[Malcolm Roberts]

You know who Fauci is, of course.

[Marcus Paul]

I do, yes.

[Malcolm Roberts]

He’s the man who started this exaggeration around the world. And that man, according to Robert Kennedy’s work, is an absolute criminal. He’s an inhumane, genocidal maniac. And he has deliberately suppressed, and dishonestly suppressed ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and many other standard treatments, combinations of treatments that doctors around the world have been using highly successfully for one reason, to get injections into people around the world. And Robert Kennedy has sat down and wrote this book over a number of months. He’s got something like 2000 references in it from scientific peer reviewed papers, right through to newspaper articles. And he documents about his criminal behaviour over decades. And it is absolutely stunning. And we have all been sold a pup. And Fauci has got blood on his hands to the tune of hundreds of thousands of fatalities, and thousands of, tens of thousands. That’s hundreds of thousands of fatalities that could have not occurred because we would have been using other treatments. And tens of thousands of people who have died due to adverse effects from these injections. It is absolutely disgraceful and we need to be holding people to account.

[Marcus Paul]

All right, what’s the name of the book again?

[Malcolm Roberts]

“The Real Anthony Fauci.” I ordered it a couple of months ago when I heard it was coming, for my son for a birthday present, but it hasn’t arrived yet because I think it’s selling so well in America that they can’t print them fast enough. You could get it in Britain for around about $2.99 for the, what is it, PDF version and the Kindle version. It is stunning.

[Marcus Paul]

All right. What I want you to do as well, considering you’re into books written by lefties, there is another book that I would like you to read. It’s written by a good friend of mine, Vanessa Badham. It’s called “Qanon and On.” All right, so that’s another. In fact, I might even get a copy of you signed by Van herself, sent to your office for Christmas, from me to you. How’s that?

[Malcolm Roberts]

That’ll go well, yeah.

[Marcus Paul]

There you go. All right, Mate. What else are we?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yeah, the other thing, the other thing I wanted to raise was I’m still waiting.

[Marcus Paul]

I know you’ll be waiting forever. Look, I got you, I got you a listener. I got you a listener to debate with this year. Wasn’t tearing him a new one enough or what?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, Mate, he showed that there is no science because he didn’t present any science, no empirical evidence proving cause and effect. And that’s the thing that I see everywhere. I’ve held politicians accountable, senior politicians, Penny Wong, Anthony Albanese, no one has got this stuff, Mate, no one.

[Marcus Paul]

You’ve taken on the Wongster. There’s no way.

[Malcolm Roberts]

I wrote a letter to her asking her for the evidence.

[Marcus Paul]

Yeah, but what about if you and, now that’s a debate I’d pay to see, you and Penny Wong having a discussion about climate change.

[Malcolm Roberts]

I’ll donate the proceeds to a charity that you care to name, Mate. You arrange it and I’ll be there.

[Marcus Paul]

Well, I can only ask. I can but ask. I mentioned this before. Nearly 40% of Australia’s coal fired generation capacity will shut down by 2030 under the greenhouse gas emission cuts promised by Labour and the federal government. Both have proposed a massive expansion of renewable energy to cut pollution from electricity generation, which accounts for around 30% of Australia’s emissions. Now I already called for the oxygen for Matt Canavan. Do I need to send oxygen your way as well?

[Malcolm Roberts]

No, because the facts will dismantle it. Unfortunately, a lot of people are going to hurt and we’re gonna lose a lot of industry. Labour is saying they want to stop coal. And yet they’re saying they won’t cost a single coal miner’s job. That is complete rubbish. It’s the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull Marcus. It is complete rubbish.

[Marcus Paul]

Hey Mate, just repeat that.

[Malcolm Roberts]

How can you shut down an industry, yet not cost a single job? The people in the Hunter, the people in Central Queensland will be devastated. But more significantly, when you shut down the cheapest form of power in this country, you will export more and more manufacturing jobs to China. We export our coal to China. They use our high quality, high energy, cheap, affordable coal. They generate coal [energy] at eight cents a kilowatt/hour. Because of our restrictions, we sell it at 25 cents a kilowatt/hour. We’ve gone from the cheapest coal and the cheapest power in the world to the most expensive. We have exported, not only our coal. We have exported our jobs, our manufacturing sector to China. And now we are dependent on the Chinese for much of our manufactured products. We can no longer sustain a defence force in this country because we don’t make our own bullets. We don’t make our own armaments. We don’t make our own machines. This is absolutely disgraceful. This is a highly important security issue, an economic issue, a social issue, a moral issue, and an integrity issue. And Labour is destroying, plans to destroy the country. If they get into power

[Marcus Paul]

Wow.

[Malcolm Roberts]

It’ll be the Greens, that run this joint.

[Marcus Paul]

Oh, rubbish.

[Malcolm Roberts]

It will be the Greens.

[Marcus Paul]

What a load of rot.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Look at the two coalitions. We’ve had the Liberal National Coalition since 2013. Prior to that, the last government was the Gillard Miln Labour Green Coalition.

[Marcus Paul]

That’s because it was a minority government. And obviously she was beholden to crossbenchers. And I don’t think that’ll happen under Albo, personally. I think they’re making it pretty, no, they’re making it pretty clear. I’ll speak to Richard Miles about it very soon. I’ll ask him like I’ve asked Anthony Albanese in the past. Will you be forming a coalition, for want of a better word, with the Greens? Their answer will be at an emphatic no, Malcolm.

[Malcolm Roberts]

That’s what they say. That’s not what they will do. They want power more than anything else. Even if they’re slaves to the Green. The Greens will say jump and Labour will say how high. That’s what’s gonna happen.

[Marcus Paul]

I love it, I love it. This is why I love having you on cause you and I can, we can spar and have a bit of fun. But as I say, I meant what I said at the beginning of the programme, of our chat. I do appreciate and do respect how hard you work. And, you fundamentally stand your ground on all of the issues that you feel so strongly for. And you have a strong supporter base as well. And look, I wouldn’t be surprised, given what’s been going on in this country in the last 12 to 18 months, that the One Nation vote doesn’t head north to a great extent when we hit the ballot box next May.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, I don’t make predictions about what people will do in elections. That’s up to the voters. But I do know that there is a huge groundswell around this country away from Liberal Nationals and away from Labour Greens. So I’ll leave it to the voters. But more significantly, what’s going on in Queensland, Marcus, is they’re starting to dismantle the narrative around COVID. There’s a huge groundswell. I’ve addressed crowds, hundreds, thousands of people, and Marcus, more telling than the numbers of people, are the energy in the people. They are angry, but then they are hopeful. They’re united. We have got local councils passing motions up and down our state and increasing in numbers, saying to the Palaszczuk Government, they will not be enforcing the injection mandate. The federal government knows, we’ve put them on notice. We will be continuing to oppose government legislation in the new year until we get our freedom back. We’ve got liberal senators now, two of them, Gerard Rennick and Alex Antic, standing up saying they will abstain from all government voting. The government is powerless, and we have to get our freedoms back, and the people are ready for that. They want their freedom back. Think again how I opened this session. Anthony Fauci is a genocidal maniac who has killed, no, he’s killed hundreds of thousands of people. He’s responsible for their deaths. And he’s also responsible for the prevention.

[Marcus Paul]

Don’t get me sued, Malcolm.

[Malcolm Roberts]

The data is there. I’ve read the data. I make comments only based on data.

[Marcus Paul]

All right, Mate. I’ve got to go. So just repeat that phrase. One of the best I’ve heard all year, what was it? Something out of the southern end of a bull. What?

[Malcolm Roberts]

It’s the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull, but more significantly, Merry Christmas to you, Marcus. I love being on with you, as you say. It’s good to have a respectful debate and Merry Christmas to all of your listeners and a happy new year to all. Let’s get this place back to normal.

[Marcus Paul]

You look after yourself. And to you and your family, take care. And I look forward to our further sparring matches next year in 2022. Thank you, Mate.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thanks, Marcus. One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts. I love that. Well, what I would say is, he’s proposing that there’d be a Labour Greens coalition. Well, that to me sounds like something that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull.

/6 Comments/by

No plan to remove toxic solar panels

, , ,

Solar panels have a limited shelf life before they lose efficiency and don’t generate enough electricity. When that shelf life is reached, the panels need to be removed and disposed of.

Unfortunately solar panels are full of highly toxic chemicals like lead, lithium and cadmium which are hard to dispose.

Despite knowing about this looming problem for decades, the government has no plan and no budget to clean up the millions of toxic solar panels across the country.

Transcript

Chair, and thank you for appearing today. In terms of clean energy technology development, what is the proposed solution from the government to safely dispose of the heavy metal component of degraded solar cells?

Senator, there is some work underway through ARENA to look at end-of-life issues for solar cells, but to give you a specific answer right now, I’d have to take that on notice.

Okay, thank you, so some work is underway with ARENA, end-of-life. How expensive, I guess you probably can’t answer this question. How expensive will this process be and what amount had been budgeted for this task?

Yeah, Senator, I don’t think we have the right answers for those questions, and certainly from a Commonwealth perspective, there isn’t a budget allocated to that activity.

Who will be responsible for implementing this policy once it’s developed.

So I think that there’s waste disposal issues. So that’ll be governed more by state legislation than Commonwealth legislation.

So we’ll have some Commonwealth legislation hybrid?

No, Senator, I’m saying that

I’m just trying to clarify.

it’s more a state issue.

Okay, it’s a state issue. So is it likely to be privatised or would it be the responsibility of the individual solar complexes owners?

Look, I really don’t think we have answers to those questions, Senator. I think the research that ARENA is doing will provide some light onto whether or not there are issues that need to be dealt with, and then if there are, there will be policy responses developed by the relevant level of government.

If there are issues?

Yeah, that’s right.

So we don’t know if there are issues yet?

I can’t say myself that I’m aware of how significant those issues are. So research is underway.

Senator, this issue further, we’ll take the rest of that on notice. That question…

Thank you. Will these costs be factored into the massively high government subsidies that are the only way to fudge the actual cost of solar to the community who have been duped into thinking that solar is a cheap source of electricity?

We’ll take that on notice, Senator.

Thank you. Isn’t it true that if the subsidies were removed from solar, they would not be viable because solar in reality is much more expensive than coal, which is still the cheapest form of energy apart from hydro?

On notice, Senator.

On notice? Given that we know that within 10 years or less, the Australian landscape will be littered with hundreds of thousands of dead toxic solar cells. What is the plan? You don’t know the plan yet, ARENA?

We’d take that on notice to do that properly for you, Senator.

Okay, thank you. Is it the government’s intention to create a new industry of solar cell disposal?

Same again?

Senator, we’ll take that on notice

Okay. When will this government, Minister, when will this government stop pandering to the greens on this issue when it works out against Australians who now are forced to pay the most expensive electricity bills in the Western world because of the government subsidies paid for solar and wind generation?

Well, I don’t accept the premise of your question, Senator Roberts. I mean, if you look at the record under this government when it comes to energy prices, for instance, we saw quarter on quarter, month on month energy reductions in costs in energy prices. So we take that

Does that have anything to do with COVID?

We take that very seriously. No, that predates COVID, like, we can go to some of the detail of that if you’d like, but we have had a very strong focus on reducing emissions. That’s why we don’t support things like, sorry, on reducing prices and reducing emissions at the same time. And that’s why we don’t support things like carbon taxes. We have pursued approaches that support reliability, ensure, yes, renewables are very important part of the mix. I know that there will be disagreement between the government and yourself, Minister Roberts, Senator Roberts, on that, but if you look at where renewable energy is affordable, of course, that’s a great part of the energy mix. It’s doing an environmental job and it’s also contributing to the overall price points, but we know that there are challenges with that. That’s why you need backup. That’s why you need, for instance, gas-fired power as backup to renewables. And so the mix of energy is important. We take that very seriously, but no I certainly don’t accept the premise of your question.

Do you think, Minister, it’s responsible for a government to embark on a policies as they did with the Howard Anderson Government in 1996 to reintroduce the renewable energy target, to drive renewables, and yet had no plan for how we would deal with the legacies of these solar panels and wind turbines?

Well, look, it’s probably difficult for me to comment.

This is now, excuse me, this is now 25 years.

But it’s probably difficult for me to comment on sort of the policy process in, you know, 1996 and sort of in that government. So it’s, I probably can’t add too much…

Well given that we are now aware of this issue, and we’ve been saying this for years now, given that we’re now aware of this issue, let’s forget 1996, and let’s look at what your government is doing with regard to this issue now. It’s right on us. We’re gonna have these toxic panels all over the country.

Well, look, as Ms. Evans has said, I think some of those questions have been taken on notice, and, obviously, we will provide you with some further detail if we can.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thanks Senator Roberts.

/2 Comments/by

Prime Minister backstabs the people who voted for him

,

The Prime Minister has caved on an election promise. After telling Australia the truth to get elected, that Bill Shorten’s net zero target would destroy the country, he has signed up to the exact same promise. Gutless, sellout, liar, there aren’t enough words to fully describe this backstabbing of the Australian people.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (09:39): Well, well, well, the Labor Party, as part of the precursor to the Albanese-Bandt coalition government, calls this a stunt. The Labor party is exactly correct. It is a stunt. The No. 1 issue here is integrity and the Greens’ complete lack of integrity. They have never provided the empirical scientific evidence for their claims. First it was Greta: ‘We’ll rely on Greta.’ Then it became, ‘We’ll rely on the Queen.’ Now, it’s, ‘We’ll rely on the Pope’—and most of them are atheists. My goodness, what are we coming to in this country? This mob is hijacking jobs—manufacturing jobs, coalmining jobs, farmers’ jobs. This is an absolute disgrace, because they show no integrity towards the people of this country; they show no integrity towards this parliament, none whatsoever. They tell lies and they make up stuff.

We now see them calling for the science. I want the science. I challenge Senator Waters to provide the empirical scientific evidence that proves carbon dioxide from human activity affects the climate and needs to be cut. She failed to provide it 11 years ago. She ran—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, please resume your seat. Senator Thorpe, on a point of order?

Senator Thorpe: A point of order, Mr President: the senator over here has called us ‘liars’, and I think that is unparliamentary, is it?

The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, he was referring to the Greens as a whole. My view is that that is not unparliamentary. I will check with the Clerk to be sure, given I’m relatively new to this role. My ruling is correct. Please sit down, Senator Thorpe.

Senator Thorpe interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, there is no point of order. Senator Roberts, you have the call.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s make it clear: I did not call the Queen or the Pope a liar. I called them ‘not scientists’. They’re not scientists. But this is what the Greens rely on in the fact that they cannot provide the science. The Greens show no respect for science, no respect for humanity, no respect for the people of this country, no respect for hardworking Australians, and no respect for the farmers that they will gut with this 2050 net zero.

I also remind the Senate that it’s now day 772 since I challenged Senator Larissa Waters and Senator Di Natale in this parliament to a debate on the empirical evidence and also on the corruption of the science. I point out that there is no science that backs this up from the CSIRO, and I’ll have more to say about that next week. There is no science from the Bureau of Meteorology, none from the Chief Scientist—I can tell you a story about the previous Chief Scientist if there is time—none from the Australian Academy of Science and none from the IPCC. In fact, we had the Labor Party’s Kevin Rudd dancing around in 2007 saying 4,000 people in white lab coats endorsed his claim. The reality is that only five academics in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change endorsed the claim of warming, and there’s doubt those five were even scientists.

We’ll hear more rubbish from the Greens, claiming that they have science, but the one thing that they are always consistent on is that they never produce the empirical evidence to justify their claim. They see a picture of a tree frog, a picture of a koala, a picture of a dolphin, and they say, ‘This is the science.’ That’s it; it’s complete rubbish. This has been going on for 11 years, Senator Waters.

Let me point out, Senator Gallagher, that the issue of utmost importance is the integrity of this parliament, the integrity of this country, the integrity of state parliaments, and the integrity of the people of this country and their jobs and their livelihoods. That is of utmost importance to One Nation, and I wish it were of utmost importance to every single person in this Senate, but clearly it’s not.

/1 Comment/by

$19 Billion dollars a year – for nothing!

,

While the Liberal/National party tears itself apart over net-zero and Labor wants us to follow the Greens off a renewable cliff, Australians are paying BILLIONS of dollars for subsidies that are making electricity more expensive and killing manufacturing jobs. We have the best and cheapest coal in the world right here, yet our electricity prices are three times as high as China. If you didn’t know any better, you’d think it was deliberate sabotage from our gutless leaders.

Transcript

Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. The core issue here is integrity. We see the Nationals Party and the Liberal Party tying themselves in knots, the coalition unravelling, according to some, the coalition all over the place, according to others. Depends who we listen to. But the core issue is the complete lack of integrity from the Labour Party and the Greens. This parliament, according to Senator McAllister, has seen all manner of scrutiny. Oh, really?

I can remember Senator MacDonald up here, standing, Senator Ian MacDonald, when he was a Senator here, standing up saying that this parliament has never, ever debated the climate science. Never. So this is all being done on nonsense. In fact, the science has never even been brought into this chamber that says we need to cut carbon dioxide from human activity, that we need to go to renewables. Never. Always the parliament tends to go to the second question, how do we do it, rather than should we do it?

The core question, if we’re really being faithful to and serving the people of this country and the taxpayers and the energy users who are being bled dry, is should we do this madness, not how do we do it. How do we do it comes second. The parliament too often in this country goes to the second question.

No one, no one has ever presented the empirical scientific evidence in this parliament, either House, that says carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut. It is now day 770 since I asked Senator Richard Di Natale and Senator Larissa Waters a fundamental question. Where is your empirical scientific evidence that shows carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut? That’s it. They dodged it. They have never come back with the evidence.

They refuse to debate me. I asked Senator Waters this more than 10 years ago, almost 11 years ago. In fact, it is 11 years ago this month. And she refused to debate me then. Senator Waters then talked about a waste of money. Oh, really? When we’re spending $19 billion a year on this rubbish, destroying our energy sector, destroying manufacturing jobs, exporting them to China.

We send them our coal. They generate electricity using our coal after we’ve shipped it thousands of kilometres. And they sell it for 8 cents a kilowatt hour. We use the same coal here in this country, some of the best coal in the world, and we sell our electricity at 25 cents a kilowatt hour. Why the difference?

Why is it three times as much here? Because of all the renewable regulations, subsidies and climate rubbish. That’s why. Not only do we export our coal, we export our manufacturing jobs, because the number one cost of manufacturing these days is electricity. Not labour anymore. Electricity. We’re gutting jobs, throwing people on the scrap heap. No livelihoods. For nothing. Because no one has ever presented the science that says we need to do this. They run from it.

In One Nation we welcome the debate. We welcome a debate on the science. We will welcome putting both coalitions, the Liberal Nationals and the Labour Greens coalitions, under scrutiny. The policies of the Liberal Nationals coalition are so close to the policies of the Labour Greens coalitions. Where’s the difference, I ask you, other than in slightly in degree?

This is an absolute disgrace with what we’re doing to this country, what this parliament is doing to this country, what this parliament is doing to the taxpayers, what this parliament is doing to jobs of real people, everyday Australians’ jobs getting gutted. And it’s based on a lie. And Al Gore’s making out like a bandit, because the crook has made hundreds of millions of dollars out of this scam, along with several other people, academics, politicians, government agencies.

It just goes on and on and on. This has got to stop.

/2 Comments/by

The true cost of shoddy Governance

, , , , , ,

Governments have been making policy that is completely out of touch with reality or data for decades. It’s all based on political whims or looking good, not the facts or data. As a result, our country is broken.

We have to return to policy based on tested data, not Labor or Liberal’s feelings on the day.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I will discuss the cost of shoddy science that is crippling people, families, communities and our nation. One Nation has repeatedly called for and continues to call for an independent office of scientific integrity and quality assurance to assess the science claimed to be underpinning government policy and decisions. We want objective, independent scientific scrutiny that is protected from politicisation. Science is a not a label; it is hard, verifiable, reliable data within a framework that proves cause and effect logically. It is every senator’s responsibility to ensure that she or he makes decisions using such data.

I’ll give you some examples of the cost of shoddy science that has not been scrutinised. Climate policies and renewable subsidies cost Australian households via electricity costs $13 billion per year, every year. That’s $1,300 per household per year needlessly wasted. The median income in this country is $49,000. After tax, that’s around $34,000 or maybe a little bit higher. How can someone on $34,000 after tax afford $1,300 flushed down the toilet, for nothing? The additional costs of climate policies on our power bills is a staggering 39 per cent, not the 6½ per cent that the government claims. Renewables distort the low cost of coal based power and more than double the wholesale electricity price from coal’s $45.50 per kilowatt hour to $92.50. China and India use our coal to sell electricity at 8c a kilowatt hour, while we burn the same coal without transporting it thousands of kilometres and the price of electricity from the coal is three times as much at 25c an hour.

All Australians have the right to benefit from our rich natural resources. The true cost of electricity in this country would be $13 billion per year less if cheap, affordable, reliable coal production was not lumbered with policies that distort the market. We commissioned independent expert and respected economist Dr Alan Moran to calculate those figures, and he used the government’s own data. So it can’t be sensibly refuted. The government stopped presenting it in consolidated form to hide what government policy is doing to everyday Australians in our nation.

Every subsidised green energy job or so-called renewable job, from renewable or unreliable power, such as wind and solar, costs 2.2 jobs lost in the real economy. Parasitic unreliables are killing their host, the people of Australia and the people of Queensland.

We can go further, beyond raw data on energy costs, to look at property rights. Property rights have been stolen in this country in the name of the Kyoto Protocol. John Howard’s Howard-Anderson government started it with Rob Borbidge’s National Party government in Queensland, followed quickly by Peter Beattie’s government and every government since, with the exception of Campbell Newman, who failed to repeal it. Property rights have been stolen with no compensation. That is fundamentally wrong. We see it in water policy, with corruption in the Murray-Darling Basin when it comes to water trading. We see the stealing of water rights, all based on shoddy science. The whole Murray-Darling Basin Plan is based on shoddy science—political science. Instead of having science based policy, we now have policy based science, and both sides of this parliament are responsible.

Senator Carr, who I have a lot of regard for in many ways, raised COVID. We have not been given the scientific data on COVID. We’ve been given models. The scientific data which I got from the Chief Medical Officer points to a completely different picture and to completely different management. COVID is being mismanaged in the name of science. It is wrong. By the way, the costs of all of those examples I’ve given are not in the billions but in the tens or hundreds of billions, and the impact on our country’s economy is in the trillions, with the lost opportunity and the lack of competitiveness.

COVID exposed to us that our country has lost its economic independence. We now depend on other countries for our survival—for basics. We’ve lost our manufacturing sector because of shoddy governance from the Labor, Liberal and National parties over almost eight decades, since 1944. In the last 18 months, we’ve seen the Liberals, Labor and the Nationals squabbling at state and federal level, because there is no science being used to drive the plan. There’s no plan for COVID management. Each state is lurching from manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis, and the federal government is bypassing the Constitution and conditioning them to suck on the federal tit. That’s what’s going on.

Let’s have a look at the science. I have held CSIRO accountable at three presentations from them, plus Senate estimates. Firstly, the CSIRO has admitted under my cross-examination that the CSIRO has never said that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger—never. We asked them: ‘Who has said it? Politicians told us you said it.’ They said, ‘You’d have to ask the politicians.’ Secondly, CSIRO has admitted that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented. I’ll say that again—not unprecedented. They’ve happened before in recent times without our burning of hydrocarbon fuels.

Thirdly, the CSIRO then fell back on one thing—one paper, after almost 50 years of research, that said that the rate of warming is now increasing. That too was falsified by the author of that paper. It was falsified and contradicted by other references which the CSIRO had to then give us. There is no evidence for the CSIRO’s sole claim that the rate of temperature rise is unprecedented. Its own papers that it cites do not show that. The CSIRO then relied upon unvalidated computer models that were already proven to be giving erroneous projections. That’s what the UN IPCC relies on. They’ve already been proven wrong many times.

The clincher is that, to have policy based upon science, you would need to quantify the amount of impact on climate variables such as weather: rainfall; storm activity, severity and frequency; and drought. You’d need to be able to quantify the impact on that of carbon dioxide from human activity. The CSIRO has never quantified any specific impact on climate, or any climate variable, from human carbon dioxide.

With us, the CSIRO has repeatedly relied on discredited and poor-quality papers on temperature and carbon dioxide. It gave us one of each, and then, when we tore them to shreds, they gave us more. We tore them to shreds. It has never given us any good-quality scientific papers. That’s their science. The CSIRO revealed little understanding of the papers they cited as evidence. That’s our scientific body in this country—they could not show understanding of the papers that they cited.

The CSIRO admits it has never done due diligence on reports and data that it cites as evidence. It just accepts peer review. What a lot of rubbish that is! That has been shown in peer-reviewed articles to be rubbish. The CSIRO allows politicians to misrepresent it without correction. It doesn’t stand up—it doesn’t have any backbone. The CSIRO has misled parliament. Independent international scientists have verified our conclusions on the CSIRO science, and they’re stunned—people like John Christy, Nir Shaviv, Nils Morner, David Legates, Ian Plimer and Will Happer. There is no climate emergency—none at all. Everything is normal. It’s completely cyclical weather.

Now I’ll move to the UK’s Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, which has turned into a propaganda outfit and a mouthpiece and cheer squad for global policies. Politics has captured it and turned it into a massive bureaucracy that writes legislation rather than checks it. POST, as it’s called, comprises people, as Senator Carr said, ‘consistent with parliamentary composition’. That tells us straight away that it’s not independent. Instead of a body to drive legislation we want a body to vet it. Senator Carr mentioned the Office of the Chief Scientist. I asked the Chief Scientist for a presentation on his evidence of climate change caused by human carbon dioxide. After 20 minutes of rubbish we asked him questions and he looked at us and said that he’s not a climate scientist and he doesn’t understand it. Yet we have policies around this country based upon Dr Finkel’s advice. Some of those policies that I mentioned are based on his advice.

We’ve had activists, such as Tim Flannery, David Karoly, Will Steffen, Ross Garnaut, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Matthew England, Kurt Lambeck, Andy Pitman and Lesley Hughes, being paraded and paid by the government—both Liberal and Labor—and yet they’re nothing more than academic activists. None have provided any empirical scientific evidence in a logical framework proving cause and effect. That’s what has been paraded around this parliament as science for decades now. It’s rubbish. That’s why One Nation opposes this motion. It is wasting committee resources to send them off on a goose chase to adopt something like the UK’s Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology.

We invite Senator Carr to join us in legislating for an independent body of scientists to scrutinise government policy and decisions. Let the government put up the science upon which its policies are based and let the independent body scrutinise it. That requires a few things. First of all, it needs a team funded and set up to oppose the government’s position, and we’ll let them both go at it. Science, fundamentally, is about data and debate. We need the government to put up its science and let a team tear it apart—and be funded to tear it apart. Once that happens, and the science is dismissed, that will save the country billions of dollars. If it withstands the scrutiny, that’s good—we’ll know we’ve got a really solid scientific case. Another way is to have a transparency portal. Put the science out there and let anybody in the public domain tear it apart. If someone finds a chink, fix it. True scientists are not about protecting their egos; they’re about being open to the advancement of humanity. They welcome their own science being torn apart.

We need an independent view. The type of information, as the motion discusses, is simple. All we need is empirical scientific evidence in a framework proving cause and effect. We then need independent scrutiny, and I’ve given you two examples. That will replace policies—as Senator Carr has discussed, and I agree with him—based on ideology, headline-seeking, prejudice, opinions, looking after vested interests and looking after donors. This is what’s driving this country, and the people are paying for it. They’re paying for it through the neck, and we’re destroying our country. We need the ‘claimed’ science to be scrutinised and verified or rejected.

What a shameful, disgraceful incident we saw in this parliament just after midday today. We saw Senator Wong, Senator Watt and Senator Waters engaging in a screaming match. Not once did anyone raise empirical scientific evidence. This is day 701 since I asked the chief proponent of this climate change nonsense in the parliament to be accountable for her data. I asked Senator Waters. I challenged her 701 days ago—almost two years ago. I challenged her 11 years ago. She has never agreed to debate me. She refuses to debate me. She refuses to put up the scientific evidence. She refuses to discuss the corruption of climate science. Yet she espouses policies that will gut this country. Also, we’ve seen Senator Wong quoting a report from the IPCC. That’s not a report from scientists; that’s a report from political activists. She talks about what we are told—insert the catastrophe—will happen in the future. That’s not science. What we need is an honest debate. We need an honest debate to reveal the pure science and to hold people accountable in the parliament. We will not be supporting this motion because it will encourage politicisation.

/3 Comments/by

Portfolio Items