Posts

Another Step Toward Economic Ruin

,

The Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is yet another example of the wasteful, agenda driven legislation that a One Nation government would abolish. For three decades, Australians have been held hostage by the costly green climate scam – climate fraud. This Bill continues that trend—now with a hint of desperation.

One Nation stands with everyday Australians. In contrast, the Liberal-Labor-Greens alliance has long served the interests of globalist elites, foreign corporations, unelected non-government organisations, the UN and the World Economic Forum.

Minister Chris Bowen — otherwise known as the “Minister for Blackouts” — is acting like a addicted, compulsive gambler chasing losses, dragging the nation deeper into debt. If the government truly believes in the merit of this bill, it should table the rules and show Australians exactly where the money is going.

The net zero transition is not helping the environment — it’s harming it. It’s driving up costs, strangling businesses and pushing families into poverty.

It’s time to face reality: net zero is a scam. Only One Nation has the courage to call it out, and a real plan to put Australians first—by restoring affordable energy, rejecting imported UN and WEF ideologies, and putting more money back in your pocket where it belongs.

Transcript

The Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is a perfect example of the garbage legislation a One Nation government would abolish. For 30 years, Australia has been held hostage to the green climate scam/climate fraud. With this legislation, the boondoggles continue—this time with a hint of desperation. 

The bill has three schedules. The first introduces a hydrogen production tax credit of $2 a kilogram of hydrogen. This is supposedly to encourage the production of hydrogen for use in processes that contribute to the meeting of net zero targets. There it is again, raising its ugly head: net zero targets. There is a reason that green hydrogen is going up in flames faster than the Hindenburg. If hydrogen were commercially viable there would be a queue of companies producing and using hydrogen, but there aren’t. There would be a queue of bankers lending for new hydrogen production. That isn’t happening either. In fact, the reverse is true: companies and banks are pulling out. One Nation has a different strategy to encourage production. It’s called the profit motive. 

Eighteen months ago Canadian gas giant ATCO scrapped plans for one of the first commercial-scale green hydrogen projects in Australia, despite strong funding support from the government. Why? Because the numbers did not add up. In a sign of the times, Shell withdrew from a project to convert the Port Kembla steelworks into a hydrogen powered green steel project in 2022. Only last week BlueScope announced a $1.15 billion upgrade to the same Port Kembla plant to produce steel for another 20 years using coal. The Hydrogen Park project in Gladstone, in my home state, was suspended after the Queensland government and the private partner withdrew. Despite the hype, this project would have only produced enough hydrogen to power 19 cars, while employing a handful of people. On the other hand, the Port of Gladstone’s container-handling development, a real project, which One Nation has championed for years and which will be starting construction shortly, will bring thousands of jobs to Gladstone, with $8 billion of private sector investment—real breadwinner jobs, real future productive capacity. 

Now, there have been some promising developments in hydrogen powered cars, mostly from Japanese makers. With zero tailpipe emissions, a longer range and faster refuelling, they contrast with the high cost and impracticality of EVs, electric vehicles, to achieve the same outcome. But the Japanese are trialling these on the basis that they may be legislated. The Japanese are covering their options. It should be noted that this research is being conducted in the private sector, acting out of a profit motive. Nothing our government has done will develop this technology. Consider Honda, for example. It is a disciplined, respected car maker—one of the leaders in the world—with an amazing culture. It is a leader in hydrogen. It’s marking time. It has hydrogen powered vehicles on the road, but it’s using its shareholder money to support them, prudently, just in case they’re legislated. 

There’s nothing in the hydrogen schedule of this bill that will provide Australian taxpayers with value for money—nothing—and it’s a bloody lot of money: $6.7 billion over 10 years. I can just see Chris Bowen and Mr Anthony Albanese tossing out another few billion, $6.7 billion, to add to their trillions that will be invested eventually in this net zero madness. One Nation opposes schedule 1 of the bill, and if the bill is passed it will be repealed when One Nation repeals all of the green climate-scam legislation. 

Let’s move to schedule 2. Schedule 2 of the bill creates production tax incentives for transforming critical materials into a purer or more refined form. The materials in question are those that are used in wind, solar and batteries to firm unreliable, unaffordable, weather-dependent power—more money being thrown down the sewer. This section of the bill is directed at an industry that already receives government support through other schemes, including the Critical Minerals Facility, which offers loans, bonds, equity guarantees and insurance; the National Reconstruction Fund, which offers concessional loans, equity and guarantees; the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, which offers concessional loans, equity and letters of guarantee; and the Critical Minerals Research and Development Hub, which offers in-kind support via free research and development—not free to the taxpayers funding it but free to the company—which is separate to the normal research and development tax incentives from the Australian Taxation Office. We’re tossing money at these people, and it’s wasted. How much assistance does one industry need? How much, government? After all this assistance, who gets to keep the profits generated from all this taxpayer largesse? The processors do. The critical minerals proposal in schedule 2 will cost $7 billion over 11 years—another $7 billion. ‘What’s a billion here or there?’ says the government. 

The Albanese government is socialising the costs and privatising the profits. We pay for their development and the costs, and the companies take the profits. Worse, there’s no requirement that the recipients are Australian owned. What are you doing with people’s money? What would actually help critical minerals in Australia is One Nation’s proposal for a northern railway crossing from Port Hedland in the west to Moranbah in Queensland to open up the whole Top End and provide stranded assets like critical minerals with access to manufacturing and export hubs. 

Let’s move on to the third schedule, the final schedule. It’s even worse. The bill changes the rules in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act to allow Aboriginal communities wider borrowing powers. The new rules are not specified. Those will come later from the minister. Not only is this a failure of transparency, it creates a second round of debate when the rules are released. It creates more uncertainty. Rules written under proposed legislation should be included with the legislation so the Senate knows exactly what it is voting on and how the powers will be used. But we don’t, and yet you’re going to vote on this. Without those rules, One Nation cannot support this schedule either. 

In One Nation, we support the people. The Liberal-Labor-Greens, though, have decades of serving masters outside the party—globalist, elitist, parasitic billionaires, foreign corporations, non-government organisations, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum alliance. The Senate is open to conclude, given the location of this provision within a bill about injecting money into the net zero scam, that net zero is the destination for this extra borrowing—financing Aboriginal corporations to create their own government subsidised businesses and doing things private enterprise won’t touch. 

Minister for Climate Change and Energy, otherwise known as ‘Minister for Blackouts’, Chris Bowen, member of parliament, is behaving like an addicted, compulsive gambler who has done all of his own money and is now dragging his friends into his black hole. If this bill is passed, the Aboriginal community will be shackled with debt for pointless financial boondoggles that have no chance of commercial success—none. If this is not the intention, then the minister must table the rules. Let’s see what the government does intend. 

The net zero transition is destroying Australia and doing nothing for the natural environment. It is hurting the natural environment. The public are turning against the whole scam now that they realise the cost benefit is not there. It’s costing them money and needless suffering. Business is turning against net zero because its carrying the full cost of soaring power prices and extra green tape. It’s now coming out in the papers—the mouthpiece media. Minister, give it up, turn on the coal- and gas-fired power stations and save Australia from more suffering. 

I’m now going to raise some additional points, related points, explaining what underpins the hydrogen scam and climate fraud. The Senate seems to be populated, mostly, with feeble-minded, gutless senators. Never has any empirical scientific data been presented as evidence, within logical scientific points, proving that carbon dioxide from human activity does what the United Nations and World Economic Forum and elitist, fraudulent billionaires claim—never, anywhere on earth. Or do such uninformed, gullible proponents in parliament have conflicts of interest? For example, the teals and possibly the Greens, it seems, receive funds from Climate 200, which spreads money from billionaire Simon Holmes a Court, who rakes in subsidies for solar and wind. Are the teals, including Senator Pocock, and the Greens gullible, or are they knowingly conflicted and pushing this scam? Only One Nation opposes the climate fraud and the net zero scam. One Nation will pull Australia out of the United Nations World Economic Forum’s net zero target. One Nation has a plan to put more money into Australian pockets, giving you choice on how you spend your money rather than letting these people here waste it for you with the needlessly high cost of living. 

Why do electricity bills keep skyrocketing when we switch to LED lights and star appliances, and when we get power from huge solar and wind generators? The people have been conned by the energy relief fund, which has suppressed what they see in their electricity bills. When that fund comes off soon, you’re going to be in for a nightmare, a shock. Only One Nation has the policies to put more money into people’s pockets now. For some insight from overseas, President Trump says it so well in his 20 January executive order: 

The United States must grow its economy and maintain jobs for its citizens while playing a leadership role in global efforts to protect the environment. Over decades, with the help of sensible policies that do not encumber private-sector activity, the United States has simultaneously grown its economy, raised worker wages, increased energy production, reduced air and water pollution … 

That’s exactly what we’ve been saying for years, for decades in fact, in One Nation. And that’s exactly the opposite of what the Greens, the teals, the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Nationals are pushing with net zero. 

I have one final point. I remember Scott Morrison as prime minister at the time, a few years ago, introducing some green hydrogen scheme incentive, with more subsidies from taxpayers to foreign, predatory billionaires. He said at the time that a price of $2 per kilogram for hydrogen would be fine. We worked out that the price of electricity at that price for hydrogen is $200 per megawatt hour, which is exorbitant. It’s almost 10 times what the fuel costs are for coal. What he didn’t tell you at the time, and what Labor has blindly followed, was that the actual price of hydrogen was $6 per kilo. Pipedreams are now becoming nightmares for people across Australia. 

Only One Nation opposes the climate fraud and the net zero scam. Only One Nation will pull Australia out of the United Nations World Economic Forum’s net zero target. We are importing ideology from the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, and we are importing poverty and deprivation. One Nation, though, has a plan to put more money into Australians’ pockets, to give you choice on how you spend your money. 

/1 Comment/by

Scrap the EV Slush Fund

,

One Nation stands firmly against the Albanese Government’s push for electric vehicles (EVs), and the billions in taxpayer-funded subsidies and infrastructure spending that overwhelmingly benefit wealthy Australians. While everyday Australians face rising costs for housing, groceries, and fuel, the government continues to pour money into EV incentives and charger installations—despite low public uptake.

Australians should be free to choose the vehicle that suits their needs and budget—whether it’s a ute, a four-wheel drive, or a V8.

One Nation would cancel all policies that penalise internal combustion engines and calls for the return of reliable, efficient petrol and diesel vehicles.

It’s time to revoke the EV slush fund and put Australians first.

Transcript

I move: 

That the Industry Research and Development (Dealership and Repairer Initiative for Vehicle Electrification Nationally (DRIVEN) Program) Instrument 2024, made under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986, be disallowed [F2024L01460]. 

What a mouthful! It’s an instrument made under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986. This is where the fun bit starts. This regulation One Nation seeks to revoke is a $60 million slush fund that climate change and energy minister Chris Bowen—there he is again—will have to splash around on pet projects. Specifically, this is $60 million for the installation and repair of electric vehicle chargers. These are electric vehicle chargers from which only some of the most well-off of Australians, who can afford an EV, will benefit. While rents are skyrocketing, houses are more unaffordable than ever, groceries keep getting more expensive and beer is heading towards $15 a pint, taxpayers should not be slugged with more taxes to pay for this government’s slush fund. 

Why is the government obsessed with putting everyone into electric vehicles? Some of them have decent speed, admittedly, when you put your foot down, yet the range on purely electric vehicles—battery electric vehicles—is mostly terrible. It gets even worse when trying to tow something. Forums for the Ford F-150 Lightning, a battery powered ute, are full of horror stories that unfold as soon as a trailer is attached. This is worldwide. 

Australians already know all of this and are voting with their wallets. The rejection of battery EVs shows up in new car sales figures. Battery electric vehicles were just 6.5 per cent of new car sales, and how long have they been offered? Years. Even here, in the capital of ‘Wokeistan’, Canberra, home of the country’s loudest virtue signallers, battery electric vehicles are just 3.6 per cent of all vehicles on the road. This is despite every effort of government and multinational corporations trying to pull Australians away from the trusty petrol and diesel engine. There has been a near decade of propaganda and lies trying to convince Australians to make the switch—we’re not buying it. 

Never mind the hugely expensive tax breaks that give an EV buyer tens of thousands of dollars. These tax breaks include exemptions from the lower luxury car tax threshold; exemptions from the penalties under the new vehicle efficiency standard, or the ute tax, as it has become known; no fuel excise at 50.8 cents a litre; exemptions from fringe benefits tax, representing a $12,000 saving on a $60,000 EV but costing taxpayers $550 million a year. Taxpayers pay for this. This is Robin Hood in reverse; robbing the poor to pay for the wealthy. Plus there is an array of rebates from state governments across the country. They’ve thrown just about every tax break in the book at EVs, and still Australians aren’t fussed over the inferior electric vehicle products. 

More than 95 per cent of the vehicles on the road still contain internal combustion engines, the trusty petrol and diesel, the reliable petrol and diesel, the safe petrol and diesel. Naturally aspirated, turbocharged, supercharged or a hybrid set up, Australians have rightly shunned battery EVs for engines that make a noise when turned on. Tradies cried out in horror when the legendary V8, from the Toyota LandCruiser 200 series and utes, was removed from market in anticipation of the coming government regulations and crackdowns. 

Are EVs cheaper to run? Well, a CarExpert road trip test throws real doubt on that. They drove two BMWs on a road trip from Melbourne to Sydney. They were the same exact car, the same year of make, with the same start and the same finish point. The only difference is that one was the battery electric version and the other was hydrocarbon fuelled. When they arrived in Sydney, the electric vehicle charging had cost more for the road trip than filling up with the most expensive 98 petrol. Of course, electricity isn’t free, and neither are these chargers. The minister’s slush fund that we’re seeking to disallow here is paying for the installation of chargers that are businesses in themselves, so we’re paying for a business. Taxpayers will foot the bill for installing a charger, and the EV business will reap all the profits from the charge they sell through it forever, for eternity. We would never do this with service stations, because it’s bloody ridiculous. Taxpayers should not be paying for the profits of these often foreign multinational companies who run charging services.  

Then there’s the fire risk. Everyone knows about this. The electric vehicle industry’s dirty little secret: the batteries and these chargers present an extreme fire risk. Car ferries carrying thousands of new car deliveries have been left to burn and potentially sink after battery fires have broken out mid-ocean. Just last month, News.com reported: 

There are concerns an abandoned EV carrier floating aimlessly in the Pacific Ocean could continue to burn for weeks … 

Salvage operators have finally reached the Morning Midas around 350km south of Adak, Alaska, a week after it first caught fire and 22 crew were rescued by the US Coast Guard after being forced to abandon ship. 

The floating inferno is said to have been caused by the lithium-iron batteries in the 70 electric vehicles on board—batteries that can cause fires that can burn for weeks. 

Some apartment tower complexes have banned battery electric vehicles in their car parks. Our fire departments are sounding the alarm on the increased risk battery fires present. These battery fires often can’t be simply put out and must be left for days to burn themselves out. One suggestion to deal with an electric vehicle fire is to have the burning wreck forklifted—imagine the forklift driver!—into a waiting shipping container of water to try and keep it contained. That’s a suggestion. Seriously! That’s the best firefighting strategy we have when one of these EVs goes up. 

Insurance companies have confirmed the risk in electric vehicles is real with their increased premiums. Insurance comparison site Compare the Market conducted a study of 12 insurers and has shown the top five bestselling EVs are 43 per cent more expensive to insure than similar internal combustion models. So EVs are more expensive to buy, more expensive to drive, more expensive to charge and more expensive to insure. We are running out of categories to find out where EVs are actually cheaper. 

What about environmentally friendly? Let’s ask that question. As for being environmentally friendly, the process for making batteries is one of the most environmentally destructive in the world, killing the environment to save the planet. The hundreds of kilograms of minerals that go into a battery include aluminium, copper, steel, iron, graphite, nickel, lithium, manganese and cobalt. These require extremely intensive mining and refinement and huge, huge amounts of energy. The resources and energy consumed in electric vehicle manufacturing is way above those consumed in making a petrol or diesel engine car. Many of these raw minerals are sourced from conflict-torn places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, using child labourers and slaves. The overall environmental impact of building an EV is devastating, as is the social impact. The raw materials are sourced from ethically questionable countries and processed almost exclusively by Communist China controlled companies. That’s where the focus on EVs leaves Australians—completely reliant on China. 

Then there’s Minister Tony Burke, whose Chinese EV says ‘Don’t plug in the phone.’ Worries about being reliant on China aren’t overblown. Government departments are warning Labor politicians of the same thing. The Strategist journal reported in November: 

Senate estimates … heard the remarkable revelation that Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke has had to take ‘precautions’ based on warnings from his own department to protect himself and the nation’s sensitive information from Burke’s own Chinese-made electric car— 

He’s got to protect himself and the security of the country from his Chinese electric car— 

The risks with such cars, according to Home Affairs officials, might include having data collected from the owner’s phone if it were connected to the car, voice calls eavesdropped on, image collection from the car’s external cameras and geolocation tracking—meaning that if Burke drove to a sensitive government location the car’s manufacturer would be able to see. 

If these are risks to ministers, those same risks are inherent for all Australians. Bloody ridiculous. 

What is even more confusing about the government EV push is that petrol and diesel engines are only getting better and more efficient in their newest versions. Did anyone mention weight? Electric vehicles are humongous in weight. Small, turbocharged, extremely efficient diesel engines were becoming the powertrain of choice, especially in small cars. Fuel efficiency numbers we couldn’t have dreamt of 20 years ago were being beaten. Then all the car makers in the world, and many stupid governments around the world, seemingly overnight, had to imagine that petrol vehicles and diesel engines were dead. Imagine that. Everyone would be driving an EV, apparently blind to or not caring for the downsides in range, resources and longevity. Just as we were getting to some of the cleanest, most efficient diesel and petrol vehicles ever made, why did the government decided no-one would ever want to drive them again? They decided for the taxpayers. They decided for the citizens of Australia. 

Why does the government want to splash billions of dollars into technology that Australians clearly don’t want and that is environmentally reprehensible? The answer may lie in the plan for Australia’s energy grid. The government needs electric vehicles hooked up to the grid under their plans for a consumer energy resources like EV batteries to be connected to virtual power plants. They want to use your car as a battery. The government can’t afford to build all the batteries needed under their net zero plan. They don’t even know how much. There is no plan. So the government wants Australians to buy an EV with a battery that can be taken over and discharged to the grid. They don’t tell you that, do they, but that is what they are wanting. The Australian Renewable Energy Agency says that batteries from EVs ‘can help stabilise the power grid by supplying power back during times of high demand’. There it is. Do you hear that in their advertisements? No. 

Like many things, this will start off as a voluntary scheme, currently called ‘bidirectional charging’ or ‘vehicle to grid’. That sounds good, but think about what it means. It means stealing your electricity when you want it. Then the inevitable threat of blackouts and the instability of the electricity grid under net zero will become an emergency, and everyone with an EV will be forced to participate. What we have now is power shortages in some states as they destroy perfectly good coal and gas generation and try and fail to replace it with solar and wind. So we’ve got a shortage of reliable electricity. And now they want to convert the car fleet, the transport fleet, to EVs to add more demand to the electricity sector. Then they want to promote artificial intelligence, which is an electricity hog. And then they want to support bitcoin mining. Where is all this going to lead? It’s going to lead to massive, sky-high prices as well as shortages, unreliability, instability and insecurity. 

The government’s plan, or what it claims is a plan, is all very complicated, but they don’t know what they’re doing. That is fact. One Nation’s solution is much simpler: Australians should be allowed to drive whatever car they want, whatever car they can afford, whether it’s a four-wheel drive, a ute or a smart car. Only One Nation has a policy to cancel all policies which lead to the death of the V8 engine being provided as an option to Australian car buyers. Porsche and Mercedes-Benz said that EVs would take over, and they stopped making V8s. Now they’re bringing back V8s and they’re scaling back their EV plans. I ask the Senate to revoke this electric vehicle slush fund and join One Nation in bringing back the V8. 

/2 Comments/by

EVs Are a Sinking Ship

Electric dreams left to rot on the ocean floor as Albanese heads to China …

Three thousand cars are rotting at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean – 800 of them electric – after the Morning Midas cargo ship burst into flames sank on its trip between China and Mexico.

The cause of the fire remains unknown, but many suspect lithium-ion batteries may be to blame.

Morning Midas burned for a week, pouring toxic fumes into the air, before aimlessly tipping over and taking her cargo of heavy metals to the ocean floor where they will leak into the surrounding water for the next century.

All the crew are safe, thank goodness.

What about the environment?

You and I could not dump these materials into the water without severe repercussions.

Meanwhile, our Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, and his Coalition-deputy (?) Larissa Waters, have said very little about the issue to his counterparts in China.

Albanese is off on a six-day $325 billion trade trip where he has confirmed he will meet with Xi Jinping, head of the Chinese Communist Party.

The Prime Minister has not met with US President Donald Trump – leader of the nation whose defence structure protects Australia from China’s ambitions in the Pacific.

We should not forget (and neither should the Greens, who remain silent) that China’s environmental credentials include pouring concrete over coral atolls to build military bases inside disputed waters while deliberately transgressing against its Asian neighbours.

China’s neighbours are our Pacific partners, and together we rely on America to police the Hague’s freedom of navigation rules. Without an American presence in Pacific waters, China would control our critical trade routes and no doubt treat them with the same care as their history of ransoming river water in Asia as an ‘incentive’ to sign agreements.

The Prime Minister seems very keen to empower China inside the Australian economy, encouraging foreign business prosperity at the expense of our children’s careers.

While Treasurer Jim Chalmers mulls over tax reform to punish successful Australians, Anthony Albanese is all-but gushing over the prospect of Chinese cash.

‘Trade is now flowing freely, to the benefit of both countries and to people and businesses on both sides. We will continue to patiently and deliberately work towards a stable relationship with China, with dialogue at its core. I will raise issues that are important to Australians and the region including my government’s enduring commitment to pursuing Australia’s national interest.’

He is taking 14 people with him to sit on an Australian-China business roundtable to talk about food, resources, banking, and tertiary education.

Strangely, pollution is one of the many things left off this ‘green’ economic agenda…

How odd.

There is no chance Albanese and his delegation will question China about recycling guarantees for the millions of tonnes of solar panels and wind turbines headed for Australian landfills every single year as industrial projects are decommissioned.

Whose responsibility is it to clean up after the Chinese Net Zero boom?

Australian taxpayers.

Who could have guessed?

Pollution is a sore spot with China. The communist empire courting our Prime Minister has made a mess of its own landscape.

67.7% of China’s water is unsafe for human contact, let alone consumption. Its air pollution crisis, much of which is from the factories that churn out ‘clean’ technology, is so severe it’s thought to kill two million people every year. China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand are responsible for 60% of plastic in the ocean – and yet the Prime Minister is handing hundreds of millions of dollars to these countries as an apology for Australia’s (factually dubious) contribution to ‘rising sea levels’.

China is not, as the UN claims, a beacon of ‘Net Zero’ environmentalism.

If anything, China’s environmental catastrophe reveals the dirty side of the so-called renewable empire. It has led to polluted rivers, destroyed sacred mountains, slave-run factories, and an export chain that includes debt-trapping vulnerable nations with loans repaid with land acquisition, the empowerment of brutal dictatorships, and even child labour in the rare-earth mines.

In China, environmental and cultural protesters who stand against the renewable energy industry are harassed, arrested, or simply vanish.

Activists in Wuhan, famous for its dodgy gain-of-function labs, demanded the Chinese government ‘give back the green mountains and clear waters’.

Their social media posts were scrubbed and the story suppressed by digital censors.

It’s a process familiar to Australians who lived through the Great Digital Dark Age of Covid where the government saw fit to issue take-down notices to Twitter and Facebook to keep vaccine-injured victims quiet. Many of these social media sites still have legacy community guidelines that warn about the ‘misinformation’ of posts sceptical about Climate Change while Australian policy is littered with clauses determined to protect the narrative of the political movement even if it means listing environmental concern as ‘dangerous’ or ‘misleading’.

Chinese activists were not exaggerating their pollution problem, and neither are Australian farmers or beachside residents furious about the solar and wind industrial projects tearing apart the serenity of Australia’s landscape.

Soon, the curse of Net Zero will touch every corner of our continent.

The Morning Midas and Net Zero monstrosities share a fate decomposing into the landscape, poisoning everything around them – abandoned by the companies and governments responsible for their creation.

A toxic legacy left for nature to remediate.

It’s unlikely the Morning Midas will be remembered as anything other than a sidenote on the next article about a sinking EV cargo ship, but the EV problem is not going away.

Cheap Chinese vehicles are being welcomed into Australia as a market disruption by a Labor government desperate to prove that EVs can be ‘cheap’.

This is despite their questionable green credentials, service standards, and quality control.

How long will EVs stay cheap as the resources used in their manufacturing double and triple in price?

Market forces are sinking EVs, while Labor, and particularly Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, remain oblivious.

They would prefer to allow TEMU-style EVs to destabilise the auto industry, causing permanent damage, for the sake of a product that may not survive given its concerning track record in other countries. This is not good for the Australian consumer, the global environment, or the industries that support the car industry which employ many of our skilled young people.

Are we going to outsource auto-workers and mechanics to a Chinese helpline that goes unanswered?

Do we really want to keep pushing jobs and skills away in exchange for a collapsing ‘green’ dream with all the appeal of algae?

What about when these cheap cars break – which they undoubtedly will – where do they end up? In landfill, sheltering under a busted solar panel? Parked beneath a derelict wind turbine? In an abandoned shed with all the plastic we are meant to be recycling?

This is not a good look for an industry that exists purely to capitalise on environmental credentials.

It is hideous.

Electric vehicles are not better products. They are a technical solution to an ideological problem propped up by government subsidies and corporate Environment and Social Governance programs.

In this respect, EVs occupy the same ideological market space as lab-grown meat.

The third sinking of a cargo ship laden with electric cars is not a one-off event.

With Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen pushing Australia toward EVs – specifically China-made EVs – we can only wonder if the next cargo ship will sink onto the Great Barrier Reef.

EVs are a sinking ship by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Electric dreams left to rot on the ocean floor as Albanese heads to China

Read on Substack
/2 Comments/by

Electrification Overhaul: The Costly Future of Australia’s Energy Strategy

, ,

Electrification is an essential component of the Albanese government’s net zero strategy. It involves turning every device that consumes energy to electric: replacing petrol cars with electric vehicles, swapping gas cook tops for electric ones, removing gas hot-water systems in favour of electric, and even making barbecues electric. Everyday Australians will bear the costs of this insanity. To me, it’s unwise to place all our eggs in the electricity basket when we are reimagining our grid to depend entirely on weather-dependent generation. Yet, to the government, such heresy is “disinformation.”

Achieving electrification will require a massive upgrade to our electricity transmission network to meet the higher demand, especially from electric vehicles. However, even this alone will not achieve electrification, as there just isn’t enough generation capacity from wind and solar to ever meet the heightened demand. Consequently, the government is pursuing companion strategies.

First, people will be incentivised to purchase wall batteries to go with their rooftop solar systems, which will connect to the grid. To manage evening and morning peak demand, the government plans to draw power from these batteries, restricting users from operating power-intensive appliances like air conditioners and pool pumps.

If you have an EV, this strategy means the power stored in your wall battery—intended for overnight charging—will also be taken. There’s even a plan to plug EVs directly into the grid to draw any charge you may have managed to store in your battery if required to keep the grid working.

This won’t be enough on its own, so the government has introduced a new building code mandatory for new homes, which will add about $50,000 to construction costs. These changes include completely sealing homes to keep heat out, which may lead to moisture build up and mould.

Ceiling fans will replace air-conditioners, while rooms and homes will become smaller, ceilings lower and spaces more compact, with no garages and narrower streets, as people will not have cars.

Welcome to your future under electrification. Watch the video for more on this madness.

Transcript

Electrification is an essential part of the Albanese government’s net zero strategy. Electrification consists of taking every device that consumes energy and making it electric: petrol cars replaced with electric cars; gas cooktops replaced with electric ones; gas hot-water systems ripped out and replaced with electric; barbecues only electric—which is no fun at all. Everyday Australians pay the cost. 

To me, it’s unwise to put all our eggs in the electricity basket when we are reimagining our electricity grid to rely entirely on weather-dependent generation. To the government, of course, such heresy is mere ‘disinformation’. I’m sure Minister Bowen is champing at the bit to declare any online critics of net zero as threatening the environment, leading to a ban on ‘disinformation’. 

The truth is that electrification is something we must debate. There are real risks to the public, and the price tag is astronomical. So let’s start with safety. The internet is reporting that China has banned electric vehicles from underground car parks, following a Daily Telegraph story on the weekend. The inference is that the ban was from the government, when in fact the Telegraph made clear the ban was from car-park owners and from apartments above the car parks. It’s businesses acting to protect themselves and their customers. Local news reports that property owners were spurred into action after 11 intense battery fires in Hangzhou. The reports have revived fears in China that the new low-carbon-dioxide technology is more trouble than it’s worth. Definitely—yes, it is. One viral social media post involved a Hangzhou car showroom catching fire after a display car spontaneously combusted. It was a brand-new vehicle. There was no issue of faulty maintenance or handling. As has been correctly reported, the science is clear: ‘when EV batteries do overheat, they’re susceptible to something called thermal runaway,’ says Edith Cowan University academic Muhammad Zhar. This article goes on to say: 

That’s when physical damage— 

or a manufacturing fault— 

triggers a chemical chain reaction within the battery. 

It can be a short circuit. It can be a puncture. Or an external heat. 

Such damage can lead to a high-temperature fire or toxic gas explosion. 

“About 95 per cent of battery fires are classed as ignition fires, which produce jet-like directional flames. The other 5 per cent involve a vapour cloud explosion.” 

That was written by Edith Cowan University academic Muhammad Azhar. 

Recently, five cars were destroyed when a damaged battery fell from an EV parked at Sydney airport. A Tesla went up in flames on the road after contacting debris that fell from a truck near Goulburn. No ways have been developed of smothering a lithium-ion fire. The safest place for an EV is in the open air, where any fire can be contained until it burns out without destroying the property of others in the process. 

Secondly, when it comes to electrification, the elephant in the room is cost. The process consists of rebuilding the national electricity grid, generation and transmission. Energex and Powerlink have identified emerging limitations in the electricity networks supplying the Brisbane CBD. The power grids in Brisbane and across Australia were not built for our modern population density and certainly weren’t built to take the full load of energy that’s now required to electrify houses, cars and businesses. They note corrective action is required to avoid network overload and to avoid load shedding—known as ‘brownout’—which is when the power is selectively switched off to houses and businesses to prevent a wider blackout. Smart meters will make brownouts easier, providing the ability for power companies to remotely turn off air-conditioners and power to living areas, leaving the kitchen circuit functioning to keep the fridge on. New houses are being built with that circuit arrangement. It’s control. 

The cost to rewire the grid to convey solar, wind and pumped hydro from the point of generation to the cities and then rewire the city and suburban grid for the higher electricity demand has not been costed. I have asked the minister repeatedly in the last few weeks for those costings, and it is clear that none exist. Let me help the government. Visual Capitalist consultancy has done independent costings showing that the cost of rewiring the grid and adding firming—back-up batteries and pumped hydro—is about 30 per cent of the overall electrification cost, or $300 billion, on the consensus figure of Australia’s $1 trillion cost—which I think is about half of it. 

In the electrification agenda, cost concerns relate to the national building code. The idea is to avoid having to rewire at least parts of the grid through lowering household electricity usage to make room for charging EVs in the existing power grid. The targeted production is 50 per cent less power—half of what you’re using. Remember that Australians are already using 10 per cent less power than five years ago. The Australian Building Codes Board has a rating system called NatHERS which rates housing standards from one star to 10 stars. The current code requires seven stars. The code includes a measure of whole-of-house energy efficiency, which rates your home compliance with a net zero ideology, including heating and cooling, hot water systems, lighting, pool and spa pumps, cooking and even plug-in appliances. Our Big Brother is poking their nose into every aspect of your home in the name of saving the environment. 

The actual building code component of the building code calls for the sealing of homes to prevent outside air coming in. This creates issues with condensation, meaning mould, which other aspects of the code may alleviate—may. Clearly nobody involved in this new code has lived in a Queenslander-style home that relies on airflow to keep the house cool. The new ideology-driven code will add $50,000 to the cost of construction of a new home, partially offset through lower electricity costs. The reduction in electricity costs will not be a lot because your energy bill is composed mainly of a fee for poles and wires, margin fees and admin fees, not electricity usage. As I have explained, the poles and wires charge is going higher than Elon Musk’s spaceship. 

The cost of the new code to everyday Australians will be massive. We have 11 million homes in Australia and, so far, only recently built inner-city apartments meet the code. A quick calculation: $50,000 per home times 10 million homes is a $500 billion theoretical cost. Not all homes will be done. Many will just be bulldozed and replaced with tiny apartments to house Labor’s new arrivals. Economies of scale may result. Yet the actual cost of building upgrades is expected to be 15 per cent of the transition cost. With a transition cost of $1 trillion, that’s building upgrades costing $150 billion. On the more likely $2 trillion transition cost, building upgrades will cost $300 billion. That’s money everyday Australians will have to pay or will lose when they sell a non-compliant property for a reduced price. In all the time I have heard net zero debated, the shocking cost of converting buildings has never been mentioned 

And wait; there’s more! Converting transport—trucks, shipping and aviation—is not mentioned. It’s another seven per cent—$70 billion. Eight per cent of the cost is made up of hydrogen development, carbon dioxide scrubbing and industry conversion costs. Add another $80 billion. The cost of new generation to replace affordable and reliable coal power with weather-dependent solar and wind fairytale power is the remaining 40 per cent, or $400 billion. Remember, we already have this coal generation. Electrification requires us to shut down the generation we already have and build it over again in solar and wind. The problem climate change carpetbaggers are now running into is simply this: the best places for these things have been taken. New installations are going further out, requiring higher transmission costs and higher maintenance costs. Residents are starting to see the environmental damage caused to our native forest and animals, and to farmland. The resistance has started. 

Let’s not forget wind and solar last for, at best, 15 years and then have to be replaced again and again and again. This means that every single industrial wind and solar installation will need to be replaced at least once before 2060, and more likely twice. The replacement process will be never-ending. Every 15 years the whole lot gets replaced again and again and again. The transmission network will require constant maintenance. Having added an additional 10,000 kilometres of poles and wires, the extra maintenance costs will remain in electricity bills forever. The truth is the public will never finish paying for net zero electrification. 

The good people over at Visual Capitalist have given calculating the cost of net zero a fair crack based on data on US National Public Utilities Council. Their total cost to electrify Western countries before 2060 is US$110 trillion. Insane! Australia’s share of that is currently estimated at $1 trillion; however, looking through the US data, which is more advanced than ours, a cost as high as $2 trillion is much more likely. 

The costings I’ve presented tonight are not firm. I hope they encourage the government to come clean with the costings they have to allow for an open, mature debate—one which asks: is it time to walk away and try something else? Like emission-free coal, for example. For a fraction of this money, we can simply retrofit coal plants with new technology that captures and converts carbon dioxide to useful products like fertiliser. Or stop collecting this because carbon dioxide is beneficial. For some reason, the government doesn’t want to talk about new coal plants. Hmmm; I wonder where that list of ALP donations is again? I suggest journalists go looking. 

This energy fairytale is going to cost so much money it’s never going to happen. Australia can’t afford it. How can Australians who are struggling with the cost of living under Labor afford trillions for electrification? The further we get into this, the more stupid and the more dishonest the idea looks. Ideology-driven bureaucrats, politicians, academics and journalists have put us on a path to ruin. Climate change carpetbaggers will be this country’s death. The rorting, the boondoggles and the waste of taxpayer money is just getting started. One Nation will end the net zero electrification scam and make Australia affordable again. Net zero is a scam, and One Nation is the only party that will stop it. 

/1 Comment/by

Government HIDES Secret Ute Tax Report

,

Labor wants to punish diesel and petrol car makers so that you’ll be forced to buy an electric vehicle despite the diesel powered Ford Ranger, a dual cab Ute, still being Australia’s most bought car last year. They continue to claim their new tax won’t impact the car you drive, but that’s nonsense. The DCCEEW has a report sitting in a filing cabinet – a cost-benefit analysis that would likely expose their lies and do not want made public.

So much for transparency and accountability from the Albanese Labor Government. Ditch the ridiculous United Nations/World Economic Forum net-zero targets and let Australians buy and drive whatever car they want.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll tie up some things. Going back to the new car regime, could you please produce the document Fuel quality standards implementation: cost benefit analysis by GHD and ACIL Allen on notice? 

Ms Rowley: You might recall from discussion in this committee at the last round of estimates that, in the committee relating to transport and infrastructure, a public interest immunity claim was made with respect to that modelling. Both with respect to the fact that it speaks to cabinet-in-confidence deliberations and because it includes modelling of market impacts and market outcomes—commercial-in-confidence arrangements—that public interest immunity claim stands, so we are not in a position to table that document.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re required to produce to this committee any information or documents that are requested. There is no privacy, security, freedom of information or other legislation that overrides this committee’s constitutional powers to give evidence, and you are protected from any potential prosecution as a result of your evidence or producing documents to this committee. If anyone seeks to pressure you against producing documents, that is also a contempt. If you wish to raise an immunity claim, there are proper processes.  

Mr Fredericks: A public interest immunity claim has already been raised—  

Senator ROBERTS: Has it been accepted by the Senate?  

Mr Fredericks: by the transport minister. As I understand it, it hasn’t been resolved, and we as public servants are bound by that minister’s current claim of public interest immunity.  

Senator ROBERTS: So it hasn’t been resolved yet?  

Ms Rowley: Senator, apologies. It might be that I misunderstood which document you were requesting because you opened this with reference to the new vehicle efficiency standard. Is it the modelling related to that, or is it about liquid fuels?  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s the document entitled Fuel quality standards implementation: cost benefit analysis by GHD and ACIL Allen.  

Ms Rowley: Apologies. I was referring to a different document. I misunderstood because of your reference to fuel efficiency standards.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine. We all make mistakes.  

Mrs Svarcas: Senator, Fuel quality standards implementation: cost benefit analysis is publicly available and presents the modelling without the commercial information.  

Senator ROBERTS: Where is it?  

Mrs Svarcas: It is available online. We can give you the link for that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, if you can.  

Senator McKENZIE: Have you put the ACIL modelling up?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, that’s what we’re talking about.  

Mrs Svarcas: The cost-benefit analysis is up, without the commercial information.  

Senator ROBERTS: This may have been the document you were talking about, Mr Fredericks. I’d also like you to produce the document Modelling and analysis of a regulated fuel efficiency standard: stage 1 report by ACIL Allen.  

Mr Fredericks: Yes, that’s the one I was referring to.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s still in the hands of the minister, who’s claiming immunity.  

Mr Fredericks: My understanding is that the minister for transport has made a public interest immunity claim against the publication of that report. I think it is still unattended to by the Senate, so we’re bound by that for the time being.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Senate hasn’t attended to it yet?  

Mr Fredericks: That’s my understanding. It’s in another department.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on. If you make the claim that your car carbon dioxide tax won’t make cars more expensive, Minister, or take away choice, why won’t you produce the reports you have about the costs and benefits? Why the secrecy and the lack of debate? Why the secrecy about the data you have in your possession right now about the effect on Australian cars, four-wheel drives and utes? These are vehicles fundamental to our economy and to many people’s livelihoods.  

Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, what question are you actually asking?  

Senator ROBERTS: Why won’t you produce the documents? Senator McAllister: I think, as the secretary has already explained, Minister King has indicated that she claims public interest immunity over the documents. It’s not my claim— 

Senator McKENZIE: You don’t get to say, ‘PII—we win.’  

Senator McAllister: Senator—  

Senator McKENZIE: You’ve got to actually have a reason.  

CHAIR: Senator McKenzie— 

Senator ROBERTS: Why are you afraid of people knowing?  

CHAIR: We’re talking about a PII claim in a different committee, doing something different. That’s their business. We can prosecute it after the event if it has some relevance to this committee; otherwise, I think we’re just going to go round in circles here.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, let’s move on.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts has the call for another five.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Coomera Connector 2 in Brisbane—can you please provide an update on any progress of a referral or any conversations in relation to Coomera Connector 2 in Queensland, the extension of a freeway?  

Mr Fredericks: I’m looking at a lot of blank faces behind me. We might need to take that one on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please. Let’s come to water. I’ve been told in two different sessions in the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee that this is the spot for my water questions, so here we go. Is your department working with the Queensland government on the $20 billion Pioneer-Burdekin Pumped Hydro Project, and, if not, have they asked for federal assistance in planning or financing?  

Mr Fredericks: I can tell you that that question belongs in water day, which is—  

CHAIR: Friday week.  

Mr Fredericks: Friday week. I lose track.  

CHAIR: On 2 June. Come on down! Mr Fredericks: I suspect there will be a number of questions along those same lines. That’s on water day, Friday week.  

Senator McAllister: Senator Roberts, is the Coomera Connector a road transport project from Loganholme to Coomera?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Mr Fredericks: I think that’s why we got a lot of blank faces.  

Senator McAllister: What was your question in relation to that?  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you please provide an update on any progress, because there are serious environmental factors involved there. That’s what I want to know—if you’re involved or not.  

Senator McAllister: I see. So your question is: is the department involved in any regulatory process associated with this project?  

Senator ROBERTS: My question is: can you please provide an update on any progress of a referral or any conversations in relation to Coomera Connector 2?  

Mr Fredericks: Okay. We’re onto it. Do you mean under the EPBC Act?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I just want to know any environmental aspect at all. Mr Fredericks: All good—that is on tomorrow, in outcome 2, and my officials from that part of the department will be ready to respond to your question. Then the water question belongs in the cross-portfolio water day, which will be held on Friday week.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s come back to an earlier answer that one of your staff gave me.  

CHAIR: Two minutes—Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: As to freedom of information request LEX 76280, in relation to the Powering Australia tracker, you redacted a single measure on page 6 of that document. I want to know what the measure is. I was told—I think, by this lady—that that’s cabinet in confidence.  

Ms Geiger: That’s right, and I understand we have replied to your request with an explanation about why that information can’t be revealed.  

Senator ROBERTS: How can one of six topics—just a title—be cabinet in confidence? Was it supplied because it needs to be in confidence, or was it supplied as part of the package to the cabinet? 

Ms Geiger: The individual measure was considered by cabinet, and therefore it’s covered by the cabinet requirements.  

Senator ROBERTS: So anything that goes to cabinet is cabinet in confidence?  

Senator McKENZIE: [inaudible] supporting any decision that they may or may not discuss.  

Senator ROBERTS: You are required to produce to this committee any information or documents that are requested. There is no privacy, security, freedom of information or other legislation that overrides this committee’s constitutional powers to gather evidence, and you are protected from any potential prosecution as a result of your evidence or producing documents to this committee. If anyone seeks to pressure you against producing documents, that is also a contempt. If you wish to raise a public interest immunity claim or a cabinetin-confidence claim, there are proper processes around that, and it is up to the Senate whether to accept that, not you or the minister.  

Mr Fredericks: That’s fair. So we will take that on notice because at the moment that issue of disclosure is being considered in the FOI context. That can be different to—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m requesting it as part a Senate committee now.  

Mr Fredericks: I’m helping you here. That can be a different answer when it’s asked in a Senate estimates context, so we will need to take on notice our capacity to provide you that material, under your request from the Senate committee.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That wasn’t any different from what I asked before. But thank you.  

CHAIR: We’re going to rotate now—  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. 

/4 Comments/by

Government Crack Down on Petrol and Diesel Cars

, ,

If you enjoy your petrol or diesel car, the government is trying to make sure you won’t be enjoying it for long.

Looking through this word salad I got from the Department, the reality is the government is placing fines on manufacturers who sell too many petrol and diesel cars. Australians prefer cars that are useful for a weekend of camping, spacious enough to fit the whole family, and capable of doing long road trips without frequent refuelling or needing to stop to recharge.

The government thinks you’re enjoying your cars too much and is going to forces manufacturers to progressively phase them out, leaving only useless electric vehicles available.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Can I turn to cars and utes, as mentioned by Senator O’Sullivan. Car makers must comply with regulations that you are about to introduce. They must also comply with customers’ needs. My understanding is that the demand for sedans—for example, a Toyota Corolla or a Honda Civic—is decreasing, and the demand for the corresponding SUV—which in the case of Toyota would be a RAV4 or a Honda Civic—is increasing dramatically. The SUVs are heavier, they’re more utilitarian, but they’re preferred. But they chew more fuel and they produce more carbon dioxide—which to me is not a problem, but anyway. How does that affect the manufacturer? On the one hand they have a government that says, ‘Decrease the size of the car, the weight and the fuel efficiency.’ But customers say, ‘No, do the opposite.’ The customers don’t think in terms of carbon dioxide because they know it’s crap.  

Ms Purvis-Smith: As I mentioned in a previous answer, manufacturers are able to make commercial decisions as to what their fleet looks like. The standard looks at their whole fleet. There are a range of ways that manufacturers can meet the standard. I think Mr Kathage went through this before. I’m not sure if you were here. He could go through that again. If they get credits in one year they can hold them over to meet debits they may get in a following year. They can also trade credits. They can look at the fleet, change the fleet and make commercial decisions about what they import into the country and offer consumers.  

Senator ROBERTS: Before Mr Kathage does that, perhaps you could tell me: if customers want SUVs over sedans, will that company be penalised? 

Mr Kathage: I can point you to appendix A of our impact analysis, where we set out the sales volumes of various types of vehicles. Your question is actually quite difficult because, as Ms Purvis-Smith mentioned, there’s actually quite a lot of things that vehicle suppliers can do to improve the efficiency of the vehicles they sell and their fleet overall. The first thing I’ll mention is that there are changes to the vehicles themselves that they can make—improving the aerodynamics, changing the drive train— 

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that. But an SUV compared to a sedan—they can make improvements on both but the SUV will chew more fuel and is heavier—full stop, end of story.  

Mr Kathage: That’s right. So one of the features of the policy is to include a few flexibility mechanisms. The first one is to include two targets. One target is for passenger vehicles and a higher target for light commercial vehicles. The second flexibility mechanism in the scheme is to adjust the limit by weight. So you might have a Toyota Kluger, for example, which will have a particular mass in running order. Therefore, the target for that vehicle or the fleet of vehicles—that weight—will be adjusted. The third thing is that in any given year a vehicle supplier might bring in too many vehicles that are too polluting. They’ve got two years after that point to bring what’s called their ‘initial emissions value’ down to zero. So they do have some time. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Looking at electric vehicles, for example, this policy, these regulations, are to make petrol and diesel vehicles less attractive and to make electric vehicles more attractive. That’s clearly what’s going on. But the efficiency of resources in electric vehicles is quite low, because the vehicles are inherently heavier, as Senator O’Sullivan said—needing heavier brakes, more resources; heavier suspension, more resources; heavier components all through, more resources. So we’re actually driving an economy to use less efficient vehicles and less efficient use of resources. That doesn’t make sense to me.  

Mr Kathage: I’m sorry; what was the question? 

Senator ROBERTS: The question is: are you aware that that’s happening? 

Mr Kathage: I’d probably say the purpose of the new vehicle efficiency standard is to improve the efficiency of new vehicles. It’s not to drive a particular type of vehicle or particular type of outcome, except for reduced emissions. That’s the purpose of the policy.  

Senator ROBERTS: You talked about reducing emissions. Have you done any work on the life cycle production of carbon dioxide from a diesel and a petrol vehicle, compared to the electric vehicle— 

Mr Kathage: We have— 

Senator ROBERTS: Particularly right through the mining sector as well, because there are extra resources that need to be mined for an EV. 

Mr Kathage: Yes, we have. We included some evidence in our impact analysis, which is now published on the Office of Impact Analysis website. Section 4.2.1 sets out a range of different estimates that have been made. The first one is from our own Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics, which finds that while manufacturing an EV may produce more GHG emissions than an internal combustion engine, that is more than offset after about one year if the vehicle is charged from renewably sourced electricity—that is, home solar—and two years if charged from the grid using a mix of electricity generation sources. In that section—I won’t read it all out—we do have, I think, four other sources that support the same contention.  

Senator ROBERTS: There’s an assumption there that they’ll be using renewables—solar and wind. That’s a big assumption. Thank you, Chair. 

/5 Comments/by

Tracking the Data of Lithium Battery Fires

,

Lithium battery fires have featured far too often in news headlines. These fires often ignite without warning, they’re difficult to extinguish and are not confined to #EVs. Everything from eScooters to electric toothbrushes carries the risk for #thermal runaway and considered hazardous materials.

I asked about the ACCC’s report on Lithium-Ion Batteries and Consumer Product Safety during the recent senate estimates. The report advocates for a national product safety incident database to capture lithium ion battery fires.

Senator Gallagher responded positively and I look forward to quick action on this problem from the Government.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I want to refer to the ACCC’s Lithium-ion batteries and consumer product safety report that you issued this month. On page 6 it says: 

… there is currently no national product safety incident database to capture data and support national identification and analysis of consumer product safety hazards. Instead, product safety incident data is fragmented across a range of government and non-government organisations. With appropriate funding, the ACCC considers it is best placed to administer a national product safety incident database— 

which would include capturing lithium ion battery fires— 

and recommends the ACCC is funded to develop and administer this. 

Minister, electric products catching on fire seems to be a frequent and very serious problem. Tracking the data accurately would help inform the debate, assist customers to make good decisions and probably save lives. When will you implement this recommendation? 

Senator Gallagher: Sorry, I don’t have the recommendation you’re referring to. 

Senator ROBERTS: The ACCC recommends that it be the one to monitor and capture the data on lithium ion battery fires. 

Senator Gallagher: I imagine this is something that will need the attention of governments. I’ve been watching it myself, with more and more reporting of these matters. I think it’s probably something that the federation is going to have to deal with, as it crosses over a number of responsibilities that would be state and Commonwealth. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/3 Comments/by

Luxury EVs for ASEAN-Australia Summit a PR Stunt

,

In yet more wasteful virtue signalling, Labor is laying on an extra fleet of luxury EVs for the ASEAN-Australia Special Summit from 4th-6th March 2024 to shuttle the hundreds of delegates around Melbourne at the taxpayers expense.

As much as this government is advancing the World Economic Forum agenda promoting bug protein, limits on food consumption, and energy policies, I am sure the meeting, like Davos, will get through copious amounts of meat and dairy. Any photos of the food can be sent to my website or shared to my social media.

The insanity of the Net Zero dog and pony show gets worse. Because there are not enough electric cars in the Victorian fleet, high end luxury European EVs from COMCAR services are being sent to Melbourne from Canberra and Adelaide. COMCAR staff are having to organising their route to Melbourne to include stopping at charging stations so they actually do make it to Melbourne.

Why is the PM again wasting tax dollars on tokenism? One Nation is keen to uncover just how much this stunt is costing Australian taxpayers.

Transcript

Next week the 11 leaders of countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations will arrive in Melbourne for the biannual ASEAN Summit. Hundreds of delegates will be shuttled around Melbourne at taxpayers’ expense. One Nation welcomes meetings like ASEAN that encourage countries to be good neighbours, and One Nation supports spending only what’s necessary to achieve a good outcome.  

As much as this government is advancing the World Economic Forum agenda promoting bug protein, limits on food consumption, and energy policies, I am sure the meeting will get through copious amounts of luxury food. Any photos of the food can be sent to my website or shared to my social media. What really got my attention is today’s Australian newspaper, with an article stating that the Prime Minister has required all vehicles provided to delegates to be electric. Because there are not enough electric cars in the Victorian fleet, electric Comcars are being sent to Melbourne from Canberra and Adelaide. Comcar staff are having to organising their route to Melbourne to include stopping at charging stations so they actually do make it to Melbourne. Why put on this tokenistic superficial show of fealty to the globalist electrification agenda at all?  

In the last few weeks, we’ve seen leading car makers do a U-turn on plans to sell only electric cars due to low demand, low profit and escalating scarcity of materials. In fact, despite heavy subsidies, last year in Europe EVs accounted for only 14 per cent of sales. Australia is half that. Insurance premiums are skyrocketing as damaged EVs prove very expensive to repair—one reason EVs lose value at twice the rate of cars with internal combustion engines. They’re lemons. The amount of minerals and energy needed to make, maintain and recycle electric vehicles is so high that EV stands for ‘environmental vandalism’.  

One Nation would like to know how much this exercise in virtue signalling is costing our Australian taxpayers. 

/3 Comments/by

Inconvenient EVs in Canberra Subsidised by Taxpayers!

,

In Senate Estimates I asked who funded and supplied the electric vehicle charging stations (58 in total) at Parliament House in the Capital. Taxpayers are funding the Canberra bubble’s fling with EVs to the tune of $2.5m in installation costs, with the vague promise that this will be recouped in the future. The reason given for the charging stations is to make it convenient for EVs to visit Parliament House. Despite most Australians owning a petrol or diesel car, there are no immediate plans to install petrol or diesel pumps at Parliament House for their convenience.

As the city with the highest average income in the country (over $100,000/year), the Canberra bureaucrats are truly out of touch with the rest of Australia.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you for appearing today. The Department of Parliamentary Services has installed 10 electric vehicle charging stations in the public car park. Are they user-pays, or does the ‘Department of the Australian Taxpayer’ fork out for the cost of that electricity?

Mr Stefanic: The user pays.

Senator ROBERTS: Which company owns the chargers, then?

Mr Stefanic: I’ll have to take that question on notice. I’ll correct myself if I have misspoken, but I believe DPS owns the asset that has been installed. We contracted ActewAGL to provide the services with the installation.

Senator ROBERTS: AGL?

Mr Stefanic: ActewAGL, which is a Canberra based joint venture with AGL.

Senator ROBERTS: But DPS owns the chargers?

Mr Stefanic: I believe so.

Senator ROBERTS: How much did you pay for the installation?

Mr Stefanic: The contract for installation is about $2.5 million. We are tracking under budget. When all 58 electric vehicle charging stations are installed we anticipate the cost will be in the order—

Senator ROBERTS: Fifty-eight?

Mr Stefanic: There will be 58 in total. There are 10 in the public car park, 10 in each of the private car parks and eight in the ministerial wing.

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, what was that again?

Mr Stefanic: Ten in each of the private car parks and eight in the ministerial wing car park.

Senator ROBERTS: How many private car parks?

Mr Stefanic: Four.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’ve got 40 chargers?

Mr Stefanic: Forty in those. Then the 10 in the public and the eight in the ministerial wing make 58.

Senator ROBERTS: So we’re paying for this, but a provider of electricity is making money out of it?

Mr Stefanic: The charges that we are levying for it have two elements: one covers both our administration cost and a recovery of the capital investment, and the other portion of it is the payment for the cost of the energy that goes to the provider.

Senator ROBERTS: So the provider is making a profit out of our—the taxpayers—investment?

Mr Stefanic: The energy provider, as it would for any electric vehicle charging station.

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t realise that it was within your remit to cover the operating costs of people driving electric vehicles around the Canberra bubble?

Mr Stefanic: It’s not, because it is user-pays, as I mentioned.

Senator ROBERTS: But you’re providing a lot of taxpayer money to enable it.

Mr Stefanic: With the take-up of electric vehicles—and Canberra has, I think, the highest per capita take-up in the country—the range of those vehicles, I guess, necessitates us to lean into the issue and make sure we have availability for charging locally. To the point that Senator Hume raised around people being able to leave the building, sometimes it’s difficult, and having the convenience of a charging facility available at Parliament House is useful. In the public car park in particular, we have around 800,000 visitors a year to Parliament House. With the increase in the take-up of electric vehicles, it enhances our destination from a tourism point of view if people can see that they have access to electric vehicle charging when they arrive here.

Senator ROBERTS: You’re acknowledging that electric vehicles have some inconvenience attached to them, so you’re making provision to supplement that?

Mr Stefanic: No. I’m simply saying it’s a reality. There are electric vehicle charging stations popping up everywhere. We’re simply another building that’s installing them.

Senator ROBERTS: Subsidised by the taxpayer.

Mr Stefanic: They are not subsidised by the taxpayer because we are recovering that capital cost.

Senator ROBERTS: The installation is subsidised but then you recover, which is a pretty good deal for the providers.

Mr Stefanic: We use our capital funds to install the infrastructure, but then we recover the cost from the user.

Senator ROBERTS: How are your plans to install a diesel or petrol bowser progressing?

Mr Stefanic: There are no plans for fuel bowsers.

Senator ROBERTS: Why not?

Mr Stefanic: You need a storage mechanism for those things. So it would be difficult to begin with, given the building, to dig massive holes in the ground to put in storage facilities.

CHAIR: No hydrogen plant then either?

Mr Stefanic: No.

Senator Shoebridge: Next we’ll all get nuclear reactors.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it because diesel and petrol are easier to refuel? You’re saying it’s an inconvenience to use an electric car, so we need to provide services for electric cars so we can make sure we have plenty of visitors to Parliament House?

The President: If I could just correct the record—the department secretary didn’t say it was inconvenient to use an electric vehicle.

Senator ROBERTS: He didn’t use those words; he used other words. Are you aware that electric vehicle sales in the United States and the European Union are plummeting?

Mr Stefanic: No. I’m simply looking at statistics in Australia and in the ACT in particular, which indicate that the take up continues to grow.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s interesting because electric vehicles are inherently much more expensive than diesel and petrol and less efficient overall in use of resources. Canberra has the highest income per capita, as I understand it, of any city in Australia.

Mr Stefanic: I’m unsure of that.

/7 Comments/by

Electric Vehicles Not Good for Road Trips

If you want to get there cheaper and faster, it’s looking like petrol or diesel is just as good or better for a road trip. I’ll be keeping my diesel 4WD.

/6 Comments/by