Senate Estimates is a great chance for me to grill these climate agencies and get very specific about the evidence that they base their policies on.
This year, we saw yet again that they love to duck and weave, but won’t actually provide me with the evidence. I talked about this on Marcus Paul last week.
[Announcer] Now on “Marcus Paul in the Morning” Senator Malcolm Roberts.
[Marcus] All right, 17 minutes away from eight o’clock. Good day, Malcolm. How are you, mate?
[Malcolm] I’m very well, thanks, Marcus. How are you?
[Marcus] Good, good, good. Now I see, you’ve got the Bureau of Meteorology, and also Malcolm Turnbull, and also the CSIRO in your sights this morning. Who do you want to pick on first?
[Malcolm] Let’s go with the CSIRO.
[Marcus] All right. What do you have to say about them? Of course, this argument about renewables costing us, what, 13 billion bucks a year or $1,300 per household.
[Malcolm] That’s in addition to the electricity bill, that’s the additional cost per household, $1,300. Marcus, there’s some really simple figures to understand. The median income in Australia is $49,000, so after tax, what’s that, 30 something?
[Marcus] Yeah.
[Malcolm] The chief executive of the CSIRO is paid a total per year, every year of $1,049,000.
[Marcus] Not bad.
[Malcolm] The group executive in charge of overseeing the climate area, the climate research, is on $613,000, more than the Prime Minister of Australia.
[Marcus] Yeah, not bad.
[Malcolm] I put to them very basic questions about their so-called science, they refused to answer. These were the first time that I had asked questions about these pieces of information that they gave to me last Senate estimates. I’ve never had an opportunity to ask them questions before about this. This is the first time. They refused to answer. The basic things were that they gave me five new references, in senate estimates in October, I asked them questions about this.
They refused to answer. They refused to answer a representative of the people. And the papers that they provided to me, Kaufman 2020, for example, this is the sort of crap that CSIRO dishes up, when the authors of that paper input their data on climate into their calculations, they omitted the first data point and put it in in reverse order, complete false. The second reference they gave me directly contradicts the claims that the CSIRO says that it’s supposed to be supporting.
The third reference said they made conclusions on one data point, and they took it out of context and went against the CSIRO’s own advice to me last October. So what I’m saying to you is we are paying someone $1,049,000 a year, we’re paying someone else $613,000 a year, people in Australia cannot afford this nonsense, and now we’ve got no evidence whatsoever.
The CSIRO has admitted that they have never said to any politician that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger to our planet. That’s what politicians are saying. Why is this, Marcus, people are paying dearly for destroying manufacturing all because of this rubbish?
[Marcus] All right, now tell me about the Bureau of Meteorology.
[Malcolm] Well, here we go again, another government bureaucracy that’s claiming about climate. When they measure data, temperature, rainfall, et cetera, at a weather station, they also have metadata about the weather station that tells you, for example, how many times a station has been moved, because when it moves, it can have an effect on temperature and other recording devices. Townsville has been moved eight times.
The Bureau of Meteorology’s metadata says it’s been moved once. Metadata as well at Rockhampton moved four times, the Bureau says it’s been moved once. Cairns moved six times, the Bureau says it’s been moved twice. Charleville been moved four times, the Bureau says twice. The Bureau of Meteorology and its own peer reviewers fail to detect and discuss these glaring inaccuracies.
How can we rely on the Bureau of Meteorology which says temperatures are increasing, but they haven’t increased since 1995 globally, which is about almost 30 years, and our temperatures today are lower than in the 1880s and 1890s in Australia. I mean, we’re being fed this nonsense, people are paying for it, it’s destroying our manufacturing capacity all because of atrocious governments and people won’t hold these people accountable.
[Marcus] Well, there are some grave consequences, as you say, for these glaring errors and policies devised on numbers that are given by the Bureau of Meteorology, along with the CSIRO. So there we go, I’m glad we got you there asking these hard questions, Malcolm, but you don’t seem to get much support from those that are in power.
[Malcolm] That’s a really good point.
[Marcus] Why don’t you?
[Malcolm] Angus Taylor is the Minister for Energy.
[Marcus] Yes.
[Malcolm] He admits now, two or three weeks ago he admitted that he is afraid, he’s scared of what’s happening, with our reliability of power supply, security of power supply, the cost of power. He’s admitted all this. I know for a fact, in conversations with Angus Taylor, that he’s a sceptic about us affecting the climate, but he is peddling this nonsense.
Mark Butler, the former spokesman from the Labour Party, I’ve challenged him to a debate, ran away from me. I challenged The Greens 10 and a half years ago, and every day since I’ve been in the Senate, sorry, almost weekly since I’ve been in the Senate this time they’ve failed to provide the evidence.
There’s just a whole lot of groupthink. I wrote to about 20 MPS in senior positions, Labour, Liberal, National, and Greens, not one of them was able to provide me with any evidence that we have to have these policies, not one.
[Marcus] Now let’s move to Malcolm Turnbull. Hang on, there, Malcolm Turnbull, of course, former Prime Minister of Australia, claims that the demand for coal is declining, but no one has told Africa they’re building 1,250 more coal plants by the year 2030. Mines are devastating the landscape in the Hunter Valley. Well, is that true?
Reportedly more about his opposition perhaps to the Mount Pleasant coal mine and the extension plan for it which happens to be near Malcolm Turnbull’s own interest including a grazing property. The mining industry is shortening lives by reducing air quality, and taxpayers, of course, you say are left with huge environmental remediation bills covered by mining bonds. Now last week, I don’t know what was going on in the New South Wales government with the Liberals and Nationals appointing Malcolm Turnbull to this role.
You know, zero net emissions by 2050, we had Matt Kean at the centre of it all, and for some reason, somehow both John Barilaro and the Premier of New South Wales went along with this. There were a couple of dissenting voices, but Malcolm was apparently tipped to take this job. Then there was a massive back flip whether it came from pressure from the media or from One Nation’s Mark Latham. I’m not sure. I think it’s a mix of all of those.
[Malcolm] I think you’re right. Malcolm Turnbull has a lot of personal interests, of benefit to him and his family, from pushing their renewables bandwagon. He’s got no evidence, never has had any evidence for pushing their renewables. He’s got no evidence for having to shut down coal mines. And he himself attributed the dumping of his new job to Mark Latham and the right-wing media, but you know, that’s typical Malcolm Turnbull. He can’t look at his own policy and he can’t look at himself, and he’s become a pariah.
[Marcus] Yeah, look, I understand what you’re saying, I get that, but let’s be honest, he’s half right.
[Malcolm] In what way?
[Marcus] Well, of course, he’s right.
[Malcolm] In what way?
[Marcus] Well, until people down the road from us 2GB and the Telegraph and a few others started jumping up and down about it this was gonna go through. I mean, I would tend to think that unless there was a by-election just around the corner in the upper Hunter, perhaps this bloke, Malcolm Turnbull, might’ve gone on.
[Malcolm] Well, I’m not gonna argue with that, I think that you’re making some pretty good comments, but Malcolm Turnbull himself blamed Mark Latham for standing up and speaking the truth. That’s the pressure that Mark brings. Mark’s a very good speaker, he gets his facts and he went straight into bat. Barilaro and Berejiklian are the ones. How could they possibly sign off on this man, Turnbull, being put in this position? But think about this, Marcus.
[Marcus] Yeah.
[Malcolm] Australia’s total electricity coal-fired power station capacity in this country was 25.2 gigawatts in 2017. So it’s less than that now with the closure of a couple of coal-fired power stations in Victoria, it’s less than that. China alone opened 38.4 gigawatts of new coal-fired plants last year alone, so almost double what our total capacity is. The world has opened up 50.3 gigawatts of new coal-fired capacity last year alone. India is opening up on average around 17 gigawatts. India itself and China are opening up combined about three times our total capacity of coal-fired power stations.
[Marcus] And the argument, of course, is, Malcolm, I do need to go, the argument, of course, is that if they don’t get our coal, they’ll get it from elsewhere.
[Malcolm] Correct.
[Marcus] Yeah, all right, mate, thank you for coming on. I appreciate it.
[Malcolm] Okay, mate, you’re welcome.
[Marcus] Talk soon.
[Malcolm] See you, Marcus.
[Marcus] See you, mate. Bye-bye. There he is, One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts. Of course, David Lazell…
Electric vehicles might be okay for suburb hopping in big cities, but I doubt there is a farm in Australia that would be able to run without any petrol or diesel. The Greens’ calls to ‘rapidly transition to electric vehicles‘ for their net zero economy by 2035 shows they have no clue of the energy requirements in transport, industry and agriculture.
Transcript
Let’s have a bit of fun with some facts. Neither H2O, water, nor CO2, carbon dioxide, is a pollutant. Neither water nor carbon dioxide is a pollutant. The two products from burning hydrocarbon fuels—coal, oil, natural gas—are water and carbon dioxide. We have carbon in every cell of our bodies. The term ‘organic’ refers to something that contains carbon. Earth: the thing that makes our planet so livable, the thing that makes our planet so unique, is the fact that we have more carbon concentrated on our planet than is the case across the universe.
Carbon is essential for life, but the Greens don’t understand that carbon is not carbon dioxide. They tell us that we need to cut our carbon dioxide from the use of coal, oil and natural gas, but then they talk about carbon. Carbon dioxide is a gas. Carbon is a solid in every cell of your body.
So let’s deal with some facts. Let’s have a bit of fun. Carbon dioxide is just 0.04 per cent of Earth’s air. That is 4/100ths of a per cent. Carbon dioxide is scientifically classified as a trace gas, because there’s so little of it. There’s barely a trace of it. Now, some people are going to say, ‘Oh, but cyanide can kill you with just a trace.’ That’s true. That’s a chemical effect. But the claimed effect of carbon dioxide from the Greens of global warming, climate catastrophe and the greatest existential threat that we now face is a physical effect. A trace gas has no physical effect that can be recorded, as I’ll show you in a minute.
Next point: carbon dioxide is non-toxic and not noxious. It’s highly beneficial to and essential for all plants on this planet. Everything green that’s natural relies upon carbon dioxide, and it benefits when carbon dioxide levels are far higher than now. Carbon dioxide is colourless, odourless and tasteless. Nature produces—and this is from the United Nations climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—97 per cent of the carbon dioxide produced annually on our planet. That means that nature produces 32 times more than the entire human production of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide does not discolour the air. Carbon dioxide does not impair the quality of water or soil. None of what I’m talking about is new. I’ve compiled it, but none of it’s new. Carbon dioxide does not create light, create heat, create noise or create radioactivity. It doesn’t distort our senses. It does not degrade the environment, nor impair its usefulness, nor render our environment offensive.
Carbon dioxide doesn’t harm ecosystems and, in fact, is essential for all ecosystems. Carbon dioxide does not harm plants and animals, nor humans. In fact, we put it in our kids’ soft drink. We put it in our champagne. We put it in our beer. We put it in soda water—we carbonate it by putting carbon dioxide in there. It’s essential for all plants and animals. Carbon dioxide does not cause discomfort, instability, wooziness or disorders of any kind. It does not accumulate. It does not upset nature’s balance. It’s essential for nature and life on this planet. It remains in the air for only a short time before nature cycles it into plants, animal tissue, the oceans and natural accumulations. It does not contaminate, apart from nature’s extremely high and concentrated volumes of carbon dioxide from some volcanos and even then it’s only locally and briefly under rare natural conditions when in concentrations and amounts are far higher than anything humans can produce.
Carbon dioxide is not a foreign substance. In the past, on this planet, under the current atmosphere, there have been times when carbon dioxide levels were 130 times higher than the concentration in the earth today. In fact, in the last 200 years, scientists have measured carbon dioxide levels up to 40 per cent higher than they are today. But the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, from the UN ignores those measurements, which were taken, in some cases, by Nobel Prize winners—science prize winners. All they do instead is take one reading from one place over the last 70 years.
As you can see from the list I’ve just read, carbon dioxide is not pollution. The Greens are talking about doing an inquiry into carbon, yet they say it’s the carbon dioxide that’s causing this climate change that’s supposedly going on. Let’s look at something else then, as carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
Let’s have a look at this climate change crisis that the Greens are talking about. I’m unique in this Senate for holding the CSIRO accountable. All of the other senators have not done their jobs. Former Senator Ian Macdonald, from the Senate in 2016, pointed that out to me. He pointed out that no-one in this parliament ever debated the science until I arrived. We still haven’t had the debate, because I’ve challenged the Greens and they have gone without responding to my challenge for a debate more than 125 days. Senator Waters has gone more than 10¼ years without responding to my challenge for a debate. They won’t debate me, because they haven’t got the science. Let’s listen to the people that the Greens rely on for their science.
I have cross-examined the CSIRO. I’ve had three presentations and several sessions at Senate estimates. In their first presentation under my cross-examination the CSIRO admitted that they had never said that carbon dioxide from human activity is a threat or a danger. Never. That means we don’t need any of these policies. Let’s go to the next session we had with the CSIRO. Each of these sessions were 2½ to three hours long. The CSIRO said that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented—that’s referring to the blip that ended back in 1995. We have had stasis of temperatures since then—no warming in the last 26 years. The current temperatures are not unprecedented.
My third point is that the CSIRO admitted that they and other bodies around the world rely, for their predictions, on unvalidated, erroneous computer models. That says two things. Firstly, the models are wrong. They’re erroneous and invalidated, yet they’re using them to make projections. Secondly, it confirms they don’t have the evidence. If they had the evidence, they would have presented it. Instead, they’ve come up with some lame models, which have already failed.
The fourth thing that I will mention about the so-called science is that, when they failed to provide me with the empirical evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity affects the climate and needs to be cut, I gave them a very simple test. I asked them to show me anything unprecedented in the earth’s climate in the last 10,000 years. They failed that. I then gave them the absolutely simplest goal of providing me with empirical scientific evidence showing that there has been a statistically significant change to any factor in earth’s climate. They failed that. They can’t even point to a change in climate, because we all know that climate varies quite naturally, most of it cyclically, but sometimes a combination of cycles makes it look like it’s highly random. That’s the point. Not only that, there are scientists whom I’ve communicated with directly, including members who are lead authors for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, such as Dr John Christy. He was a lead author until he left the United Nations climate body because of the corruption. He was disgusted and sickened by it. These and many other scientists have confirmed to me that nowhere in the world has anyone ever presented any empirical scientific evidence showing that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut—not NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, not the UK Met Office, not the Bureau of Meteorology, not the CSIRO, not any university, not any academic, not any science paper and not any journal. Check for yourself and tell me if I’m wrong.
The third thing I want to say is that the Greens lunatic policies are not based on science. You’ll notice that Senator Rice, in her comments, never once mentioned any proof of causation. Instead, as substitutes for science, they use emotion, stories, fantasies, dreams and promises. That’s all they have. Policy needs to be based on specific, quantified cause and effect—this much carbon dioxide is growing because of humans, and this much is the impact. That has never been presented anywhere in the world. The CSIRO’s failed three times with me, and it has never been done by anyone. Once we have that measured effect, which no-one has produced so far, then and only then can we shape a policy. Then and only then can we measure the progress along the road of implementing that policy. Without that, it’s fundamentally flawed. Then, if we had the connection, specified and quantified, we can cost it to see the benefits of Senator Rice’s dreams and fantasies versus the impact on our human species of this climate madness that people are going on with. As a result of this madness, both the Liberal-National government and the Labor Party have driven our electricity prices from being the lowest in the world to the highest in the world, all on unicorn farts and rainbows, and nothing else—nothing substantial; claims of carbon pollution.
Then we have this telling factor. The No. 1 factor that drove the rapid improvement in human’s standard of living over the last 170 years was the relentless decrease in the price of energy from 1850 until the mid-nineties. Since then, in Australia, we have gone the other way. We’ve started to increase prices. We’ve now doubled and tripled prices for electricity in some areas and nothing has changed. Coal-fired power stations have become more efficient. Yet we have an increase in price because of the artificial regulations and the artificial impediments on the most productive and efficient source of electricity generation and the subsidies for the dreams of solar and wind, which are inherently high and will never catch up with coal, hydro or nuclear.
We had a relentless decrease in the price of electricity over 170 years until 25 years ago. That relentless decrease in the price of electricity and energy meant an increase in productivity and an increase in wealth. That’s what has led to humans now living lives that are longer, safer, easier, more comfortable and more healthy and having far more choices than anyone could ever have imagined. This Greens lunacy, calling carbon dioxide a ‘carbon’—calling a gas a solid—is driving a decarbonisation that is, in effect, deindustrialisation. Look around us. What will disappear is all the material benefits we’ve had over the last 150 years.
Opinion and emotion are not science. There is no need to have this reference to the committee, because there is no science underpinning the Greens’ call for this reference. We need to get back to the facts, get back to straight logic, stop dreaming, think about the many people who benefit from the wonderful hydrocarbon fuels—natural gas, coal and oil—and look after the people of this planet.
This morning I talked to Marcus Paul about coal-fired power, the mess our Industrial Relations are in and the fact that the corrupt World Health Organisation actually said Australia could be where COVID originated.
Transcript
[Marcus Paul]
Malcolm, good morning, mate.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Good morning, Marcus, how are you?
[Marcus Paul]
I’m okay. I’m very well. Listen, I just wanted to ask you first off the bat, a question without notice because I know you’re very good on your feet. New research has found Australia’s coal fired power stations are routinely breaching their licence conditions putting our community’s health and the environment at risk.
The newly released coal impacts index reveals there have been more than 150 publicly reported environmental breaches since 2015. However, the spokes person for Australia Beyond Coal, David Ridditz says only a fraction of these, 16, have resulted in penalties or enforceable undertakings. Now, if coal’s to be a part of our reliable energy future, we need to clean up our backyard I think.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Well, if that’s true then certainly we need to. No one should be exempt from those regulations, Marcus. The environment is very important. It’s also important to understand that solar power destroys the environment as well because they’re leaking cadmium and selenium and lead into the soil and into the water.
In fact, it’s monstrous what’s going on north of Brisbane. A proposed Chinese development of a solar panel farm. They’re not farms, they’re industrial complexes, directly affecting Brisbane’s water supply for two million people. So, I mean, we’ve got to protect the environment. That’s the number one thing. The environment can’t exist without civilization being productive and civilization can’t be productive without the environment being protected. So, the future of our civilization, the future of our environment are interdependent and rely on each other.
[Marcus Paul]
All right. Anthony Albanese, the federal opposition leader yesterday, talked policy. He’ll be on the programme a little later this morning, but by the way, he’s promising workers a better deal with a suite of reforms to improve job security and provide minimum pay and entitlements to those in insecure work. What’s your take on this?
[Malcolm Roberts]
I think he’s talking out of both sides of his mouth. For a start, his policies on energy, his policies on lack of taxation reform, are cruelling job security. Secondly, his policies on energies just mentioned, don’t take into account the fact that Australian workers need to be productive and we can’t be productive when we’ve got energy costs that are now amongst the highest in the world due to labour policies under Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard and due to liberal national policies under John Howard and every prime minister since. So, what we need to do is look at the big picture.
But also, it’s very hypocritical and I believe dishonest of Anthony Abanese to talk what he’s talking about casual because Joe Fitzgibbon had plenty of opportunity to address the casual issues in the Hunter Valley. Instead, what he did was he tried to misrepresent me going after it and now, what we’re seeing is I was absolutely right, with Simon Turner and other’s in the Hunter Valley, loss of worker’s compensation, loss of their leave entitlements, loss of their long service leave, accruals being accurate, loss of their accident pay, being suppressed when they had an accident or injury and being told to cover it up.
Anthony Abanese has got to come clean on this. Joe Fitzgibbon had six years to fix this. So did the liberal party. They’ve done nothing until their big corporate mates get into trouble and now they’re wanting to take on the little guy again.
[Marcus Paul]
Well, all right, let’s move onto the World Health Organisation and that dopey, ridiculous, so called investigation into Covid.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Yeah, can you believe it? That they think it might have come from our beef. I mean, this is absolutely monstrous. We know that the Chinese Communist Party and the UN, through the World Health Organisation, have colluded closely to suppress the news of Covid virus in China early last year. We know that.
That enabled the virus to get a march on around the world. I mean, the Chinese came out and the World Health Organisation echoed them saying, there is no human to human virus transmission, none at all. And then they suppressed news of that, they suppressed their own doctors of it and the World Health Organization’s chief has been beholden to China. So, this is not an investigation, it’s a cover up, it’s a complete cover up and can we really have confidence that this is a transparent and thorough investigation?
No, we can’t. What we need to do is get the hell out of the World Health Organisation and get out of the UN. That’s why I called for an Aus Exit from the UN back in 2016 and I keep calling for that. The UN is a corrupt, dishonest, incompetent, lazy organisation that is hurting our country.
[Marcus Paul]
Well, they say the likely scenario is that the virus passed from original animal host to intermediary animals including frozen and chilled animal products, including Australian beef to humans.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Yes. I mean, it’s ludicrous. They wouldn’t allow an investigation for 12 months basically. They covered everything up, they weren’t allowed to go to the lab. I mean, this is not an investigation, it’s a stitch up.
[Marcus Paul]
All right. What about the Nationals, are they backing away from manufacturing policy? They’ve collapsed on coal, they’re backing net-zero 2050. It means they’re, in your opinion, opposing jobs.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Yes. We talked last week about the fact that the Nationals came up with a lovely glossy booklet and the core of that booklet… Sorry, on their managing policy, but on the manufacturing policy, but the core of that booklet was a solid page on their support for coal.
Then we put a motion into the senate one week ago and we said we need to build a coal fired power station in Hunter Valley, which is exactly what the Nationals were proposing. In the face of the motion, in the senate, the Nationals ran away and voted with the Liberals against a coal fired power station in the Hunter, after they said just a week before, that they were supporting it. So, they abandoned coal last week.
Now, we see their manufacturing policy relies upon cheap energy, but with the net zero 2050, it means the liberal party will be opposing jobs and opposing cheap energy and opposing manufacturing. The Nationals have meekly rolled over again. Because this policy for net-zero, according to the IPA, will cost coal miners, farmers and steel and iron workers amongst the majority of the 654,000 jobs that will be lost by the adoption of Net-Zero. We can’t afford it. It’s absolute rubbish.
[Marcus Paul]
All right. Let’s move now to the north of the country. Western Australia in particular. The north west. Yet another overreach, you say, by Mark McGowan, the WA premier and closing down for some five days.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Yes. Marcus, I was supposed to be calling you from WA, up in the north west, up near the Kimberlys today. But unfortunately, we couldn’t go there because Mark McGowan capriciously locked down parts of WA again and made it impossible for us to get there and come back in the time without some risk.
So, we need a better way of managing our community and business in the face of the virus being here. It’s just ludicrous where we get one case and people get locked down. We get people jumping on a plane in Perth, coming to Brisbane, by the time they land in Brisbane, five hours later, they suddenly find out WA’s been locked down and they have to go into hotel quarantine for two weeks at their own expense.
It’s just not right. We’ve got people in New South Wales contacted me saying they’d love to spend a holiday in Northern Queensland, beautiful up there, and they’re not going to do it because they just don’t know what Annastacia Palaszczuk’s going to do. McGowan, Palaszczuk, the control freak in Victoria, they’re using lock downs capriciously and even the UN’s corrupt World Health Organisation has admitted that lock downs are a blunt instrument to be used when things are out of control to get control.
So, the premiers of Western Australia, Queensland and Victoria simply admitting that they can’t control their states properly with the virus in their state.
[Marcus Paul]
Always good to have you on for your views. I appreciate it.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/bC8ypc3F8Jw/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-02-11 15:17:302021-02-11 15:17:46Each-Way Albo at it again
In the Senate Chamber today the Nationals voted against a One Nation motion to construct a new coal fired power station in the Hunter and walked away from their election promise only one month after announcing it.
Senator Roberts’ motion in support for coal mining and the building of coal fired power stations used the words of Senator Canavan, however the Nationals, too weak to stand alone, joined the Liberals to vote the motion down.
Senator Roberts said, “The Nationals just walked away from the Hunter Valley coal industry and should be ashamed of themselves for their duplicity. This decision shows no support for the coal industry.”
The National’s Manufacturing Policy, released in January states on page 18 that “Australia needs to build modern coal fired power stations…the Government should also support a new coal fired power station in the Hunter Valley.
Senator Roberts said, “The Nationals, having spruiked about building coal fired powers stations on social media and in their glossy policy, have today shown Australia this was just talk.
“Voting for the Nationals is a wasted vote as they do not have the guts to stand by their policies nor stand up to the Liberals.” The coal mining industries of the Hunter Valley, the Bowen Basin and elsewhere in Australia can be clear that “only a vote for One Nation is a vote for the future of the coal mining industry and affordable and reliable power.”
Senator Malcolm Roberts’ motion today in support of the coal mining industry is to help the voters of the Hunter decide who they can believe and who they can’t.
One Nation has consistently backed coal-fired power stations in our energy mix as it is one of the most affordable and reliable energy sources for Australia.
Senator Roberts said, “Thanks to One Nation’s relentless support for coal, the Nationals have clearly had a light bulb moment in their recent support for coal-fired power stations.”
Senator Canavan, leading the charge for the National’s renewed support, stated on Twitter in September 2020 that “the Hunter Valley has the best thermal coal in the world” and calls on the Morrison Government to build a coal fired power station in the Hunter.”
Senator Roberts added, “Voters need to look closely at the hypocrisy of the Nationals’ message; at a federal level there is a sudden spruiking for coal, but at a state level the Nationals continue to pursue closing Liddell coal power plant in 2023.
“Closing Liddell will result in blackouts as nearly 10% of the national power grid will go offline.”
There has been a conga line of National politicians turning up in the Hunter for damage control after One Nation candidate Stuart Bonds received more votes than the Nationals in the 2019 election. Senator Roberts said, “Voters in the Hunter need to know who the real supporters for the coal mining industry are and my motion today will divide the Chamber along those support lines.”
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Mining.png?fit=2300%2C1294&ssl=112942300Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-02-02 08:22:562021-02-02 08:23:07Senator Roberts’ motion to flush out support for coal in the Hunter
One Nation always aims to protect honest workers, protect small businesses and simplify our Industrial Relations (IR) system. The current IR reforms need a lot of work to achieve that.
Transcript
[Marcus Paul]
G’day, Malcolm.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Good morning, Marcus, how are you?
[Marcus Paul]
I’m okay. I’m just having a little chuckle at the wankfest going on in the United States at the moment. I get that it’s a momentous occasion. I understand every time a President’s inaugurated that they have to get celebrities up there to sing songs and carry on. But for God’s sake, enough’s enough, surely.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Yeah, I’ve travelled through all 50 American States. I’ve lived there for five years. I’ve studied at one of the top universities over there and I’ve worked over there in eight different states. And I love Americans. They’re absolutely fabulous people, but they’re different. You know, in many ways they look like us. They dress like us. They have similar habits, they’re casual and they’re formal like us, they love us. But mate, they just go over the top when it comes to celebrating things. it’s just for Australians, it’s too much.
[Marcus Paul]
Well, you’d think that there’s no issue with COVID-19. You’d think that America is all this, there’s no social inequality. You think that there’s no civil unrest. It’s all, I don’t know, look, I’m seeing right now the presidential motorcade with the military escorting Joe Biden back to the White House, the bloke looks like he needs a good lie down.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Yeah, it’s a contradiction in America. Wherever I went you can see contradiction. And, you can get a very energetic country like America but there are so many, so many inequalities as well. But there’s one thing that’s very strong in Americans and that’s the love of their country and their passion for freedom. And so, I think there’ll be a lot of Americans holding their breath right now.
[Marcus Paul]
All right, mate. Now you’re on the road driving down the New South Wales coast, you’re around Singleton, are you?
[Malcolm Roberts]
Yes, and what a beautiful day it is. I used to live in Singleton, worked here several times but it’s a glorious day and blue sky. We just driven up the Valley from Singleton. We’re now in Musswelbrook and we went past Bayswater and Liddell Power Station. It’s just absolutely beautiful.
[Marcus Paul]
Yeah, nice, now the federal government’s so-called industrial relations reforms, you’ve had a fair bit to say about that ahead of Senate estimates hearings in March.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Well, they’re going to try and bring in the legislation into the Senate fairly soon, it’s an inquiry at the moment but we’ve had a good look at it and we still got a lot more work to do on it. But Marcus, you know, our aims are always to protect honest workers, to protect small business. And, in this case, to restore productive capacity. And you know, the government is really just playing at this, it’s not addressing energy, it’s not addressing tax, it’s not addressing infrastructure, it’s not addressing over regulation. It’s still making life hard for people. It’s not a real reform at all, it’s just tinkering to look after his mates and the overriding thing with this so-called industrial relations reform, it’s not reform, it’s tinkering with the deck chairs on the Titanic is that their aim seems to be to not upset anyone and to try and please everyone. And whenever you do that, Marcus, you’re coming out of fear.
[Marcus Paul]
Yes.
[Malcolm Roberts]
And so they’re afraid. And that means the country will suffer. These regulations, they don’t simplify and small business badly needs that. The key aspect of this supposed reform from the Prime Minister is to get jobs, mate.
[Marcus Paul]
Yeah.
[Malcolm Roberts]
It won’t get any jobs. It’s just gonna make things more complex. There are some positives in there but there are overwhelmingly a lot of negatives. We’re just going to have to do a lot of work on this.
[Marcus Paul]
All right, now, obviously, on this trip down the coast you’ve been catching up with people who may have reached out to you, made contact, what are you hearing on the ground?
[Malcolm Roberts]
Well, first of all, I’ve got to say how beautiful the country is on the coast coming south down through New South Wales. It’s just green, it’s glorious. And people, I’ve heard from small business, for example, a guy who run, well, I won’t tell you his business because it’s a boutique business and I don’t want anyone to come back on him but he was really talking about how difficult life is under state, federal and local government. Because they’re making things complex.
[Marcus Paul]
Absolutely, could you imagine all that bloody red tape a business owner has to go through these days? It’s just, it’s almost —
[Malcolm Roberts]
But, Marcus, he was telling me things like if you get a permit from the state government to do something and then by the time you’ve finished dealing with regulations for the local government, the state government permits have expired and you’ve got to get it again. And that means more fees. And he was talking about 20, $30,000, I think, 50, $45,000 in one case, just to get consultants in to do the work for the local government. You can’t afford that.
[Marcus Paul]
No.
[Malcolm Roberts]
But one good piece of news. We visited a workshop here in Philly, a large workshop here, well, in Rutherford which is near Maitland. And they’re telling us, they do a lot of work for agriculture and mining machinery and they’re telling us that the price of coal has gone up quite a bit and they’re hiring again which is good for the Valley. And it’s really good for the whole Hunter Valley and Newcastle because most people don’t realise this but for every job in the coal mine there are six other jobs depending upon those jobs. And so the price of coal and the use of coal is extremely important to everyone in New South Wales.
[Marcus Paul]
Well, look, you know, you’ve got a bloke up there in the Hunter who is making a fair bit of noise. I’m sure he’s scaring the pants off of Joel Fitzgibbon but, I don’t know, if things are looking okay or a little better up there in the Hunter maybe Joel might hold on a little bit.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Well, the problem with Joel is his party. His party won’t let him do things. His party has got their foot on the throat of the coal industry and they’re determined to kill the coal industry. I mean, some of the senior people in the labour party have admitted that and said that is what they want to do. And it’s insane. One of the things I did coming down the New South Wales coast, I’m doing a bit of research in southern New South Wales in the next couple of days and I stopped in Port Macquarie and worked for a day and a half with an absolutely astounding Scientist there who’s been going through the Bureau of Meteorology records and mate, the records are just so shoddy and he’s done advanced statistical analysis. Once he’s removed all the the deliberate movements or adjustments. And there’s no warming at all going on. So, this whole thing about coal is just a beat up.
[Marcus Paul]
Yep, all right. Now, well, just on coal, of course, the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, he’s had a lot to say. Oh, by the way, when you visit these places, do you don on your high vis shirt and you untuck the top of the collar just to show a little bit of chest hair, look all macho like you’re in the moment? And do you have your professional photographer tailing your every move for a photo opp, Malcolm? I’m just wondering.
[Malcolm Roberts]
No, that’s not me. What I’m doing is I’m driving by myself. This morning I’ve got some of my, one of my staff with me but I’ve been driving down the coast on my own. I make all my own arrangements. Take my own notes, I just listen to people because you can’t listen to people through others. You’ve got to listen by firsthand, direct.
[Marcus Paul]
Fair enough.
[Malcolm Roberts]
So, I don’t go for all that crap.
[Marcus Paul]
Well said. All right, mate, listen, we’ve got a listener Gail Thornton who follows the programme. We want you to say hello. Can you just do me a favour, say, good day, Gail. Hope you’re having a wonderful morning. Just say that for me.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Good day, Gail, hope you’re having a great morning.
[Marcus Paul]
See, Gail says on our Facebook page and I’ll have to tell you, you got a little bit of hate on our social media. Mind you, I get a lot of hate on my social media as well. That’s just what it’s all about. But your posts, when we re-share things that you know you and I have a chat about a certain issue, it’s one of the, this is what I don’t get, this is the hypocrisy with it all and on this programme, we will speak to anybody, labour, liberal, callithumpian, you know, we have Pauline, yourself and also Mark Latham. So, we listen to all sorts, we try to as much as we can. We would love to have the Prime Minister or the Premier on here, but they don’t even know we exist or they probably know we exist but their media people don’t want them to come on because they’re probably upset that I’ll- first question to the Premier would be, when are you going to resign? And the second question to the Prime Minister would be, do you take any responsibility for robo-debt? And what about the thousands of people that have possibly taken their lives? So, that’s why they don’t come on. But your stuff that we talk about is well-received, you know, you gotta have your haters for those to really like you, Malcolm, but Gail says, there’s no way that we will listen to anything Malcolm Roberts has to say. So, I just wanted you to say good morning to Gail. She’s one of your biggest fans, I think.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Well, tell her that I’ll be very happy to meet her. And I look forward to her giving me evidence that contradicts my arguments.
[Marcus Paul]
Well, that’s it. Good on you, mate. Always great to catch up, drive safely. You can’t drop by and visit us, I hear.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Not this time, I was wanting to do that and I’ve got two outstanding retired people in Sydney that I want to meet because they’re both very, very good on water. And that’s a critical issue for us but I was hoping to drop in. But if I go anywhere near Sydney, then, mate, I’ve got to lock up in quarantine in Brisbane when I go back. So, even if I just don’t get out of the car. I’ve just got to lock up. So, I’m going to drive through Mudgee and then that way down through Bathurst and then to Canberra that way, so it’s an extra drive but, hey, that’s the way it has to do.
[Marcus Paul]
Ah, look, we’re broadcasting out into those regions right now and it’s pretty good out there as well. You reckon it’s green on the coast. You should see it inland. It’s just gorgeous around 2MG Mudgee area and out to Bathurst to our station 2BS and out to Orange . I love it out there, mate. Look after yourself.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Thanks Marcus. We’ve got to look after this country and stop the wombats ruining it, the wombats in Canberra.
[Marcus Paul]
All right, mate, bye-bye. Malcolm Roberts, Marcus Paul in the morning.
One Nation supports this motion. Cheap reliable hydrocarbon fuels have led to the greatest improvement in human progress in the past 150 years.
One Nation supports Senator Rennick’s proposal to extend the Kogan Creek coal power plant.
Climate policies and renewable subsidies have led to Australia having one of the most expensive power prices in the world and becoming more unstable. Senator Rennick’s proposal is good for Queensland and good for Australia.
That the Senate notes that the current dispute between China and Australia is more deep-seated than a trade spat involving wine, coal and timber.
The motion I moved is the opening paragraph in Robert Gottliebsen’s newspaper article in The Australian yesterday, and I’ll quote it again:
When China declared that Australia had been “evil” it suddenly became clear that the dispute between the two nations is more deep-seated than a trade spat involving wine coal, timber etc.
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia who is involved in the governance of Australia, I want to focus on Gottliebsen’s meaty fourth paragraph:
From President Xi down, there has been little respect for Australia for a long time and many in China believe we are a foolish country that makes mistakes at almost every turn, led by defence.
He then details serious flaws in the governance of three Defence projects, the submarine ‘shemozzle’, as he calls it, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and the Hunter frigates. We obviously are ‘a foolish country’ based on this, and the obvious point of his article is our shoddy governments over many decades, both Liberal-National and Labor.
People in this country are feeling concerned about the seriously deteriorating state of our country. We have lost our economic sovereignty. We’re losing our national sovereignty. We’re plunging towards catastrophe economically, and dependence with a complete loss of security. People are fed up and, across many communities and industries—and I mean right around the country—people are feeling dispirited, hopeless, confused, aimless, wary, concerned and even fearful, because most can sense our country’s destruction. Yet, 100 years ago Australia was No. 1 in the world in income per person and had the highest GDP—gross domestic product—per person.
There’s a worse aspect beyond economic demise though. Bullies like China prey on those perceived as being weak. Gottliebsen rightly says that, due to poor, and even stupid, decisions, we’re rightly perceived as being weak in defence. Yet he barely scratches the full extent of the deterioration of our security, because our productive capacity has been dismantled, and our economic security has been smashed, destroyed. We are vulnerable. Now, as a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, that is what I will discuss, because, like bullies in a schoolyard or in a workplace, China preys on those it perceives as weak or foolish. By the way, when I raise China, I refer to the Chinese Communist Party and not the millions of Australians of Chinese descent now in our country, descendants of those who came during the gold rushes almost two centuries ago, and those who immigrated more recently.
Not only does the Chinese Communist Party assess other nations against China’s values and standards; the Chinese Communist Party assesses our country against our own values, and from that it finds out: Does our government have courage? Does our government have integrity? Do the politicians in this country and this parliament have the strength of character needed to lead a country? I’ve been thinking about this for some years now and I’ve made a list of Australian values: mateship; a fair go; support; loyalty; being fair dinkum; telling the truth; honesty; fairness; freedom to live; freedom of speech; freedom of thought; freedom of belief; freedom of religion; freedom of faith; freedom of interaction; freedom of exchange; democracy; our flag; our nation; family; care; respect for people; respect for community; respect for the law; respect for the environment; making sure government fulfils its three primary roles, which are protecting life, protecting property and protecting freedom, and stays out of everything else; and our Constitution. We value our Constitution, especially competitive federalism, and we value human progress. Australia has led that improvement in progress in the past 150 years. It has been amazing progress, right across the world.
So let’s assess governments against these values and their impact on our productive capacity. Productive capacity depends on many things, but particularly energy costs—the primacy of energy. An ever-decreasing cost of energy has led to 150 years of human progress. Australia has gone from having the world’s lowest electricity prices to having the world’s highest, yet we’re now the world’s largest exporter of energy—gas and coal. China imports a lot of our coal, but the production of coal in their own country is eight times our total production—not just our exports but our total production. They make us look like small producers of coal. They have the largest coal reserves in the world, along with the United States. They use our coal. They’re building steel power plants out of our coal, and they’re building hundreds of coal-fired power stations.
We legislate to use their wind turbines and their solar panels. We subsidise them. It drives up the cost of our electricity, and we pay them for unreliables—their solar and wind generators. We pay them for components of electric vehicles, which we also subsidise. And then we have Chinese companies, affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party, owning electricity networks in our major cities. Then we have the Queensland Labor government stealing $1½ billion a year through the generators. All of this destroys jobs and destroys competitiveness.
Then taxpayers pay people, quite often foreigners, to come in and squat on the land, just to get carbon dioxide credits. It’s called carbon dioxide farming. It takes good farmland and destroys it with noxious weeds and feral animals—pests—and then that has to be reclaimed at some later date; who knows when. Then we have Angus Taylor, the Minister for Energy and Emissions, a farmer. He knows that the EPBC Act is hurting him—I’ve had conversations with him—but he just smiles, rolls his eyes and puts up with it. He is a sceptic on climate change—sceptical that we are affecting the climate. He’s been slammed, and he’s now coming back into parliament and driving up electricity prices. Matt Canavan, Barnaby Joyce: strong sceptics in their beliefs. Barnaby Joyce was the Deputy Prime Minister. The Chinese know that. They watch him. They saw him come into cabinet and they saw him run for election in New England, when he moved out of the Senate and into the lower house. And Malcolm Turnbull, to get Mr Joyce elected, showered $400 million of taxpayer funds on unreliable wind power. Then Matt Canavan and Barnaby Joyce were both in the cabinet, and they suddenly became alarmists, spouting alarm about carbon dioxide.
So I asked Matt Canavan in the Senate one day where his evidence was, and he just slid away from me. Now that he’s out of cabinet and Mr Joyce is out of cabinet, all of a sudden they’re becoming a little bit sceptical again in their words. But the Chinese Communist Party see this and that tells them a lot about the lack of leadership in this country.
The Chinese have their own agreement within the Paris Agreement. It says, ‘We will continue doing whatever we want, continue growing our economy, continue constructing our country, developing our country and putting in place infrastructure, and then in 2030 we may consider something.’ Meanwhile, this parliament in this building has legislated to destroy our economy to comply with Kyoto. That’s not an agreement; that is stupidity and economic suicide. The Chinese Communist Party watches us pay academics to tell lies about climate and to misrepresent the climate science. We even put some of them in charge of or in senior places in the CSIRO and pay them $800,000 a year to destroy our country. Dr Andrew Johnson went from head of the climate research agency department in the CSIRO to become head of the Bureau of Meteorology. Under him and his predecessors, the Bureau of Meteorology has been shown to be concocting the data and misrepresenting temperatures.
We pay people like Ove Hoegh-Gulberg and Ian Chubb, former chief scientists, to destroy the science, to misrepresent the science. In 1975, Whitlam signed an agreement saying we’ll comply with the Lima Declaration to shut down our manufacturing and export it. The following year, Liberal Prime Minister Fraser ratified the deal. In 1992, Paul Keating’s Labor government signed the Rio Declaration, which is about 21st century global governance. Then we had the Kyoto protocol destroying our country, stealing our farmers’ property rights. And now we have the Paris Agreement exporting jobs and shutting manufacturing.
Then the current Prime Minister has the temerity to say, ‘We will fiddle with the industrial relations system to bring back manufacturing.’ How the hell can you bring back manufacturing when you have the highest electricity costs in the world and a big component of manufacturing—the largest component, usually—is the cost of electricity? How the hell can you do it with a tax system that favours multinational companies and lets them off scot-free? How the hell can you do it with overregulation? How the hell can you do it with a lack of water? How the hell can you do it with a lack of infrastructure? The Chinese are watching this and they’re helping us destroy our electricity sector and export even more jobs, because our prices for electricity are going up, businesses are shutting and then the jobs start up in China.
We are now reversing the last 170 years of human progress, because the key to human progress is decreasing the price of energy, which raises productivity, raises wealth, raises the standard of living. That ended in this country 24 years ago. We have ceded governance to the UN: Lima, Kyoto, Rio, Paris and many other agreements. How does this comply with Aussie values? How does it comply with being fair dinkum? Worse, the granddaddy who concocted this climate change rubbish was Maurice Strong. He concocted it when he created and then took over as head of the United Nations Environment Program. He pushed that program, starting from the 1970s, and in the 1980s he ramped it up. In 1988 he formed the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a fraudulent organisation. And the Liberals, Labor, the Nationals and the Greens have fallen for it all. Maurice Strong was a crook. He was wanted by the police in America and died in exile in China. Who’s the beneficiary of all this destruction of Western civilisation? The Chinese government.
That’s what the people in this chamber and the chamber across the hall there have done to this country by blindly following the UN diktats. How does that comply with our values? It doesn’t. It breaks our values. What about water ownership? Destroyed by separating water ownership from property ownership. What about the Murray-Darling Basin and the corruption that is rife? What about the family farms shutting down? What about water projects? What water projects? That’s it; there aren’t any. And yet look at what amazing water projects the Chinese Communist Party has put together to develop its country.
What about infrastructure? Hardly anything built and no plan. The north is exposed without the Bradfield scheme and we see floods destroying Townsville. There is destruction and a waste of water flowing out to sea. We see the state governments joining in. The Labor Party in Queensland has reef regulations which are shutting down agriculture. Vegetation protection legislation is destroying agriculture. Firebreaks aren’t allowed and are being destroyed when farms are under fire. We put animals and fungus ahead of humans.
The Queensland Labor government put a Chinese company in charge of the electoral roll and then there is Queensland local council corruption linked to the Labor state government. This extends well beyond Ipswich and Paul Pisasale; it is systemic and it is widespread. We have foreign banks that were deregulated under John Howard and we saw the result of that through the Hayne royal commission. We see Adani frustrated by both the Liberal-National and Labor governments in Queensland and by the federal government, which was weak. That’s one man from India, which has a booming, growing economy, who wanted to spend $17 billion in our country. He was thwarted for eight years. That’s a blight on us that not even the Chinese can miss—that no-one in the world can miss. We go on and on and on.
I give Senator Rex Patrick credit for moving a motion to get an inquiry into the relationship between China and Australia six times—and I supported him every time. Both the Labor Party and the Liberal-Nationals squashed it. This is what the Chinese are seeing, yet Australians are wanting far more. Australians want leadership. Australians want security, reassurance, confidence, leadership, trust, pride and freedom—a restoration so that we can be No. 1 in the world again. What does Australia need? It needs principled leadership based on values. It needs disciplined leadership based on data and facts instead of ideology paying off donors. It needs honest leadership and strength of character. It’s the simple ability to say: ‘I’m wrong, I’m sorry—can you help me? Please explain.’ We need visionary policies, and that is what will take us back to being No. 1.
http://i3.ytimg.com/vi/Z8Ww0BSlAEk/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2020-12-07 14:02:442020-12-07 14:11:50China take advantage of weak Australian governments
Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. I thank Senator Polly for this opportunity to discuss job creation. In Australia, we accept that the government should provide the infrastructure and then get out of the way and let the employers create jobs. The less red tape, green tape and blue tape, nobbling free enterprise, the more real breadwinner jobs will be created. The labor Party, has brought us Queensland’s notorious reef regulations, which are in the progress, or the process of strangling the life out of agriculture across thousands of kilometres of Queensland coastline. The loss of jobs in agriculture and agricultural communities along our coastline is a disaster, that Labor’s green tape has caused. Australia’s Water Act though was the product of an unholy alliance between the Nationals, liberals and labor. It has driven family farmers off their land and decimated rural communities. Green tape is killing agriculture and killing jobs. United Nations blue tape, is having the same effect on industry. This insane idea that power generation should not produce carbon dioxide, a harmless trace gas that does not cause climate change, has destroyed heavy industry and manufacturing in Australia. China is now producing what Australia would not. labor, the Greens and the Liberal-National parties, have all championed this transfer of jobs from Australia to China. China and India are now building, 500 new coal-fired power stations to keep up with the demand for Chinese and Indian steel and manufactured goods. Renewable energy or as I call them, unreliable energy, does not create jobs. For every one new job, in so called renewables, 2.2 jobs are lost in the productive economy. Yet labor, the Greens, the Liberals and Nationals are out there everyday touting a renewable led economic boom. The only boom here is in the cost of taxpayers. Every new wind turbine costs Australian taxpayers, $536,000 in subsidies every year. That’s $13 billion dollars a year in subsidies, and that costs every household $1300 a year. Blue tape, is not about environmentalism, it’s about wealth redistribution. Large foreign companies win and small Australian businesses lose. One nation will withdraw from international agreements that harm Australia’s interests, and we will bring these jobs home. Senator Polly blames the Morrison government for poor job creation, I blame the labor, Nationals, Liberals and the Greens.
Senator Roberts your time has expired, we will now—
http://i3.ytimg.com/vi/BbYHBOCaoM0/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2020-11-11 12:55:572020-11-23 14:48:14Removing red, green & blue tape to create jobs
For over 12 months I have been trying to find solutions to an unfair industrial relations system that has caused serious issues in the mining sector in the Hunter Valley and Queensland. There is a systemic issue of ‘full-time casuals’ who are being paid 40% less than their full-time counterparts and not receiving casual loadings or entitlements.
Additionally, these casuals are hired by labour-hire firms who have classed them as ‘office workers’ rather than ‘production workers’ and when injured are not covered by injury or workers compensation. During Senate Estimates this week I questioned the Fair Work Commission on why they allowed this unfair Enterprise Agreement in the Hunter Valley:
FWC said that there had been no proposal to change the Black Coal Mining Award by the parties, yet we know there was in 2017 when “the Fair Work Commission rejected the application by a major employers group to extend the casual employment provisions in the Black Coal award to Production and Engineering Employees” CFMEU News 6/7/2017.
Commission has no governance to ensure that workers actually agree with an enterprise agreement before the Commission rubber stamps it.
The FWC is part of the problem not part of the solution.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for attending. Ms Parker, could you tell me briefly your role, please. What’s the core of your role?
Ms Parker: I’m an independent statutory appointment, and I’m responsible for implementing the functions under the Fair Work Act. That includes: providing education, assistance, advice and guidance to employers, employees, outworkers, outwork industries and organisations; promoting and monitoring compliance with workplace laws; inquiring into and investigating breaches of the Fair Work Act; taking appropriate enforcement action; and performing the agency’s statutory functions efficiently, effectively, economically and ethically. The Fair Work Ombudsman—as in myself—inspectors and staff constitute a statutory office established by the Fair Work Act 2009.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. We’re very concerned about so-called casuals—I say ‘so-called’ in reference to the fact they’re not really casuals; they’re permanents. I’m referring to employees in the Hunter Valley in particular, but there are some aspects that translate into Queensland. This so-called casual coalminer issue has dragged on for years. What are you doing to fix this problem?
Ms Parker: We’re well aware of the issues, and, as you know, you and I have written to each other a couple of times. We take the matter really seriously; I can assure you of that. Where it’s about long service leave, I think we’ve mentioned before that there is a Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Funding Corporation, and we don’t have anything to do with that. Long service leave is not our purview. We do provide basic information around that, and we refer specific inquiries to that corporation if they’re about long service leave. The Fair Work Commission, who you spoke with earlier, has jurisdiction to resolve long service leave disputes under the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Administration Act. The Fair Work Commission can assist with disputes under the act as well, when a modern award provides for a procedure to deal with disputes.
We don’t have power of that kind. We can provide general information about the long service leave scheme in the black coal industry. We’re aware of a number of class actions that are being pursued around issues in the coalmining industry. We’re obviously watching those, but they are before the court, so I won’t be able to comment on those, as you probably can understand, or about the circumstances of any individual who has sought our assistance in regard to the matter that’s before the court.
Senator ROBERTS: You did broaden it by mentioning coal LSL, so I might as well put the whole scope in there. I know you can only access or reference or work on some of those. These are in relation to miners in the Hunter Valley: loss of workers compensation; no accident pay; safety issues; nonreporting of injuries; pay rates; leave; loss of leave entitlements; long service leave, which you already mentioned—some of these are beyond your purview—security; threats; intimidation; and bullying. As I said, they’re not all your responsibility, but I’m particularly concerned about the definition of ‘casual mineworker’ and the award. As you know, your website has said and, in a letter to Simon Turner, one of your advisers said that there is no classification of ‘casual’ in the black-coalmining industry award. Specifically on pay and leave, there are no leave provisions in the enterprise agreement. These people are working full-time production roles, but casuals can’t work in production; they’re working extended rosters with no leave; and they’re being underpaid relative to their peers in full-time employment. They also have been neglected by the unions. Sorry, I’ll make that very clear and specific: the Hunter Valley division of the CFMMEU, not the whole CFMMEU. These people had no-one to turn to. They turned to you. They’ve written to you, as I said, and one lady said, ‘There is no classification of ‘casual’.’ How can they do a BOOT when there’s nothing to compare against?
Ms Parker: Senator, we’re talking about the enterprise agreement that was negotiated with the unions and employers and approved by the Fair Work Commission.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it was rubber stamped by the Fair Work Commission.
Ms Parker: It does include casuals, as you said, in some categories. The fact that the award doesn’t have casuals does not preclude the enterprise agreement having casuals. I think Mr Hehir said in his evidence that it is the Fair Work Commission’s role to make sure that the enterprise agreement is fair once it’s agreed.
Senator ROBERTS: How then can BHP’s Operations Services recent application for an enterprise agreement be knocked back, and yet the Chandler MacLeod 2015 enterprise agreement be passed even though the BHP OS pay rates are higher than the Chandler MacLeod pay rates?
Ms Parker: It’s a matter you’ll have to ask the commission, I’m sorry.
Senator ROBERTS: I did.
Ms Parker: They are an independent tribunal and they will have had witnesses in front of them, people providing evidence to them, before they made that decision.
Senator ROBERTS: I asked the Fair Work Commission about anybody applying to vary the black- coalmining industry award about casuals, and they said they’re not aware of any. But I notice on one of your websites and also from the CFMMEU in Queensland, that the Fair Work Commission rejected an application to vary the black-coalmining industry award 2010 to enable the engagement of casuals across all classifications of the award. That was an application from a large employer group. The CFMMEU opposed that, and it was defeated. So how would the Fair Work Commission not be aware of that?
Mr Hehir: If I recall Ms O’Neill’s evidence, it was she didn’t believe there had but that she would take it on notice and check. I think that’s where she went to.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s pretty stunning, Mr Hehir, that this issue’s been going on six years and we’ve made such a big fuss about it in the last 12 months and she wouldn’t be aware of it. Anyway that’s for her, as you said. Recently I asked you, Ms Parker, how many casual black-coalminers from the Hunter Valley have referred complaints or matters relating to their pay and entitlements to your office since 2014. Your response was ‘none’. Since that time you’ve been forced to admit that Mr Simon Turner did lodge complaints during this time period. Can you advise if there were more cases? In all instances please advise the outcomes of their complaints.
Ms Parker: We do apologise that we advised ‘none’. We were certainly not trying to hide that. It’s in terms of our search facility. You have to be very precise. This is black coal, and it’s a specific area of black coal. So I apologise. We did correct the record. We’ve had one that we’re aware of, and we’re pretty confident that that’s all we have. As I said, the system searches are maybe not as surgical as we would like. But we’re very much aware of one.
Senator ROBERTS: I take it that the Attorney-General’s Department now, and the preceding minister who looks after industrial relations, are responsible for changing the regulations or the legislation. Who is responsible for advising them of the need to do so? Because casualisation and the abuse of casuals has really been an issue for quite some time, yet now it has landed employer groups and many hundreds of thousands of workers in problems.
Ms Parker: In terms of our role as the Ombudsman, we enforce and apply the law as it stands. As you say, we are not responsible for the policy or legislation.
Senator ROBERTS: No, I didn’t imply that you were responsible for the legislation, but I would have thought that you could have been advising the Attorney-General or his predecessor of the need to resolve this problem, which has been going on now for at least six years.
Ms Parker: We certainly have regular conversations with the Department, Mr Hehir, about a whole range of matters.
Senator ROBERTS: About this issue? When did you start talking about this issue?
Ms Parker: I haven’t discussed this particular issue. We’ve talked about the WorkPack v Rossato issue, how we interpret casuals, and what advice we provide to the public on casual employees. We are aware that the government’s review of the IR system and the working groups are looking at this area of casual employment. We are monitoring that, and we will provide advice and data. We’re happy to share with the committee what we do with the casuals issue and what advice we provide. But in relation to the legislation, that is a matter for the government.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s my understanding that the Fair Work Ombudsman told Mr Turner to ‘go and get a lawyer’ in order to resolve this and that you have denied the existence of casual coal production workers. You are, I hope, aware of the significant damage that this stance of yours has caused both employees and employers, who now have been taking advantage of this and have racked up a huge liability.
Ms Parker: I don’t believe that we would advise anybody to go get a lawyer. We provide advice to people about all the various areas of assistance that are available to them. Where we are unable to help them, as in we do not see that they are eligible for payment based on the definition in the legislation as it stands, we will advise that they may be able to go to small claims or they may be able to take a court case. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, there is a class action being pursued at the moment on this particular issue.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you done anything to actually help Mr Turner and casual employees like him? Why has it taken so long and it’s still not resolved? These people are in limbo, they’re living out of garages, they’ve been traumatised—why?
Ms Parker: We provide assistance to everyone who contacts us. I’d rather not discuss Mr Turner. We don’t talk about specific requests for assistance. We haven’t asked Mr Turner if he minds us talking about him in Senate estimates.
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Turner has assured me that I can inquire about him. He is very distraught about the lack of support he’s received from anyone, including the union; the employer; the mine owner, BHP; state and federal bureaucracies and agencies; Labor MPs; Liberal ministers—he’s at a loss.
Ms Parker: All I can say there is that we have provided—our website says that only staff employees can be casuals under the award. And the webpage references schedule B of the award. It sets out classifications for staff employees et cetera. We’ve provided the factual information that we have on the actual award. Some people were not satisfied with that answer, so the only option we have is to refer them to those other sources of help, including their ability to go to court if they wish to. We’re not a court or a tribunal.
Senator ROBERTS: So there’s a problem here. Obviously within the legislation there’s a problem, and some people are taking advantage of that. You’ve just said, tough, that’s the way the legislation is. You haven’t referred it to anyone who can change the legislation or investigate changing it or advise changing it? These people are still out in the cold.
Ms Parker: The government’s aware of the issues around casuals, and as you know—
Senator ROBERTS: So how long have they been aware of the issue around casuals? Mr Turner has been writing to people in the government since 2014.
Mr Hehir: Sorry to interrupt. I think we’ve talked broadly around the government’s intent to legislate for a definition of a casual and to legislate for casual conversion rights. I accept that the casual conversion rights may not work at this point in time for the individual you are referring to. The issue that perhaps would be worthwhile us meeting with you separately on is how the enterprise agreement definition has actually impacted on the other issues that you raise. What I’m not clear about is how an enterprise agreement arrangement would impact on somebody’s right to workers compensation. So perhaps we could meet with you separately to try and tease out how this all flows to end up where the actual problems are arising. On the face of it, there’s nothing, to my knowledge, that would mean that somebody who has an enterprise agreement isn’t entitled to workers compensation. I’d need to get into more detail to actually understand what’s occurring to cause that break.
Senator ROBERTS: Ms Parker raised Coal LSL, and when she did, I said let’s go to the full scope of how these people are being abused, exploited and neglected. You’ve now raised workers’ compensation as well. That’s not the main issue. The main issue here is the complexity of the issues, and nobody is fixing it: not the state government, not the federal government. No federal or state agency, no politician is fixing this thing. These people are continuing to face this after six years of neglect and exploitation. I asked Ms Parker a simple question: how long has the government known about it? She said, we know the government knows. I want to know how long they’ve known about it. Was it last year, the year before, 2014?
Ms Parker: I was talking about casuals in general. I apologise if I confused you.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s not hard to be confused on this issue, I can tell you, because there are several people who know one thing very clearly: they are not being protected by employers, unions, agencies federal and state, politicians, governments, ministers at all. These people have been left out in the cold. We now know there is no legal pay rate for a casual mine worker. So someone made it up then; otherwise you wouldn’t be able to do a boot test.
Mr Hehir: Senator, that’s not the responsibility of Ms Parker.
Senator ROBERTS: With respect, Mr Hehir, you said it wasn’t the Attorney-General’s responsibility, and I took it that you implied his predecessor. It wasn’t their responsibility. You said look at the Fair Work Commission. The Fair Work Commission told me it’s not their responsibility; look at the Fair Work Ombudsman. We’re getting running round in circles. This is a magic circle.
Mr Hehir: My understanding of the evidence provided by Ms O’Neill was that in assessing the enterprise agreement that you referred to the relevant commissioner, under the legislation, would be required to assess whether that award was better off overall compared—
Senator ROBERTS: I get that, but how can you refer to a rate when there is no rate? I offered her the opportunity of giving her the full-time roster that these people were employed on as casuals. Could you cost that?
Mr Hehir: It’s a very complex process that the Fair Work Commission undertake to make sure that people are better off overall. I think Ms O’Neill’s evidence was that they’ve changed their practices to try and insert more rigour into that.
Senator ROBERTS: But that indicates that there was a problem before the change last year. So what is going to be done to look after the people who were affected by the ‘unrigorous’ system?
Mr Hehir: As I said, you’ve raised a number of issues and circumstances around this particular individual and, you say, others which—
Senator ROBERTS: Hundreds of others.
Mr Hehir: As I said, it would be useful if we could meet to go through the relevant issues. As I said, some of the things that you imply arise from the enterprise agreement definition. I’m not clear how they would cause that. So I’d need to work through that and understand the interaction with the New South Wales workers’ compensation laws. There is a separate worker occurring around the long service leave. But certainly I’m not aware of a circumstance in which the arrangements under an enterprise agreement would impact on workers’ compensation, so I’d need to have a look at that.
In terms of the actual decision, I think Ms O’Neill was clear: if someone didn’t think that decision was appropriate or that enterprise agreement was correctly decided in terms of passing the BOOT, they were able to appeal it. I think Ms O’Neill identified that that particular enterprise agreement has nominally expired and that the other option there is for someone to apply for the agreement to be terminated. They are the technical processes that need to be followed. As I said, there seems to be a complex web of interactions here. It would be useful if we could meet with you to go through those.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m happy to meet privately with you and go through them, but we’ve had several meetings and nothing has happened. What’s my main concern, Mr Hehir?
Mr Hehir: Senator, your main concern seems to be that the individual is stuck in limbo—
Senator ROBERTS: And hundreds of others like him.
Mr Hehir: and that he cannot find a straightforward answer from the Commonwealth government or the state governments.
Senator ROBERTS: He’s wanting more than an answer. He and I are wanting a solution. I’ve got three aims for this, and I’ve said this from the start. This goes back to May last year, and I first raised it around about July last year and then in Senate estimates and so on. My first aim is to make sure that Simon Turner and other people like him get their fair entitlements—morally fair as well as lawfully fair—and I want him to get some compensation for the trauma he has suffered for the last six years. The second aim is to make sure these practices are stopped right across the coal industry. The third aim is to bring some justice to the perpetrators of this, who in my opinion are BHP, Chandler Macleod and the Hunter Valley division of the CFMMEU. That’s what I want. Is there any way you can help us in achieving some of those three aims?
Mr Hehir: We can certainly look at what the legal entitlements. In terms of the moral entitlements, I’m not sure exactly what you mean by that. The legal entitlements we can certainly examine.
Senator ROBERTS: If you go beyond the nitpicky words of the law and you look to the intent of the law, he’s been diddled by some mistakes, some ways of interpreting the law wrongly. Everyone knows that a minor who works in a black coal mine is entitled to workers’ compensation under coal miners’ insurance. There was nothing for him. I’m not going to ask your salary, but he’s existing on $20,000 a year—a fraction of what he used to have.
Mr Hehir: As I said, I’m not aware of what impact his enterprise agreement status would have on his workers’ compensation. I’ve offered to meet with you to go through the details to try and understand how that flows.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll happily agree to that. But my second concern is that this has been going on unresolved for 16 months now, and I don’t see any sign of it being resolved. These people are still being left in limbo. They’ve just been discarded. My concerns now have become: What are the federal government agencies doing, and is the government at all interested in doing this? How can we possibly support changes to legislation when they’re not even enforcing the current legislation or leaving people out in the cold and there doesn’t seem to be any intent or desire to fix it?
Mr Hehir: That’s certainly not my understanding of the Attorney’s view. As I said, I’m happy to meet to go through the detail. I know that there’s work underway in relation to long-service leave, which was the issue that I recall you—
Senator ROBERTS: After first being denied that there was an issue and then admitting it—that’s a pleasant sign. It took us months to get that.
Mr Hehir: As I said, there is work underway to try and resolve the long-service leave issue. In relation to the actual approach around the enterprise agreement, as I said, I’m happy to have a look at the interaction with other matters. But the enterprise agreement was a document that was accepted by the Fair Work Commission once the employees had voted on it.
Senator ROBERTS: After what we now see—an admission that it’s been tightened up and made rigorous, which implies to me that, before, it wasn’t. So there’s been no investigation of that from what it seems.
Mr Hehir: Ms O’Neill, I think, was at pains to point out that she wasn’t making the statement that the previous process had caused any issues with that particular agreement.
Senator ROBERTS: But there were changes to make it more rigorous, implying that it wasn’t as rigorous before. What I’m seeing is that the Fair Work Ombudsman is not taking responsibility for suggesting changes to a problem or solutions or even identifying the need to investigate a problem to the Attorney-General, and I’m also seeing that it’s not the Fair Work Ombudsman’s responsibility to come up with a solution. So how does the Attorney-General possibly identify this? This just sits there, and Simon Turner keeps sleeping in a garage.
Mr Hehir: As I said, the responsibility for the actual awards and the approval of the agreements is the responsibility of the Fair Work Commission. Ms O’Neill has outlined what she believes are the alternatives there and taken some questions on notice. In relation to the issue around whether Mr Turner was a genuine casual or whether he was should have been classified as an ongoing employee, the Attorney has identified that he intends to introduce legislation in this calendar year to deal with the definition of a ‘casual’ to make it clearer for both employers and employees of what their actual status is and to also provide greater clarity and certainty around the
right to convert. So, in terms of the future, that particular aspect is certainly being looked at. As I said, I’d need to have a look at the interactions with the other jurisdictions.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m concerned that the application that the government has submitted to be part of their Rossato case—I don’t know the technical legal term—was accompanied by some pretty inflammatory rhetoric. All I see in the Rossato case is a decision that says: ‘You tried to have these people passed off as casuals. They’re really permanents.’ So I think we need to have a lot more openness, candour and honesty from the government on Rossato.
Mr Hehir: As I said earlier, the government’s primary interest in Rossato is clarifying whether any claim for the National Employment Standards made by someone who believes they were never or are no longer a casual is able to be set off by the loading. That’s where our interest is, and that’s where the focus is.
Senator ROBERTS: In my opinion, the Rossato decision makes that clear. But that’s up to you, of course.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, how long do you think you’ve got?
Senator ROBERTS: Probably another two questions.
CHAIR: That’s okay. Then I’ll go to Labor.
Senator ROBERTS: I have some questions for you as a participant in this process, Ms Parker: Is the industrial law in this country at the moment too complex? Is it impossible to cover everything, impossible to enforce and impossible to understand? How can an everyday worker who doesn’t want to become a lawyer possibly understand what’s going on? He relies on other people to interpret for him or her.
Ms Parker: For the bulk of the workforce, who are on awards or agreements, it’s relatively simple. They don’t have to read the whole award. They don’t have to read the whole agreement. They obviously need to understand what they should be getting paid and what their entitlements are. We provide a lot of assistance to people who phone us and ask us. If they have concerns then we help them. We have a pay and conditions tool that they can look at to work out what they should be paid. There’s a lot of information out there to assist workers, and we do that to the best of our ability. There is some complexity in the system but, for an individual worker looking at their own individual entitlements, it should not be that complicated. Obviously, if you look at the whole Fair Work Act and see how large it is, you’ll say it’s really complicated, but most people don’t need to look at the whole Fair Work Act; they only need to look at a small component of it.
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Turner impresses me as being very intelligent, very capable and very astute, as does Stuart Bonds, who’s tried to help him with this issue for 16, 17 or 18 months now, and they just can’t get through it. I don’t think it’s a matter of the complexity by itself; it’s a matter of the complexity of all the hangers-on they’re trying to drag with them and trying to shake some sense into. There’s something in this mess that’s causing these people to be discarded and exploited. First of all, a company like Chandler Macleod can exploit them. The Hunter Valley division of the CFMMEU enables that, and BHP gets away scot-free and avoids its corporate and moral responsibilities. These people are tossed on the scrap heap. So there’s something wrong with this system. The whole system has broken down.
Ms Parker: This is clearly a complex case. It’s clearly a complex award and a complex enterprise agreement. Our role is to try to make it as simple as we can, but we can’t change what the agreement actually says. It was negotiated; it was approved. It therefore is in play. What the Fair Work Ombudsman—
Senator ROBERTS: So, after six years with the Fair Work Commission, the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Attorney-General’s predecessors, they’re still here. I think we’ve done this enough for now. You know where I stand.
