Posts

Wind Turbine Asbestos Shock!

,

This exchange is about the Australian Border Force’s (ABF) response to asbestos found in the lift brake pads of imported wind turbines.

Mr Reynolds of the ABF explained that after discovering the issue, the ABF “doubled down” on efforts by implementing a specific screening profile to target at-risk shipments. From 1 December to 1 April, 42 matching consignments were intercepted.

35 were cleared via document-based risk assessment; 4 were referred for laboratory testing (all returned negative results), whilst 3 were held pending further documentation.

While Mr Reynolds could not explain how the original contaminated brake pads slipped past the border, he noted that the ABF relies on a combination of self-assessment by importers, risk-based targeting and severe financial penalties to deter illegal imports.

Fines for deliberately importing asbestos without a permit can reach up to $330,000 for individuals and $1.65 million (or 15 times the value of the goods) for companies.

Resolving the issue for contaminated turbines already operating in Australia falls under state government jurisdiction, not federal.

Mr Reynolds took several questions on notice, promising to look into whether the original importers committed a deliberate or accidental offence, whether any fines or prosecutions have been levied against them, and if any current prosecutions are outstanding regarding the operational turbines.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: This is about wind turbines that have been imported into Australia containing asbestos. Now that the asbestos in imported wind turbines has been identified, what’s been done to remedy the problem and prevent recurrence? 

Mr Reynolds: The issue was asbestos in the brake pads in lifts inside the wind turbines. What we put in place was what we call a ‘profile’ on the border to look for these products. Between 1 December and 1 April, the Australian Border Force recorded 42 consignments matching against profiles introduced a target asbestos risk because of that wind turbine issue. Of the 42 consignments, 35 were cleared by risk assessment of the documents by ABF officers. The Australian Border Force referred four shipments for laboratory testing. All four returned negative results and were subsequently released. The remaining three consignments are, as of 1 April, held pending provision of further assurance documentation. We’re actively managing that risk on the border. 

Senator ROBERTS: Are you actually inspecting the wind turbine brakes when they come in, or is it just done by risk assessment? 

Mr Reynolds: It’s both. We’ll make a determination based on that initial risk assessment, and, where required, where we have concerns, then we will refer those for the testing. 

Senator ROBERTS: Who does the testing? 

Mr Reynolds: I don’t have the name of the laboratory, but it is a nationally recognised laboratory. 

Senator ROBERTS: Your officers go to the site where the turbine brakes are stored, pending clearance, and then, if necessary, notify the testers. 

Mr Reynolds: What we’ll do is we will provide a direction that that consignment is to be tested. Then the consignment will go to the laboratory to conduct the testing. Depending on the results, we may seize that particular consignment or it will be released. 

Senator ROBERTS: How did this problem slip past the Australian Border Force? 

Mr Reynolds: Once we became aware of it, we were absolutely onto it. We’ve been testing for asbestos over a number of years. How these particular brake pads made it into the country, I could not tell you. What I can tell you, however, is that for any individual there is a $330,000 fine or three times the value of the goods and for any companies who are deliberately importing asbestos products without a permit it’s a fine of $1.65 million or 15 times the value of the goods. There are significant penalties under the customs regulations for bringing asbestos into the country without a permit. 

Senator ROBERTS: An importer of wind turbine brakes could just look at that and say to themselves: ‘What’s the risk assessment involved here? What’s the risk of getting caught?’ If it’s tiny, then it’s worth trying to flout the fines because they won’t get fined. They’ll do a risk assessment the other way. 

Mr Reynolds: What I’d offer to you is the fact that we have intervened with 42 consignments which came into the country in that five-month period between 1 December and 1 April. This would indicate that we’re absolutely applying all that we can at the border to look for asbestos coming into the country, including for the wind turbine lift brakes and any other asbestos product. 

Senator ROBERTS: That’s subsequent to them coming in without detection and being put into operation. You can’t tell me how that slipped past you. If you can’t tell me how, how do you know that what you’re doing now will get it all? I can understand you can’t possibly inspect every piece of equipment, every good and every item that gets imported by individuals or on major shipments and commercial loads. You have to use some kind of intelligence assessment and a risk assessment. I understand that. Have you changed practices? 

Mr Reynolds: Yes, that’s precisely what we have done. 

Senator ROBERTS: With the 42? 

Mr Reynolds: That’s exactly it. Because we recognised that there clearly were some asbestos products that made it into the country, we doubled down on our efforts to reduce the risk of any asbestos brake pads for wind turbine lifts getting into the country. I think the figures I’ve provided for you demonstrate that we are being effective in getting after it. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m wondering how many other lapses there are, not just wind turbine brakes. Going back to this case: was there an offence committed by the importers or the purchasers by misdescription or omission? 

Mr Reynolds: You’d need the details of the importers for those particular lift brake pads, so I don’t have that for you here. I could take it on notice if that would be of assistance. 

Senator ROBERTS: If you could please. I’d like to know if it was deliberate or if it was sloppiness on the part of the importer. 

Mr Reynolds: Certainly. 

Senator ROBERTS: Have all contaminated wind turbines had the problem alleviated, Minister? 

Senator Watt: I don’t know that I can give you an across the board answer. I’m not sure whether the commissioner has any further information on that. 

Senator ROBERTS: Would that be your responsibility? I would have thought— 

Mr Reynolds: It’s a state responsibility to deal with that issue. 

Senator ROBERTS: How can I go about finding that out? 

Senator Watt: Well, you’ve got some MPs in the South Australian parliament; that might be a good place to start. 

Senator ROBERTS: And WA. 

Senator Watt: Oh yes; I forgot about that. 

Senator ROBERTS: And soon New South Wales. 

Senator Watt: I’m not sure they agree with you on fracking and a few other things, but, anyway, that’s another issue. 

Senator ROBERTS: We’re always listening to constituents, Senator Watt. We don’t just go blanket. 

Senator Watt: ‘Drill, baby, drill’ except in South Australia? 

Senator ROBERTS: Except in one electorate. 

CHAIR: If we could get back to questions, that would be really helpful. 

Senator DUNIAM: This is the entertainment. 

CHAIR: No, I am not here for the entertainment. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m just going through my questions. The commissioner has answered most of them. What penalties or fines have been assessed for identified breaches? You’ve already told me the heftiness of the fines. Have any been levied on the importers in court? 

Mr Reynolds: To date, all of the consignments that we have reviewed and have referred for testing have been found not to contain asbestos. 

Senator ROBERTS: What about the ones that have been found and were in operation? 

Mr Reynolds: I’ll take that on notice and do my best to answer that question for you. 

Senator ROBERTS: In general, you’re there to apprehend illegal goods coming in illegally? 

Mr Reynolds: That’s right. 

Senator ROBERTS: If they get through the border and are put into operation, who is then responsible for enforcement? Is it someone else or is it you? 

Mr Reynolds: We can still apply the Customs Act for goods that have made it through the border. 

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have any prosecutions outstanding? 

Mr Reynolds: For asbestos related issues? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. 

Mr Reynolds: Not to my awareness. 

Senator ROBERTS: Was anyone prosecuted for the ones that were discovered in operation? 

Mr Reynolds: I think that is something that we can take on notice for you. 

Senator ROBERTS: The self-assessment of components by the importers is appropriate given your limited workforce and the extent of imports coming into Australia—the extent in terms of not only dollar value but the complexity of things today? 

Mr Reynolds: All importers have responsibilities as far as ensuring that they meet the legal requirements for the importation of goods into Australia, but we will conduct compliance checks on any goods over which we have a suspicion that it may be an illicit or prohibited product. 

Senator ROBERTS: So your way of protecting the borders, keeping the borders secure is to do inspections. That can’t cover everything, so you use risk assessments, put responsibility on the importers, and then try to protect that with hefty fines if someone is caught to make the cost of criminal or illegal imports prohibitive. 

Mr Reynolds: That’s a good summary. 

Senator ROBERTS: When I retire I’ll come and get a job with you. 

Senator Watt: There’s a merit process, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll pay that one. You were rejected, were you? 

Senator Watt: I thought you were going to ask me to be a referee. 

CHAIR: We’re full of comedians today. 

/2 Comments/by

Price Hike: The Cost of Green Energy Policies on Australian Power Bills

,

The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) has announced another electricity price hike – between 2.5% and 8.9%. For 20 years, we’ve been told wind and solar are the cheapest forms of energy, yet prices keep going up!

I questioned the AER about when Australians might see relief from these crushing power bills. Their response? No clear path to returning to the affordable prices we had just 5 years ago. Even more concerning – they recently added “emissions reduction” to the national electricity objectives alongside price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. When I asked for examples of projects that were approved because of this new emissions target that wouldn’t have been approved before – they couldn’t name a single one!

The truth is clear: We’ve gone from having the cheapest electricity in the world to being among the most expensive. These price increases aren’t accidents – they’re the direct result of failed green energy policies.

Australians deserve affordable, reliable power. Not expensive virtue signalling that drives up costs for families and businesses.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here today. The default market offer for electricity prices is going up yet again. You published a draft notice, I understand, contemplating rises between 2.5 per cent and 8.9 per cent. For 20 years, Australians have been told that wind and solar are the cheapest form of energy, yet electricity prices are going up again. Mr Oliver, are you seeing any kind of indications in the bill stack that show you will be able to actually cut the default market offer for electricity prices in the near future?  

Mr Oliver: There are a few different components, as you mentioned, in that stack that go to comprise the default market offer. It is ultimately, of course, only the benchmark offer that’s applicable to standing offer contracts. That’s less than 10 per cent of customers in most regions. Most pay less, of course, because they’re on market offer contracts, which typically sit under those default levels.  

Senator ROBERTS: It is representative, isn’t it?  

Mr Oliver: Not representative, no. I’d say it’s more of a safety net. So it’s more at the upper end of what most consumers would pay. For example, a customer might not have gone into the market, not shopped around for a market offer, and might be on a standing offer contract. As I say, that’s generally less than 10 per cent. But the vast majority of consumers pay less than the default market offer price. Indeed, the ACCC put out a report in December last year as part of their electricity price monitoring saying that roughly 80 per cent of consumers could pay even less than they are today if they continue to shop around.  

Senator ROBERTS: So do you see any signs of the default market price coming down?  

Mr Oliver: There are a few key components. The biggest variable is wholesale cost. Network costs are reasonably steady year on year. Retail costs have gone up, at least in our draft decision this year, but we’re still studying those. In terms of the wholesale cost component, we have seen over the last year some high-price events in the spot market, some volatility in the spot market. That is continuing to put upward pressure on the forward contract market, the prices that ultimately are responsible for setting a lot of the wholesale energy cost. They’re difficult to predict year on year. We don’t necessarily see them continuing to increase. If market conditions alleviate, that wholesale cost can potentially come down. We will, of course, look at those again more closely before we put out our final decision.  

Senator ROBERTS: My next question was going to be this, but I think you’ve answered it: in the data you’re seeing, is there any realistic hope that electricity prices can go back down to what they were five years ago under the current policy settings?  

Mr Oliver: Well, it’s a question of time. We don’t anticipate that kind of decline between now and the final decision. But there are obviously plans in place to continue the rollout of renewable generation and other forms of generation as well across the energy market, across the NEM, and, as we see more of that generation capacity coming into the system, that will alleviate pressure on wholesale costs. There’s work underway at the moment to look to orchestrate and utilise all of the consumer energy resources that we have in the system at the moment—20 gigawatts of rooftop solar, for example, which could be utilised more effectively to also bring down those wholesale costs as well. There are various ways. It’s a number of pieces that need to be looked at to do that. But yes, all of those trends will, over time, see the wholesale cost of energy come down.  

Senator ROBERTS: So those trends will help reduce the full bill stack?  

Mr Oliver: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Emissions reduction was recently added to the national electricity objectives of price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. Can you provide an example of a project that went ahead after the emissions objective was added that would have been rejected under the previous objectives, or a project that was prioritised higher?  

Mr Oliver: I can’t think of one specific project that would meet that criterion. We would probably need to take that on notice to see if we could identify one. It is, as you described the objective quite correctly, one that has a number of different facets. So, whenever one is making a decision that requires the application of that objective, it’s about weight and deciding how various things are taken into account. What the amendment does is say quite explicitly that one of the things to be considered is emissions targets and objectives that are enshrined in policy and legislation, but that doesn’t necessarily point to a project which then gets up that might have otherwise failed. I can’t think of one now, but we might take that on notice as well, just to confirm that.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you had four factors: quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. You’ve had added now emissions reduction. So you can’t see any project that has been brought forward because of emissions reduction at the moment?  

Mr Oliver: I can’t think of one now. I’m glancing at my colleagues and they’re not nodding either, but we’d perhaps take that on notice just to see. It may well be that the answer would be that there’s no project that would meet that specific criterion. It affects other things of course, in terms of proposals for expenditure in a network proposal, for example. There might be a stronger case for investment in a particular area that might otherwise not have been as strong a case. But those are very complicated and multifaceted decisions where you’re looking at a lot of different things.  

Senator ROBERTS: How do you assess the relative weights of those now five criteria? 

Mr Oliver: We don’t do it in any specific quantitative sense. If, for example, it is an expenditure proposal, we would be looking at the driver behind the proposal, why the network, if it is a network project, says that they wish to undertake that expenditure, who they’ve consulted with, which of the objectives they’re trying to meet, and whether they’re doing it at the most efficient cost.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you 

/3 Comments/by

The Energy Lies

,

No one trusts politicians because of their lies. PM Albanese promised power bills would drop by $275 by 2025, but they’ve only increased. Despite claims that wind and solar are the cheapest, power bills have never been higher after 20 years of introducing these “renewable” sources.

The Liberal Party’s motion complains about high power bills but ignores the real issue – NET ZERO.

The ONLY elected party that opposes this scam and is committed to lowering power bills is One Nation. Labor, Liberals, and Nationals all support expensive energy. The truth is coal is the cheapest way to run our electricity grid. India and China use our coal, yet Australians can’t. Make it make sense!

One Nation has a plan to permanently reduce power prices by ensuring baseload power stability. This would cut bills immediately by 20% and ultimately by 50%.

Vote One Nation to put more money back in your pocket and end the net zero lies.

Transcript

No-one trusts politicians, because of lies. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised Australia that power bills would come down $275 by 2025; 2025 is here and power bills have never been more expensive, and they’re still increasing. Australians are constantly told wind and solar are cheapest. That might be the greatest lie in Australian political history, and that is saying something. Well, after 20 years of connecting all the wind, solar, batteries and pumped hydro to the grid, power bills have never been higher. 

This is a motion from the Liberal Party, complaining, yet it says nothing about the reason power bills are still so expensive. There is a reason why Queenslanders are worried about running their air conditioning and why local small businesses are closing: that’s net zero. There’s only one elected party in the Senate that opposes the net zero scam, and that’s One Nation. We are the only ones that truly believe in making power bills cheaper. Labor is committed to wind and solar—super expensive. The Liberals the Nationals are committed to wind, solar and nuclear—very expensive. None of them will promise that your power bills will come down under their plan, because they can’t. The truth is that under net zero Australia faces decades of increasing power prices. 

There’s a big secret that every politician in this room knows yet won’t say out loud: the absolute cheapest way to run an electricity grid today is coal. Even if you believe in net zero, let’s have a serious look. Australia’s annual carbon dioxide production is 465 million tonnes. India and China together are 16 billion tonnes, 35 times as much. India and China are allowed to buy Australia’s coal and use it, yet Australians can’t use their own coal here in our country. One Nation would get rid of this nonsense. We have a plan to bring down power prices permanently. Right now, baseload power is told to immediately shut down whenever wind and solar unpredictably turn on. Coal is what’s known as baseload power; it’s designed to run effectively and efficiently, 24/7, up to 98 per cent of the time. Turning baseload power off completely in unplanned ways is a huge problem. This leads to much higher prices, increased maintenance costs and, in some cases, power stations breaking down owing to the abuse they weren’t designed for. 

The solution is very simple: just guarantee baseload power the minimum time needed to keep spinning. Wind and solar can fill in the rest if they happen to turn on. The most conservative scenario is that this will bring down power prices 20 per cent immediately. Taken to full effect, this could bring power bills down 50 per cent. The Liberals, Labor and the Nationals will never bring down your power bills like this, because they are completely committed to net zero nonsense—net zero lies. One Nation, and only One Nation, will put more money back in your pocket. 

/3 Comments/by

2SM Radio with Chris Smith

,

A pleasure to join Chris Smith on 2SM radio network to talk about putting more money back in Australians’ pockets.

One Nation has always stood up for making policy in the interests of Australians, not foreign unelected organisations.

/by

One Nation’s Vision Promises Growth and Prosperity for a Secure Future

,

Inflation, unemployment, mortgages, rents, and the cost of living—including energy and grocery prices—are all on the rise.

One Nation policies promise growth and prosperity for everyone, ensuring a secure future.

Transcript

The response from Treasurer Jim Chalmers to yesterday’s increase in the inflation rate was, ‘There’s more work to be done.’ Oh, really? I would think the Treasurer has done quite enough already, thank you very much. Inflation is increasing, unemployment is increasing, mortgages and rents are increasing, the cost of living—including energy prices and grocery prices—is rising, and building costs are increasing. Bankruptcies are at a record high, with construction companies heavily featured. GDP per person is falling, and the economy as a whole is almost in the red.  

Taking these indicators together shows that Australia is in the early phases of stagflation, the scourge of the Whitlam, Fraser and Hawke governments. A One Nation government would immediately reverse the economic mismanagement of recent Liberal and Labor governments. We would grow Australia out of stagflation. We would shut down the department of climate change, withdraw from the UN Paris Agreement and rebuild our energy infrastructure with the lowest-cost power generation: hydro, coal and nuclear. We would terminate environmental and economic vandalism coming from pumped hydro and offshore wind by refusing industrial wind and solar generation on productive farmland and in native forests. We would take the government’s jackboot off our farmers’ throats and support our agricultural sector to once again feed and clothe the world. 

We would immediately freeze the issue of new permanent visas and review the skills list, to ensure those who arrive have the skills we need to support economic growth, and we would send home some people who are currently on resident visas. We would build Inland Rail to the Port of Gladstone, build a national rail circuit and a national shipping fleet, and push steel parks at Abbot Point and Port Hedland. We would close down insane pumped hydro projects and green energy subsidies. We would use the east-west rail line to support Aboriginal communities, mining and agriculture across the Top End and Central Australia. 

The government can only offer stagnation and decay. One Nation policies, though, represent growth and prosperity for all, for a secure future. 

/by

Cancel Net Zero Now!

, ,

Australia has the most wind, solar and batteries on the grid ever. PM Albanese promised cheaper power yet his government’s commitment to Net Zero drives up your power bills and the cost of living.

While unsustainable wind and solar fail to provide baseload power, their subsidised existence is driving up energy bills.

I’ve been fighting the Net Zero scam for over a decade in the Senate and will keep on fighting for all Australians.

/9 Comments/by

Cheaper Electricity Bills Anyone?

,

The Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) assures me that as Australia has very good sunshine and solar energy is the cheapest form of energy on the planet, we can expect to have cheap electricity. That’s nonsense because they don’t take into account all of the extra costs of firming, storage, extra transmission lines and general unreliability. Any Australian who looks at their electricity bill knows solar isn’t cheaper.

I was even more surprised to learn about the agency’s support of solar in renewable iron and steel manufacturing on a massive scale. The idea of such energy intensive industrial process being powered by cheap solar, which is currently too expensive and unreliable for Australian households, is pipe dream stuff.

This government is driving Australia off the cliff and is in the drivers seat essentially saying – “It’s not my job to think about the cliff, I’m just driving the car.” The idea of a net zero future with wind and solar providing base-load power and creating “green steel” is not real.

The net zero pipe dream is a nation killing fantasy that is already hurting the regions, ruining small business and driving up the cost-of-living all over Australia.

/4 Comments/by

Cost of Living Has Not Eased Under Labor

Everything has gone up. Food, fuel, electricity. Why?

Australian supermarket and petrol profiteering is not being addressed by this government nor the consumer watchdog, the ACCC, which is asleep at the wheel.

Manufacturing costs however have risen and are implicated in the cost of living crisis.

Shutting down cheap, reliable, baseload coal power and replacing it with unreliable and expensively subsidised wind and solar has forced up electricity prices along the entire supply chain. From farmers’ cool rooms to warehouses and supermarket chillers, the costs are rising.

One Nation knows, because we listen around the country, that every problem facing the people are due to excessive government decisions. The solution is to set the people free from the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and crippling Net Zero policies and Australia will thrive.

Transcript

During the 2022 election campaign, the now Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, promised my Queensland constituents that life would be easier under Labor, a metaphorical land of milk and honey. I think the Prime Minister oversold his policies by a football field or two.

Milk and honey have turned out to be baked beans on toast, except baked beans are up 50 per cent, so it’s more bread and margarine. Except margarine is up 40 per cent, and supermarket bread is up from $1.90 a loaf to $2.70 a loaf.

That loaf of bread is made from 98 per cent Australian ingredients purchased from Australian farmers on a long-term supply agreement.

The government cannot blame the war in Ukraine for price rises on a product made here. I do, however, know where to place that blame.

The Australia Institute has correctly pointed out that our supermarket oligopoly is exploiting their market share to rip off consumers for record profits. The government has not acted on supermarket or petrol profiteering, despite having the power to do so, and the ACCC is asleep at the wheel. Manufacturers’ costs have increased, especially thanks to the UN 2050 net zero madness that started under the previous Liberal government and is now pursued enthusiastically by the champagne socialists on the left in the Labor party.

Closing down cheap base-load coal power and replacing it with unreliable and expensive wind and solar has forced up electricity prices along the entire supply chain. Farmers’ cool rooms and packing sheds are costing more to light and to refrigerate. Warehouses are more expensive. Supermarket fridges are more expensive.

One Nation know, because we listen around the country, that every problem in this country is due to excessive government, especially central government. We know the solutions are with the people.

Set the people free from this UN rubbish and we’ll get everything right.

/1 Comment/by

Net Zero Climate Credibility is Boiling Over

The UN has dialed up its terror war against the West to ridiculous new levels. We’re now expected to believe in climate boiling.

Basic human rights are being destroyed using false data and children are being scared into thinking they have no future.

Wind and solar fail to provide baseload power and their subsidized existence is driving up energy bills. It’s unsustainable.

I’ll be saying a lot more on this shortly in my adjournment speech.

Transcript

I thank Senator McKim for his matter of urgency.

The public is waking up to the net zero war on living standards, war on freedom of movement and war on property rights.

Following public sentiment moving away from global warming ideology, the media is seeking to restore its credibility on this.

So what’s a climate carpet bagger like UN head Antonio Guterres got to do? Does he admit the scam is over and resign? No. He dialled up the hyperbole from global warming to global boiling.

This hyperbole is dangerous. It’s based on falsification of data. It’s scaring children into thinking they have no future. It’s destroying wealth and property. It’s taking away basic human rights like the right to travel and the right to enjoy one’s own property.

The warmers are desperate to save their scare from the reality of cooling temperatures and the demonstrated failure of wind and solar to provide baseload power, while driving skyrocketing unaffordable power prices, crippling families.

In tomorrow’s adjournment speech, I’ll be saying a lot more.

/10 Comments/by

Australia Council happy to waste 7% more of your money to virtue signal

,

Everyone’s power bills are going up, which made me wonder why the Australia Council was happy to make their power bill 7% more expensive for no reason at all.

Despite the same power coming through the plug (probably from a coal fired power station) the council elects to make their bills 7% more expensive so they can buy “green power”. What a scam and a waste of money.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: I want to follow up on something we discussed last time. You may recall that last estimates we had a conversation about your power bills.

Mr Collette: Yes.

Senator Roberts: A lot of people are talking about power bills these days.

Mr Collette: They are.

Senator Roberts: This is estimates, and one of the purposes of estimates is to assess how you are spending taxpayers’ money. That is what I want to revisit. Firstly, thank you for your detailed response, when you took my question on notice. That was SQ 23-003317. I hope all of the Public Service takes notes from you about how questions on notice should be answered. We appreciate it.

Mr Collette: Thank you.

Senator Roberts: In that answer, you said that you elect to add the green power product to your power bills. That is totally optional. You opt in, and you take extra money from the taxpayer to pay that expense. That is making your power bill 6.8 per cent—say seven per cent—more expensive than otherwise. Whether you opt in to pay the extra for green power or not, the same power comes through the same plug, probably from a coal-fired power station. But you are choosing to waste taxpayers’ money on this optional expense that makes no difference to what is turning the lights on. How much did you pay for green power over the last year?

Mr Collette: I will have to take that on notice, unless my colleague has the answer.

Mr Blackwell: I don’t have it.

Mr Collette: We will try to come back to you with an equally exemplary response.

Senator Roberts: Good, thank you. I don’t expect this of you, but do you have any guess as to what your power bill is?

Mr Collette: I would not like to guess, no.

Senator Roberts: Can you also tell me how much you expect to pay this coming year?

Mr Collette: I can’t tell you that, but I will certainly get that information for you.

Senator Roberts: You were established under legislation; correct?

Mr Collette: We are.

Senator Roberts: So I assume you have been established with the objective of funding the arts.

Mr Collette: Yes, we have, investment and advocacy.

Senator Roberts: Investing in arts and advocacy on behalf of the arts. Thank you, that is clarifying. What part of your objectives enables you to waste an extra seven per cent a year on a core component, power, when it is literally the same power coming through the plug whether you pay the extra expense or not?

Mr Collette: What part of our objectives? I think the Australia Council—Creative Australia to be—does have sustainability goals, and we try to exemplify those, which are important to the sector that we serve as well. Given that we invest in the sector, and we advocate for the sector, I think this is generally respected by the arts and creative industry.

Senator Roberts: I think you are wasting taxpayer money and that should be cancelled. Would not that money be better spent on the art that you are supposed to be funding?

Mr Collette: There is always a cost to investing in servicing the art that we are funding, and I think you will find that this is significantly respected by the sector.

Senator Roberts: The point is that you are spending an extra seven per cent on a key component—

Mr Collette: I understand that.

Senator Roberts: Same plug, same power.

Mr Collette: I understand that. But there are different kinds of value as well.

Senator Roberts: I am not arguing with you on that point.

Mr Collette: So this would be a small contribution to social and environmental value that is respected by the sector, and I am sure if you ask their general view on whether we should save whatever the sum is—seven per cent of our power bill, and I confess I don’t know our power bill as I sit here—you would find very broad support for what we do.

Senator Roberts: I think there is a lot of ignorance—and I am not singling you out; I think it goes right through the community—about this green power, because the same power comes from the same place through the plug, regardless of whether you pay that seven per cent or not. So I would like to know what benefit you get from that seven per cent.

Mr Collette: I will take that on notice and come back to you, once I understand the argument that I think you are making—that there is actually no difference in this power. I need to satisfy myself on that argument and then we can come back to you with a response.

Senator Roberts: I am pleased to hear that. Thank you.

/3 Comments/by