Posts

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

94,400 Young Aussie Miners at Risk

,

How Net Zero Threatens the Next Generation!

Nigel Farage’s unapologetically anti-Net Zero #Reform party is making headway in Scotland.

This sounds strange.

Scotland has always been a rather left-leaning, working class, union-centric nation so for Net Zero to suddenly become a defining feature of a minor-right movement is worth a second look.

The answer is simple.

Jobs.

By 2030, it is expected that 58,000 jobs in North Sea oil and gas will be gone.

Replacing them is a meagre (and as yet unproven) 29,000 jobs in offshore wind.

There’s a real and serious concern about how many of these jobs will be filled by foreign nationals, especially as this was already happening before loopholes were closed. If offshore wind cannot convert workers locally, businesses will hire internationally.

Bureaucrats seem to believe that all forms of energy production fall under the same portfolio and that workers can wander between oil rigs and wind farms…

The truth is, just because the two industries revolve around ‘energy’ it does not follow that those employed in the oil and gas industry can change their qualifications to work in offshore wind.

Oil rig workers are highly specialised, well-trained, and experienced. Throwing their livelihoods into the dustbin in pursuit of an increasingly dodgy-sounding ‘decarbonisation’ project is starting to turn voters away from environmental fascism.

Most oil and gas workers know they’ll be forced to retire.

This is a truth Australian Unions refuse to acknowledge.

They remain prepared to throw Australian workers under the Net Zero bus.

The UK is ten years ahead of Australia when it comes to the energy ‘transition’ – and they are in a serious mess.

Net Zero has become the failure that unites Labour and the Tories.

Reform saw the truth early, and maintained its position in support of reality, workers, and sensible energy. One Nation saw the truth years before Reform even existed as a movement.

Of all the parties in the Western world on the centre-right, we were the first to warn about the dangers of Net Zero.

There is nothing modern about Net Zero. If anything, it’s an idea past its use-by date which is starting to fester and grow all sorts of nasty things.

Under Sussan Ley and David Littleproud as leaders, the partly repaired Coalition has shied away from rigorous support of Net Zero, yet they are defending ‘climate goals’ and ‘decarbonisation targets’ with the same zeal that Treasurer Jim Chalmers eyes-off super balances.

Which is the same thing.

When the next election rolls around, we will have an agreement from the major parties that Net Zero is law and the ‘transition’ is unstoppable.

Sadly, we’ll also see voters with little understanding about the source of civilisation’s trappings telling tens of thousands of young Australians who work in the coal and gas industry that they are dirty, evil, and unwanted in the ‘modern’ world.

This is not their fault. Inner-city voters have been lied to by the whole damn system, and they often lack real-world experience to combat these cruel untruths. Nor can they see the families being hurt by green policy.

The Australian Greens, for instance, want to stop fossil fuels.

Except, of course, for the coal, gas, and oil mined and shipped offshore to generate cheap energy for China so they can make solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries used in the so-called green energy revolution.

Green energy is built on fossil fuels.

This is a wasteful way of utilising Australia’s natural resources while saddling the highly skilled men and women who mine them as the villains of history.

Well, I refuse to believe that, and I refuse to allow Australian miners to be thrown out by ideologues in Canberra chasing inner-city seats.

There are 94,400 workers in the sector under 35 and 52,600 under 30.

The Greens, Labor, the Teals, and a majority of Liberals, all claim to be against this industry and yet the truth is they want these mining jobs to be shipped offshore to places like China, Africa, and the Pacific. They want someone else to benefit economically from the creation of energy and for Australians to circle the drain of consumerism until this nation becomes so dependent that it can’t so much as manufacture the shovel to dig itself out of the mess.

This is the dirty side of carbon trading.

One Nation supports Australian workers. We do not demonise them.

Our party wants young Aussies to have the same opportunity we had to turn the natural gifts of this country’s soil and rock into cheap, reliable energy for other Aussie families – including those who live in the city.

From miners to retail workers, energy is the foundation of a safe, affordable, and prosperous country.

94,400 young Aussie miners at risk by Senator Malcolm Roberts

How Net Zero threatens the next generation

Read on Substack

This article was first published on my Substack. If you enjoy in-depth content like this, consider subscribing to get future posts delivered straight to your inbox.

/4 Comments/by

Ditch Net Zero – Deliver Savings to Australians

,

During a recent “question time” in the senate, I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change about the total cost of the net zero transition. In her absence, Minister Watt responded, estimating the cost to be between $120 billion and $130 billion. However, this figure is significantly lower than other estimates, such as Bloomberg’s $1.9 trillion.

Minister Watt claims that the government’s plan is the cheapest way to meet our future power needs. Yet, he couldn’t provide a clear figure for the taxpayer money being spent on this transition.

This lack of transparency is concerning, especially when wasteful government spending is feeding inflation and the budget remains in deficit.

One Nation is committed to holding the government accountable and ensuring that Australians know the true cost of these policies. We need a government that values transparency and makes decisions based on the best interests of the people. One Nation will ditch net-zero so that we can put more money back in your pocket.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change, Senator McAllister. Minister, what is the total cost of the net zero transition? 

The PRESIDENT: Senator McAllister is away up north, so your question is to Minister Watt. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister Watt, what is the total cost of the net zero transition? 

Senator WATT: Thanks, Senator Roberts. Yes, I’m representing Senator McAllister who represents Minister Bowen, while she’s in Townsville for the floods. Given I am the representing minister, I’m just waiting to have those figures handed to me. But I know that we have had that transition costed, and it’s in the order of $120 billion to $130 billion. That’s my understanding. Importantly, the CSIRO—an organisation I know you haven’t got an enormous amount of time for but the most reputable science organisation in the country—and the Australian Energy Market Operator, who probably knows more about the energy market than any other group within Australia, have both made clear that ensuring that we meet our future power needs with renewables backed up by gas and firmed by batteries is the cheapest way that we can meet our power needs going forward. 

I wasn’t too far off the mark. AEMO’s integrated system plan found that the net present value under a step-change scenario towards a renewable based system is $122 billion. Of course, that’s significantly lower than the figure it will cost for Mr Dutton’s nuclear program. As I said, people as reputable in this country as the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator have both found that it’s not just environmental benefits that we get from meeting our power needs through renewables going forwards but it’s actually the cheapest way we can do so as well. That’s the direct answer to your question—it’s $122 billion. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Let me make the question easier. Minister, how much taxpayers’ money is the government spending on the net zero transition across forward estimates? 

Senator WATT: Thanks, Senator Roberts. I don’t have a figure just for the forward estimates, being the next four years. But, as I said, the cost of delivering our power network into the future under the government’s plan is $122 billion in net present value terms. 

Now, I know there is another plan out there. But is it really a plan, or, as Senator Canavan revealed, is it just a political fix? Whatever it is, that nuclear plan from Mr Dutton costs $600 billion. We know that means that power prices will go up by about $1,200 per household per year. And we know that, to fund that $600 billion that is required for the nuclear program, Mr Dutton will have to put in place very big cuts to things like Medicare, energy support, cost-of-living relief, housing, pensions and all manner of other things to fund the most expensive form of power you can provide. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, Bloomberg has put the cost of Australia’s net zero transition at $1.9 trillion. One Nation uses a consensus figure of $1.5 trillion. Across forward estimates, the budget is in deficit. Wasteful, undisciplined government spending is feeding inflation. And you can’t even tell me how much will be spent on net zero across the forward estimates. Minister, will you at least give an undertaking to table, on the first day of the March sitting, the figure for the total cost of the net zero transition, including the forward estimates? 

Senator WATT: Well, I’ve already provided the figure of $122 billion. I’m not across the Bloomberg estimate that you cite, Senator Roberts, and I’m certainly not across the One Nation consensus figure. I assume that’s a consensus between you and Senator Hanson—you’ve had to sort of thrash that one out between the two of you and arrived at a consensus of $1.5 trillion! 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts? 

Senator Roberts: I’m happy to answer Senator Watt’s question. 

The PRESIDENT: Perhaps some other time, thank you, Senator Roberts. 

Senator WATT: Maybe James Ashby was in there as well, with the calculator going, working out a consensus figure. And I certainly don’t know what assumptions underpinned the One Nation/James Ashby/Senator Hanson/Senator Roberts consensus figure. But the fact is that the cheapest way that we can meet our power needs into the future—as cited by AEMO and the CSIRO, our most eminent scientific body—is at a cost of $122 billion. That is the cheapest way we can meet our power needs, which I think is a very good reason for any government, no matter what their political party, to pursue it. 

/4 Comments/by

Exposing the True Cost of Net Zero

,

What is the true cost of the net zero transition? Minister Watt had previously provided a figure of $122 billion, but this figure was significantly discounted and left out substantial elements of the cost, which Frontier Economics estimates to be over $650 billion. One critical omission was the cost of behind-the-meter power, which involves taking power from people’s wall batteries and electric vehicles.

When I pressed for details, Senator McAllister reiterated the government’s reliance on expert advice from AEMO. However, bombshell freedom of information documents revealed that AEMO was instructed by the government to take net zero as a forced assumption, despite claims of independence. This raises a crucial question: could an even cheaper grid be built if we ditched net zero?

The reality is that Australia’s electricity prices have never been higher, despite increasing installations of wind, solar, and batteries over the past 20 years. South Australia, the wind and solar capital of Australia, has seen spot prices averaging $200 per megawatt hour for the last quarter. It’s clear that the current approach is pushing Australia into poverty.

One Nation is committed to exposing the truth and advocating for policies that prioritise the well-being of Australians. We need a government that is transparent and accountable – one that makes decisions based on the best interests of the people, not political agendas.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister. On Monday, Minister Watt provided a figure for the cost of the net zero transition to the economy at $122 billion. AEMO discounted the $500 billion cost by 7 per cent a year, producing a figure of just $122 billion. This left out substantial elements of the cost, which Frontier Economics puts at over $650 billion. There was no allowance for behind-the-meter power, where you go in and take power out of people’s wall batteries and EVs. Minister, what is the cost of this behind-the-metre cost to households and businesses that you have left out of the net zero costs?  

Senator McALLISTER: Senator Roberts yet again asks for more detail— 

Senator Cash: Yes, give us more detail! 

Opposition senators interjecting— 

Senator McALLISTER: when questioning a publication that is in the public domain— 

The PRESIDENT: Order! This is Senator Roberts’s question. He’s entitled to a response, and the minister is entitled to silence. Minister McAllister, please continue. 

Senator McALLISTER: Thanks very much, President. I can inform Senator Roberts, as I have in the past, that the government’s approach is to rely on the advice of experts, and the experts at AEMO conduct intensely detailed, publicly available, engaged work with a community of experts to cost the transition for our power system to 2050. I will say that they provided information publicly again and again and again saying that the cheapest path to 2050 to meet our electricity system requirements lies in renewables firmed by batteries and other forms of storage and by gas. I will say, though, Senator Roberts, that the approach we take, which is to listen to the experts and provide significant amounts of detail in the public domain for scrutiny, is quite different to the approach taken by your party. I have checked the One Nation website. You’ve actually done some policy work over the summer. There were 88 words worth of policy on energy and energy prices previously on the One Nation website; it’s down now, I understand, to 33 words or thereabouts. It used to say that you were committed to building low-emission, coal-fired power plants. You’ve now moved to a new variation on this, which says that you’re going to change the NEM rules to incentivise coal- and gas-fired power. But I make this point: to your credit, it’s a deal more detail than those opposite have provided. The people opposite have proposed a risky nuclear system which they cannot find an expert willing to back. It is $600 billion worth, on the taxpayer tab, with no plan for how to pay for or deliver it— 

The PRESIDENT: The time for answering has expired. Order! Senator Ayres, I have called the chamber to order. That includes you. Senator McKenzie! I think I’ve called you to order enough times this question time. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister—rely on experts, eh? Bombshell freedom of information document show that AEMO was directly instructed by your government to take net zero as a forced assumption, despite your claims AEMO’s process was not independent of Labor’s political agenda. It’s true, isn’t it, that an even cheaper grid could be built if we ditched net zero, but your government told AEMO they could not look at that. 

Senator McALLISTER: Senator Roberts misunderstands the process that AEMO goes through. AEMO has and has been very clear about the process they undertake to work through the issues associated with replacing and fixing up the mess that was created by those opposite. When those opposite left office, the average wholesale energy price was $286 a megawatt hour. Just like we inherited a 6.1 per cent inflation rate, which they don’t take responsibility for, they won’t take responsibility for the mess that they left either. They know exactly what was going on. Prices were going up, and what did Mr Taylor do at that time? He went off to the Governor-General to make arrangements to hide that price increase from the Australian people before an election. What a disgrace. There is a lot of work to do to resolve the mess that was bequeathed to the Australian people by those opposite, and we are up for it. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, you talked about Liberal policy; I want to know about Labor policy. Australia has been installing more and more wind, solar and batteries onto the grid for 20 years, and electricity prices have never been higher. South Australia, the wind and solar capital, has spot prices averaging $200 per megawatt hour for the last quarter. When will you admit the truth—that your net zero is pushing Australia into poverty? 

Senator McALLISTER: That statement is simply incorrect. The prices that are reflected in the way Australians experience their bills are not to do with the spot price. They are an average price from all of the prices that are experienced within the National Electricity Market. The truth is that renewables remain the cheapest form of new generation. We’ve got a lot of work to do. These guys managed the electricity system—or mismanaged it—for over a decade. There were 22 policies. Four gigawatts of dispatchable generation left the grid; only one came on. That actually causes a problem that requires resolution. When we left office, prices were very, very high. There was no plan at all, and our government is working through the necessary steps to put in place the generation to secure Australia’s interests into the future. 

/3 Comments/by

Net Zero Destroys, It Doesn’t Deliver

Australia’s political class is not putting Australians first.

The Nationals and Liberals are more interested in fighting each other than actually putting forward something that will benefit the country – cheaper power and cheaper groceries by ditching Net-Zero.

Interview with @empactnews

Transcript

Australian leaders, to be good, to be effective, have to put Australia’s interest first. That is the theme that drives Pauline and myself.

You know, Pauline has a very simple political philosophy. Is it in Australia’s interest?

David Littleproud’s net zero, it’s his baby, is not in Australia’s interest. It is counter to Australia’s interest. It is death to Australia’s energy sector, death to manufacturing, death to our environment with solar and wind turbines destroying the environment.

You know these people are pushing up solar and wind to protect the planet while killing the environment. I mean, this is insane. On environmental grounds, on farm and food security grounds, on economic grounds, on energy grounds. Every which way we look, this is rubbish. And to make it worse, it’s all based on the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull.

You know there is no evidence to back it up.

/4 Comments/by

$2.15 Billion in Subsidies: The Hidden Costs of “Cheap” Renewables

,

During the last Senate Estimates, I questioned ARENA about their massive spending of taxpayer money. The numbers are staggering – they’ve now committed $2.15 billion in subsidies to supposedly “cheap” renewable projects.

Despite claims that solar is “the cheapest form of electricity generation in history,” Australians’ power bills tell a different story. The reality is they don’t account for all the extra costs of firming, storage, transmission lines and general unreliability. This is what happens when government agencies focus on pushing unreliable renewables instead of ensuring affordable power for Australian families.

We used to have some of the cheapest electricity in the world, but these massive subsidies and failed green energy policies are driving up costs for everyone.

The net zero fantasy is already hurting our regions, ruining small businesses, and driving up the cost of living across Australia. It’s time to ditch these wasteful subsidies and return to reliable, affordable power.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Do you ever think about how much taxpayer money your agency has spent on net zero policies, only for power bills to continue to get more expensive? 

Mr Miller: Senator, that doesn’t occupy much of my time. We’re working on innovation to help lower the cost of the core technologies that go into lowering power bills in the long term. And, as you would appreciate, this innovation cycle takes a while. We’ve obviously seen the success of solar PV, which was maybe written off many years ago, but has come through as the lowest cost form of generation in history, as we’ve noted in past conversations. I’m very confident, actually, that wind technology, solar technology and battery technology, which is coming down the cost curve rapidly, combined at scale will actually reduce energy costs for Australians. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is your job to bring down power bills or give money to solar and wind energy? How much does the Australian Renewable Energy Agency currently administer in deployed capital in terms of loans or equity stakes? 

Mr Miller: The objects of ARENA, the agency, are set out in the act. They are to improve the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies, increase the supply of renewable technologies and support Australia’s decarbonisation emissions reduction objectives. You’d be aware that we’re a granting agency, so none of our funding is provided through debt and equity. It’s all through the provision of grants. In some circumstances, those grants are recoupable based on performance of the projects, and we make that decision on a case-by-case basis. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How much did ARENA issue in grants in the most recent year? 

Mr Miller: I can get you that in a minute or two. My colleague Mr Faris could probably find that number in the pack. When we think about the progress of our work in terms of project projects, we look at approval rates, which is the key milestone for ARENA when I, under my delegation, or our board, or the minister— 

Senator ROBERTS: Getting a project to approval stage. 

Mr Miller: When we provide an approval, we then, in most circumstances, are working through to a contract, which ultimately lands to be grant money flowing. But that can take months and years in some cases. But I think in the last financial year we provided approvals of $497 million, and I think in the year before it was $540 million. So, per our annual report: funds approved in 2023-24 total $445 million, and contracts written, which is a later stage, were $392.5 million in that financial year. 

Senator ROBERTS: So what did you call your key measurable indicator? 

Mr Miller: Approvals. Well, it’s one of many, but, yes, that’s an important one. 

Senator ROBERTS: What do you categorise as an approval? 

Mr Miller: An approval is a decision by the CEO, the board or the minister, with respect to their relative delegations, to provide funding to a particular project in that amount. 

Senator ROBERTS: Approve the funding? 

Mr Miller: Approve funding, yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Do you know what your total budget allocation is over the forward estimates, the next four years? 

Mr Miller: That will be in the PBS, and we will get that number for you if we can. Otherwise, we’ll take it on notice and provide it. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is that located in one area? Are all the different components of the money located in one area? 

Mr Miller: It’s an aggregation of various programs and funding pools that we have been provided with by the government over time. Well, let me say governments because we were well supported by the coalition government a number of years ago, and have been even further supported by this government. But it relates to what we call our baseline funding, which is the money that is provided to ARENA where ARENA’s board, essentially, is the primary decision-maker on policy and programmatic objectives. And then, in addition, there are about a dozen programs that ARENA is running, with specific funding amounts, and with specific instructions through the policy instruments, and we’re managing all of that through the funding. But it all gets amalgamated, ultimately, into the forward estimates amounts. So I’d be very happy to read you the figures in the forward estimates for each year, revenue from government, if that would help you. The current year’s revenue from government is $425 million. The budget for next year is $709 million. The year after that, it is $735 million. Then we’re at $1.1 billion, and then we’re at $1.117 billion for the final year of the forward estimates. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s a lot of money. 

CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Ever since ARENA came on the scene—when was that?—you’ve been issuing grants and loans in solar and wind. Have people’s power bills actually got cheaper? 

Mr Miller: It’s not my jurisdiction to talk about power bills, but we came on the scene on 1 July 2012, and as I— 

Senator ROBERTS: In 2012? 

Mr Miller: Yes, 2012, and, as I mentioned before, we don’t do loans. We do grants. 

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t do loans—well, issuing grants then. So you’ve been spending billions of  

dollars, and power bills have gone up. 

Senator Ayres: Well, Senator, you should— 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking Mr Miller. You don’t need to— 

Senator Ayres: Yes, and I’m entitled to drop in from time to time. It’s one of the inconvenient bits of  

estimates for senators who ask questions. If you go and talk to your constituents in the main street of a country town somewhere in Queensland— 

Senator ROBERTS: Which is what I’ll do. 

Senator Ayres: Yeah, I know. We saw you beaming in. But if you talk to them and then listen to the answer that they give you—engage in a conversation—what you’ll find is that many of them have solar technology on their roofs, which substantially decreases their electricity costs. 

Senator ROBERTS: Well, I actually was talking to a shopkeeper yesterday, and she said— 

Senator Ayres: Fascinating as that is, I am just going to keep answering your question. 

Senator ROBERTS: power bills have gone up tremendously. 

Senator Ayres: That is technology that was invented in Australia. All of the IP in solar panels all around the world—it’s Australian, right? It’s something that we should be proud of as a country—invented here, substantially reducing costs for households, with some of them earning a quid because they are under residual agreements. 

Senator ROBERTS: Without your subsidies, without your energy relief, the costs would be higher than ever. 

CHAIR: Okay. And we are running out of time. 

Senator Ayres: They are substantially benefiting from that technology. Now, it’s different for different households. Our job as a government is to make sure that the lowest-cost technology is in the system, and also to make sure that more of those Australian inventions are commercialised here in Australia and manufactured in Australia, and Mr Miller and ARENA’s work is to make sure that more of that technology is commercialised in Australia, and they’re doing a very good job indeed. 

Senator ROBERTS: Your policies are driving up prices 

/7 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

One Nation’s View of “The Future Made in Australia” Bill 2024

,

The Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is a perfect example of legislation that One Nation would abolish. For 30 years, Australia has been held hostage to the green climate scam. This Bill continues wasteful spending, now with a hint of desperation. 

The Bill introduces a hydrogen production tax credit of $2 per kilogram, aiming to meet net zero targets. However, if hydrogen were commercially viable, companies and banks would be investing, but they aren’t. One Nation believes in the profit motive, not subsidies. 

Recent withdrawals from hydrogen projects by companies like ATCO and Shell highlight the unviability of green hydrogen. In contrast, One Nation supports practical projects like the Port of Gladstone’s container-handling development, which will bring thousands of jobs and $8 billion in private investment. 

The Bill also offers tax incentives for refining critical materials used in renewable energy, costing $7 billion over 11 years. This benefits processors, not taxpayers. One Nation proposes infrastructure projects to support critical minerals development instead. 

Lastly, the Bill changes borrowing rules for Aboriginal communities without actually specifying the new rules, creating uncertainty and potential debt for unviable projects. One Nation cannot support this lack of transparency. 

The net zero transition is destroying Australia with absolutely no benefit to the natural environment.  

It’s time we returned to reliable coal and gas fired power stations.  This measure will put more money back in Australians pockets and end further suffering. 

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 was 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 it’s 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, used 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. 

/by

Battery Storage Projects Face Delays and Cost Increases

Wind and solar don’t work at night or when the wind isn’t blowing. Australia is told the solution is batteries! Real world experience shows that batteries are too expensive, too slow to build and don’t last long enough to support a grid.

During this session with the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA), I revisited the status of the eight large-scale battery storage projects funded in 2022, noting that $176 million had been allocated but none had completed construction by February. I was told that while all projects are progressing, some face challenges like grid connection issues. I highlighted the significant cost increase from $2.7 billion to $3.1 billion and questioned the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of these batteries compared to coal-fired power stations.

I also raised concerns about the stability and reliability of renewable energy sources like solar and wind, and the additional costs associated with making them grid-compatible. Additionally, I asked ARENA about their responsibilities and the financial transparency of their operations. I emphasised the high cost of electricity in Australia compared to countries like China and criticised the impact of net-zero policies on manufacturing.

We need to ditch net-zero. Use the cheap resources we have in Australia’s ground for Australians first!

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I return to the eight batteries in the large-scale battery storage funding round from 2022. In February you told me that you had put $176 million into it. None had completed construction as at that time and only two of the eight were under construction. Have any completed construction? What is the status of the others in the round of eight?

Mr Miller: They have progressed. I don’t have the precise figures to hand—unless my colleague finds a brief on that in the notes—in which case I can provide that information on notice. But they’re all progressing. Some have challenges around grid connection and various studies that have to be completed. They’re not all there yet, but I think the vast majority have reached their targets for the ARENA funding and would be either close to construction or close to financial decision.

Senator ROBERTS: I would have thought with the Australian Renewable Energy Agency this would have been one of the biggest projects and most important aspects of what you do; is that correct?

Mr Miller: It’s important and is amongst many other important things that we work on.

Senator ROBERTS: In December 2022, the portfolio cost of the eight batteries was $2.7 billion. That increased to $3.1 billion, which is roughly a 16 per cent increase. What is the latest cost of the portfolio? What is the updated figure?

Mr Miller: What are you talking about?

Senator ROBERTS: The portfolio cost of the eight batteries was $2.7 billion. What’s the latest cost?

Mr Miller: That information that you had that was publicised would be the most up-to-date information that we have.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that the $3.1 billion?

Mr Miller: Some of the batteries increased in capacity. Since we announced the program, the proponents who were developing those batteries actually increased the size of the batteries, given that the economics were improving and that they could get the job done and actually build more. That capital cost increase would be in relation to an increase in the capacity of the batteries that are being developed.

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve gone above two gigawatts and 4.4 gigawatt hours?

Mr Miller: As I said, if you want precise information I will get you that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That would be good. That seems like a hell of a lot of money for a bunch of batteries that only last two hours and lose 20 per cent to 30 per cent of the power to charge them?

Mr Miller: That’s not accurate.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me the accurate figures?

Mr Miller: The minimum size in that portfolio is a two-hour battery. Some of them are three and I think one of them has gone to four hours. Again, I’ll check that just to make sure. The batteries are playing a very important role. The project as described by ARENA and the innovation that’s in this portfolio is around what’s called grid-forming capabilities. It’s the ability for these batteries to essentially replace the very important system services that coal- and gas-fired power stations provide.

Senator ROBERTS: Stability of the grid?

Mr Miller: Stability of the grid, voltage frequency.

Senator ROBERTS: What we call ‘firming’?

Mr Miller: I think firming would traditionally be thought of as providing the energy that’s required to fill gaps. These batteries are providing power quality services. Firming would be about the quantum of energy and power services, or these system security services, are about performing the very important electronic functions that the grid needs to remain stable and at the right frequency.

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that solar and wind are asynchronous, inherently unstable and therefore you need to provide an additional service so that the grid maintains stability?

Mr Miller: Again, that’s not also strictly true. There is technology around solar and wind, inverters, that converts the DC electricity into AC and that can provide grid-forming capabilities as well. The latest wind turbines coming out of Goldwind, for example, in China have system security services built into those inverter technologies. It’s not only the batteries that are advancing; it’s actually the solar inverters and the wind technology inverters as well that’s advancing to provide the services.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that at an additional cost?

Mr Miller: It may or may not be. It may be integrated into the technology that’s put forward.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on to the next one. On a very conservative cost of $4.5 million per megawatt installed and a capacity factor of 90 per cent, a $3.1 billion coal-fired power station would produce 15 gigawatt hours of data capacity versus just 4.4 gigawatt hours for the batteries. Unlike the batteries, the coal station actually generates power. It doesn’t lose power on charging. Doesn’t that seem like a much cheaper investment for Australians, just coal-fired power stations?

Mr Miller: You’re fundamentally misunderstanding the different role of those coal-fired power stations that you mentioned in the old world and the role of these kinds of batteries in supplementing wind-solar transmission system demand flexibility. The new world we are well underway, progressing into and entering requires a variety of technology. These batteries provide a very specific set of technologies and services that in combination with wind, solar, transmission and all the other things I mentioned, provides you with a system that is stable and can do the job.

Senator ROBERTS: At inherently higher component costs. There’s a lot of confusion amongst constituents and amongst MPs and senators. Among the various agencies charged with some responsibility or accountability over energy transition, could you as simply and as specifically as possible tell us what ARENA does? What are your basic accountabilities and, specifically, what is the uniqueness of that? There’s accountability that no other agency has.

Mr Miller: That’s a good question. We are an agency that is specifically around to improve the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies, to increase the supply of renewable energy in Australia and to facilitate the achievement of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Our functions include the provision of financial support in the form of grant support and the sharing of knowledge, which is very important to ensure the money we spent is leveraged and available to more than just the proponent we fund so that Australia’s energy transition can happen in an accelerated and stable fashion.

Senator ROBERTS: Specifically with regard to the people at the table, apart from Senator Ayres—and he’d be happy that I’m leaving him out—what is the total salary package of each of the people at the desk here? I’ll exempt anyone who’s not at Senior Executive Service level, but if you are at executive level I’ll ask for the band you’re in and the total remuneration package, including on-costs?

Mr Faris: I’m a band 1 officer, seconded across from the department. I think I’m at band 1.6. I don’t have my salary figures off the top of my head, but they’re actually in our annual report. I’m listed as one of the key management personnel in our annual report, which was tabled last week. You can find that information specifically.

Senator ROBERTS: Could we have them on notice, please?

Senator Ayres: I think what the officer has said to you is that they’re in the annual report. If there’s anything in addition to the annual report, we are happy to provide that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the total wage bill for all employees, including casuals and contractors, at ARENA? Could you give me a breakdown of the numbers, please?

Mr Miller: Again, I might follow Senator Ayres’s lead and refer you to the annual report, which has this information for the last financial year.

Senator ROBERTS: Numbers, breakdown into permanent employees, casual employees, contractors?

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, maybe I could help you out. If you were to grab a copy of that and have a look through, you could potentially put any further questions on notice. There is a breakdown in their annual report.

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll do that. Future Made in Australia—Senator Ayres raised that. The No. 1 cost category in manufacturing today around the world is no longer labour, it’s electricity—with very few exceptions. China uses coal-fired power, sometimes including alcohol, but produces almost 10 times in terms of alcohol production. They have a production rate of $4.5 billion, heading for $5 billion, a year. They produce electricity and sell it, I am told, for 8c a kilowatt hour. Australia is at 25c a kilowatt hour, thanks largely to the transitioned components. Why is Labor so hostile towards manufacturing? Clearly, net zero destroys manufacturing. You also said that there’s no risk. That’s just a slogan. There’s huge risk when you’ve gone from being the cheapest electricity provider in the world to amongst the most expensive. I don’t know why you keep letting down Australian workers.

Senator Ayres: There’s a series of propositions in that we could—

Senator ROBERTS: They’re facts.

Senator Ayres: You assert that they’re facts.

Senator ROBERTS: Eight cents a kilowatt hour versus 25c a kilowatt hour.

Senator Ayres: As I said, you assert that they are facts. It may come as news to you, but the economy in the People’s Republic of China is structured a little bit differently to the Australian economy.

Senator ROBERTS: Eight cents a kilowatt hour—

Senator Ayres: There are some differences between our political and economic systems and the way that the government interacts with the electricity generation system and indeed the way the industry works is different. Our job here in Australia, if we’re acting in the national interest, is to secure Australia’s position. It is very clear that we have a series of forces acting upon our electricity system and our energy system more broadly. Firstly, most of our ageing coal-fired generators announced their closure under the previous government. There are many of them.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s cheaper to replace them new coal-fired power stations.

Senator Ayres: Many of them are coming to the end of their operational life. Some of them have been extended by state governments. The cheapest form of future energy for Australia is renewables and storage.

Senator ROBERTS: Only if you omit coal, hydrogen—

Senator Ayres: I did not interrupt you. I interrupted Senator Cadell earlier when he was being obnoxious, but I didn’t interrupt you.

Senator ROBERTS: Does that mean you want me to get obnoxious?

Senator Ayres: I don’t want to interrupt you. I don’t like interrupting people.

CHAIR: I’m going to interrupt you both and say that we are coming very close to the lunchbreak. I’ll ask you to wrap up. To be clear, Senator Roberts, you’ve had 11.5 minutes.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. That was my last question.

CHAIR: Do you feel like you’ve had a sufficient answer?

Senator ROBERTS: Very.

CHAIR: Excellent. I’m glad to hear it.

/by